They are repaying society for the education, science, health, culture,
peace, and infrastructure they benefitted from but didn't contribute
to.
After some thought, I agree that's what they *are* doing, but I'm
not sure they should have to.
For one, this raises all sorts of accounting / fairness questions--
how much they got vs: are presumed to owe.
Mostly, though, I view these as our gifts to the next generation.
We collectively, as a society, for good or ill have seen fit to bring
them into this world and it's our love and duty to prepare them for
it.
It was our choice, made when they were too young to argue or
consent, we'll benefit from it when they inherit and run the world,
and we should bear the expense.
Besides, deferring payment a generation doesn't reduce the cost, it
just tacks on interest when the bill comes due. The practice also
interposes the government as the meditator between parents and
children, dividing family (i.e., lessens the resources parents have
for their young kids, those of kids for their elder parents, and the
After a lifetime of contributing, they too can retire in less than
abject poverty.
That's a choice we all have, and managed for generations, but now
seem to have forgotten. Or maybe we've not forgotten, but feel less
urgency to save, banking on Al's "lock box."
The modern economy also encourages and benefits from
worker mobility, which decouples kids from their parents. It's a
reasonable deal, unless you run out of young people to play the game.
Best wishes,
James Arthur
