Nate Duehr wrote:

> On Mar 7, 2008, at 12:09 PM, James Newton wrote:
>> That argument always bothers me. Even DINKs will live in the society and
>> economy of the future. Poorly educated kids will build a poor society
>> and poor economy for everyone; themselves AND the aging DINKs.
> 
> Agreed.  Right up until the point where I pay MORE taxes than those  
> who claim dependent children and get refunds for those taxes.

Don't those who raise kids invest in the infrastructure that will keep you
alive when you're old? How do you factor this in? 

In the earlier days, when there was little or no public infrastructure, it
was your kids that kept you alive when you were old. Now, it's the
infrastructure (I mean this in a very wide sense: human and material,
public and private) that does this -- but this infrastructure is maintained
(when you're old) by the kids of the ones who are raising them now. You
just get to freeload and use the infrastructure anyway, even if you don't
have raised any of the kids that will providing you with it. 

There are of course different ways to "factor this in". Paying higher taxes
while you are paying (income) taxes may be an approach with relatively
little hardship on the ones without kids. Paying an assumed "shortage rate"
on everything when they're old would be potentially much harder. (The
"assumed shortage rate" is the rate a service would cost assuming that
there are no or very very few people around anymore to do it :) 

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist