| also faces the challenge of middle class couples not
| wanting to have children because of, among other
| things, the enormous costs of child care. I feel
| like one problem is a built in solution to the other
| problem.
This assumes that your parents are willing and capable of childcare.
| we either tax working people more so the elderly can maintain
| independent lifestyles, or we reduce benefits to older
| people and force them to depend more on their children.
You're assuming that everyone elderly has children. How do you factor in reducing benefits to someone with no relatives to turn to?
[Queue, "they made their bed, now they should lay in it!" responses by extreme libertarians.]
Annoying pedantic guy here, I think you meant "cue" instead of queue. Extreme libertarianism isn't about waiting in line. That's extreme socialism, Soviet-style.
I'm talking about broad demographic trends. The cohort of women who were near the end of their reproductive years in 1992 are the ones who are just starting to retire now. Among that demographic, about 85% had kids at some point: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/25/childlessness-up-a....
Obviously relying on kids isn't an option for everyone, but I think it's a mutually beneficial option for a larger group of people than seriously consider it.
I agree, but talking about things like removing supports to encourage others to rely on their children affects everyone. Even among those that had families, what if they had special needs children, or if the parents out-live the children, etc.
Childless adults save a lot of expenses, that money should be invested in golden-years care, not squandered on fancy vacations followed by a demand for an extra share of handout.
You're assuming that everyone is making boat-loads of money. You're also assuming that people without enough money have 'squandered' it on 'fancy vacations.'
[Queue, "they made their bed, now they should lay in it!" responses by extreme libertarians.]