Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?

[Greystache]

Honestly, I am not trying to be a troll.  I just came across another thread about people who are child-free by choice and it got me thinking.  The money that you put into SS is not saved for you to use later. It goes to pay current beneficiaries, your parents or grandparents. If you do not produce any shiny new taxpayers, who will pay your SS benefits? Is it fair to enjoy the benefits of being child-free (more disposable income, more free time, etc) and then receive SS benefits that are produced by other people's children?  Sure, you pay taxes for schools, but so do the breeders.  You don't get the child tax credit when you pay your taxes, but let's face it, the child tax credit is tiny compared to the amount of time and money required to raise a kid. I suppose you could take this argument a step further. Should the childless pay a surcharge for any goods or services that are produced by other people's children? 
No, I not proposing that we actually try to implement such a policy. There are a million reasons why this is a bad idea.  It just strikes me as somewhat unfair that the child-free are not paying their fair share for the benefits that they receive.  Your thoughts?

[Philociraptor]

Interesting idea. I tend to see Social Security as a reward for past work and a tax on the employed, children don't really come into that picture.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I am certainly low very little about social security, but as I understand it, your benefits are based on your own earnings, not your children's earnings.  While the funds I pay in are going to pay existing benefits (not specifically my parents benefits), it is with the expectation (assumption) that I will be entitled to benefits based upon my contributions.  So, no, I do not believe the childless should be excluded.

[kendallf]

I'm all for increased taxes on the childless.  But why stop there?  How about the fat people?  And there's the people who drive their cars more than the median?  And those dangerous hobby people who share my insurance rates... no more skiers!

...

[Gin1984]

Given that social security was designed to keep people off the streets I don't like the idea taking it away.  Also, parents get quite a few tax advantages (though I really do think the daycare FSA should have been indexed to inflation) and that does balance things out.  Also, given the variety of ages in which people have kids, how would you determine SS?

[MoneyCat]

The point of social security is for old people not to end up eating cat food when they can't work anymore.  I don't think people should have a diet of Friskies and Fancy Feast just because they elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation of the Earth.

[Cpa Cat]

I'm a high earning immigrant with no children and no parents in this country. You should probably just pay me bonuses for being a productive member of society who has essentially cost this country nothing and has paid taxes from day one.

Did your kids pay taxes from day one? I don't think so! 18+ years of sucking off the teat of America until they finally start paying taxes to pay back what their parents owe us! 

And if you produce children who are disabled or die young, I suppose we should fine you or send you to the gulag for your tax deficit.

What if your parents and grandparents die young and never take much Social Security? Should you be exempt from paying Social Security taxes?

What about stay at home parents? Should there be a minimum number of children before they're legally allowed to exit the workforce and stop paying their precious payroll taxes? It would have to be more than the replacement value of 2 to earn that right, surely. Heck, SAHPs voluntarily knock out their production and then experience a lifetime of lost earning potential. Some will never re-enter the workforce! But they have debts to pay... so they must replace one form of production with another (more babies!). If they refuse or are unable generate adequate value for society, then to the gulag!

Baby Boomers are putting stress on the system by retiring and then not dying in a timely fashion. It would probably be politically unpopular to put them in the gulag though.

The thing is that the math behind Social Security doesn't exactly work out fairly - for anyone. I don't think many people would like it too much if we delved too deeply into who owes society a debt and who pays more than their fair share. Finding ways to punish people who "owe" goes against the social contract we have as a tax paying society. Why pay taxes at all if we're going to start keeping score?

[Greystache]

The point of social security is for old people not to end up eating cat food when they can't work anymore.  I don't think people who have a diet of Friskies and Fancy Feast just because they elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation of the Earth.

You have hit upon one of the million reasons why this should not be implement (which I alluded to in my original post).  Impoverished old folks is not a desirable outcome. Perhaps a more refined approach is for the child-free by choice to contribute at a higher rate since they are not providing replacement tax payers. I disagree with the whole "elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation if the Earth" bit. In the U.S. and many other industrialized countries, the fertility rate of native born citizens is barely enough to maintain the current population.   In some countries, like Japan, the fertility rate is not high enough to maintain current levels.  There are plenty of good reasons for not wanting to have kids, but If you live in the U.S., "saving the world from overpopulation", seems to be a bit of a rationalization.

[Philociraptor]

Perhaps a more refined approach is for the child-free by choice to contribute at a higher rate since they are not providing replacement tax payers. I disagree with the whole "elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation if the Earth" bit. In the U.S. and many other industrialized countries, the fertility rate of native born citizens is barely enough to maintain the current population.   In some countries, like Japan, the fertility rate is not high enough to maintain current levels.  There are plenty of good reasons for not wanting to have kids, but If you live in the U.S., "saving the world from overpopulation", seems to be a bit of a rationalization.

"Replacement tax payers" have nothing to do with it. What about the rather large % of the population that actually pays negative taxes when taking into account government handouts, should the parents of those people be taxed extra also?

I still disagree with the original premise; having children or not having children should have nothing to do with SS benefits.

[MoneyCat]

I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

[former player]

The point of social security is for old people not to end up eating cat food when they can't work anymore.  I don't think people who have a diet of Friskies and Fancy Feast just because they elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation of the Earth.

I disagree with the whole "elected not to contribute to the increasing overpopulation if the Earth" bit. In the U.S. and many other industrialized countries, the fertility rate of native born citizens is barely enough to maintain the current population.   In some countries, like Japan, the fertility rate is not high enough to maintain current levels.  There are plenty of good reasons for not wanting to have kids, but If you live in the U.S., "saving the world from overpopulation", seems to be a bit of a rationalization.

USA population is still increasing, because of immigration.  No need to make your own when imports do the job for you (and still leave increasing numbers in the countries they mainly come from).

[Greystache]

I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.  But let's assume that you owe nothing to society. Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?  When you need to go to the doctor or need to fly in an airplane, don't you want the persons supplying that service to be educated? We all depend on goods and services supplied by someone's children.  If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.

[God or Mammon?]

Honestly, I am not trying to be a troll.  I just came across another thread about people who are child-free by choice and it got me thinking.  The money that you put into SS is not saved for you to use later. It goes to pay current beneficiaries, your parents or grandparents. If you do not produce any shiny new taxpayers, who will pay your SS benefits? Is it fair to enjoy the benefits of being child-free (more disposable income, more free time, etc) and then receive SS benefits that are produced by other people's children?  Sure, you pay taxes for schools, but so do the breeders.  You don't get the child tax credit when you pay your taxes, but let's face it, the child tax credit is tiny compared to the amount of time and money required to raise a kid. I suppose you could take this argument a step further. Should the childless pay a surcharge for any goods or services that are produced by other people's children? 
No, I not proposing that we actually try to implement such a policy. There are a million reasons why this is a bad idea.  It just strikes me as somewhat unfair that the child-free are not paying their fair share for the benefits that they receive.  Your thoughts?

An interesting idea

In an ideal world, the "savings" the child-free get from not having to raise future taxpayers should be taken into account - after all, it's only FAIR....

[Davin]

I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.  But let's assume that you owe nothing to society. Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?  When you need to go to the doctor or need to fly in an airplane, don't you want the persons supplying that service to be educated? We all depend on goods and services supplied by someone's children.  If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.

You are arguing with yourself then aren't you? This is a double standard, and a waste of time to get people all worked up over literally nothing.

[Frankies Girl]

And as a person that is childless not by choice (and who started working and contributing at the age of 15), I find the idea at best insulting and at worst prejudiced and punitive for something that many have absolutely no control over.

[God or Mammon?]

And as a person that is childless not by choice (and who started working and contributing at the age of 15), I find the idea at best insulting and at worst prejudiced and punitive for something that many have absolutely no control over.

Perhaps the discussion should really be about those who raised children (either after natural childbirth or adoption), as the cost of raising children is extremely high and the burden is great.

[Cpa Cat]

Perhaps a more refined approach is for the child-free by choice to contribute at a higher rate since they are not providing replacement tax payers.

What if they already are contributing at a higher rate?

For example, are there more stay at home parents than childless people? As a childless person with unrestricted earning potential, I already contribute FAR more to SS than my SIL who is a SAHM of four - who contributes nothing monetarily, and never will. She has contributed valuable taxpayers (of course, some of them may also opt out of the workforce) - but at a discounted rate, due to the time value of money. After all, I am paying taxes now and her children will pay twenty years from now.

Meanwhile, my contribution to SS exceeds even that of average working parents, since my childlessness has translated to increased earnings and job creation (my husband and I were able to dedicate time to a successful start up).

So what if - when we shake out all of that math, a childless person is already contributing more than their "fair share" than a stay at home parent? Maybe SAHPs should also be excluded from the SS system.

It doesn't really matter - Social Security is designed to be a safety net. No one should be excluded, because it violates the spirit of a safety net. The area for change in Social Security will probably end up being on the back end - the max rate for taxing benefits should probably be 100% instead of 85% and all non-taxable income (including Roth distributions and municipal bond interest) should be included in the calculation for how much of a person's SS gets taxed.

[God or Mammon?]

Perhaps a more refined approach is for the child-free by choice to contribute at a higher rate since they are not providing replacement tax payers.

What if they already are contributing at a higher rate?

For example, are there more stay at home parents than childless people? As a childless person with unrestricted earning potential, I already contribute FAR more to SS than my SIL who is a SAHM of four - who contributes nothing monetarily, and never will. She has contributed valuable taxpayers (of course, some of them may also opt out of the workforce) - but at a discounted rate, due to the time value of money. After all, I am paying taxes now and her children will pay twenty years from now.

Meanwhile, my contribution to SS exceeds even that of average working parents, since my childlessness has translated to increased earnings and job creation (my husband and I were able to dedicate time to a successful start up).

So what if - when we shake out all of that math, a childless person is already contributing more than their "fair share" than a stay at home parent? Maybe SAHPs should also be excluded from the SS system.

It doesn't really matter - Social Security is designed to be a safety net. No one should be excluded, because it violates the spirit of a safety net. The area for change in Social Security will probably end up being on the back end - the max rate for taxing benefits should probably be 100% instead of 85% and all non-taxable income (including Roth distributions and municipal bond interest) should be included in the calculation for how much of a person's SS gets taxed.

Do you plan on FIREing?  I would guess most people on this forum do.

In which case, the average reader on this forum probably has a ceiling in terms of how much they will actually contribute to the system.

[dandarc]

Perhaps a more refined approach is for the child-free by choice to contribute at a higher rate since they are not providing replacement tax payers.

What if they already are contributing at a higher rate?

For example, are there more stay at home parents than childless people? As a childless person with unrestricted earning potential, I already contribute FAR more to SS than my SIL who is a SAHM of four - who contributes nothing monetarily, and never will. She has contributed valuable taxpayers (of course, some of them may also opt out of the workforce) - but at a discounted rate, due to the time value of money. After all, I am paying taxes now and her children will pay twenty years from now.

Meanwhile, my contribution to SS exceeds even that of average working parents, since my childlessness has translated to increased earnings and job creation (my husband and I were able to dedicate time to a successful start up).

So what if - when we shake out all of that math, a childless person is already contributing more than their "fair share" than a stay at home parent? Maybe SAHPs should also be excluded from the SS system.

It doesn't really matter - Social Security is designed to be a safety net. No one should be excluded, because it violates the spirit of a safety net. The area for change in Social Security will probably end up being on the back end - the max rate for taxing benefits should probably be 100% instead of 85% and all non-taxable income (including Roth distributions and municipal bond interest) should be included in the calculation for how much of a person's SS gets taxed.

Do you plan on FIREing?  I would guess most people on this forum do.

In which case, the average reader on this forum probably has a ceiling in terms of how much they will actually contribute to the system.

And if we're talking SS, a ceiling on benefits as well, at least under the current formula - don't they average 35 years of earnings?  That's a lot of zeros for many on this forum.

[Spork]

While I am no fan of how the SS system works...I am not entirely sure I even follow the argument.

You pay in for many years.  You effectively pay for someone else's benefits.
When you hit a magic number... someone else pays for your benefits.

I don't even see how creating replacement humans fits logically.   There are a ton of both pro- and anti-SS arguments... but I don't really think this applies at all unless it is bundled with a mechanism to opt out of paying in.

[Daisy]

And as a person that is childless not by choice (and who started working and contributing at the age of 15), I find the idea at best insulting and at worst prejudiced and punitive for something that many have absolutely no control over.

I am in this exact same position.

By the OP's reasoning, then single people should either pay less into the system or get more benefits when retired. We don't have any spouses to give spousal benefits to when we die, so we are taking less from the system than those with spouses. Those coupled up people are draining the system as well.

I think even divorced people may have some access to their ex's social security benefits. I'm not familiar with all of the rules. That's even more unfair.

[Kaspian]

So....  That means I shouldn't pay taxes for your kids to go to school?  Because the childless just love doing that.  Hell, pop out a few more, it's a damn privilege paying for rugrats I never had. 

[4alpacas]

What if I just bring in two high earning immigrants when I'm ready to retire?   

They'll pay US taxes, already have their schooling completed, and I won't have to raise them. 

[MoneyCat]

I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.  But let's assume that you owe nothing to society. Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?  When you need to go to the doctor or need to fly in an airplane, don't you want the persons supplying that service to be educated? We all depend on goods and services supplied by someone's children.  If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.

My parents paid for my education with their property taxes.  Did you forget that people pay property taxes?

[pbkmaine]

If we need more people in this country, as has been said already, all we have to do is open the floodgates and they will pour in.

[Kaspian]

The money that you put into SS is not saved for you to use later. It goes to pay current beneficiaries, your parents or grandparents.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.

These two ideas are in direct conflict with each other.  Pick a side. I'm not paying into my own SS but I am paying back for my own schooling?  Bollocks.

[Cpa Cat]

The money that you put into SS is not saved for you to use later. It goes to pay current beneficiaries, your parents or grandparents.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.

These two ideas are in direct conflict with each other.  Pick a side. I'm not paying into my own SS but I am paying back for my own schooling?  Bollocks.

He's right about SS - that's how it's designed. The theory is that workers today pay in to cover the SS of current retirees and that since each generation experiences the advantages of economic growth over time, we essentially produce our way out of ever really feeling the brunt of that payment. A generation like the Baby Boomers comes along and puts the squeeze on that system (large numbers, combined with increased life expectancy), but even then, it's debatable whether Social Security is in trouble. The funded status of the Social Security trust is basically irrelevant, as long as today's payroll taxes cover current outlays.

But he's wrong about school. The reverse is true about school. The cost of schooling, length of schooling and the number of students is growing over time. Meanwhile, we pay school-related taxes for far longer than we ever attended. That means we are paying more now in taxes to cover current students than we used up when we were young. When it comes to school, childless people really are paying for other people's kids to go to school (as are people who enroll their children in private school).

But F them childless freaks. Buncha weirdos.

[Eric]

No one has addressed the biggest issue here in this most serious thought project.  The thread subject states "Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?".  See how Child-Free is in quotes?  That makes it sound like these people without children are not really child free.  Instead, they're "Child-Free", as if they actually have children but are hiding them under the basement staircase in order to appear child free.

Once this is addressed, you'll notice that no one is "Child-Free".  They are either child free or have children.  Therefore, the whole argument is mute as the designation "Child-Free" doesn't exist.  Or at least the N is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

[MoneyCat]

Like Greystache, I am in favor of taking money and services away from people other than myself.  If all those people were more like me, then they would deserve more.

[Elliot]

No one has addressed the biggest issue here in this most serious thought project.  The thread subject states "Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?".  See how Child-Free is in quotes?  That makes is sound like these people without children are not really child free.  Instead, they're "Child-Free", as if they actually have children but are hiding them under the basement staircase in order to appear child free.

Once this is addressed, you'll notice that no one is "Child-Free".  They are either child free or have children.  Therefore, the whole argument is mute as the designation "Child-Free" doesn't exist.  Or at least the N is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Next time you come in my house and poke around under my stairs, I'm calling the law.

[Cpa Cat]

Like Greystache, I am in favor of taking money and services away from people other than myself.  If all those people were more like me, then they would deserve more.

My contacts inside Washington have told me that this is the platform Hillary will be running on in 2016.

[Cressida]

If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.

Sorry, this is total BS. Every person is a burden to the system when very young and very old. You don't get to take credit for producing a taxpayer without also taking the blame for the years that they're a burden. So it's a wash, whether you have kids or you don't.

[matchewed]

While I am no fan of how the SS system works...I am not entirely sure I even follow the argument.

You pay in for many years.  You effectively pay for someone else's benefits.
When you hit a magic number... someone else pays for your benefits.

I don't even see how creating replacement humans fits logically.   There are a ton of both pro- and anti-SS arguments... but I don't really think this applies at all unless it is bundled with a mechanism to opt out of paying in.

This. It's a nonsensical question and flawed proposition. The creating of "replacement" humans is independent of SS. It has nothing to do with it and is irrelevant. It would make just as much sense to say "shouldn't people with kids pay more in taxes as their family utilizes more of the services the government has provided"? Which is to say none.

The system isn't built around your particular offspring but by your contributions over time.

[4alpacas]

No one has addressed the biggest issue here in this most serious thought project.  The thread subject states "Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?".  See how Child-Free is in quotes?  That makes it sound like these people without children are not really child free.  Instead, they're "Child-Free", as if they actually have children but are hiding them under the basement staircase in order to appear child free.

Once this is addressed, you'll notice that no one is "Child-Free".  They are either child free or have children.  Therefore, the whole argument is mute as the designation "Child-Free" doesn't exist.  Or at least the N is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

This made me laugh out loud. 

But it sounds like Elliot is "Child-free," so maybe the N is larger than previously stated. 

[Cressida]

Do you think procreation is the only contribution people can make to society?

Do child-free people get credits if they do something meaningful for society, other than having kids?  What if they create cures for diseases, work overtime at hospitals, help the poor, teach your kids, etc.?  None of that matters and they are stuck paying higher taxes because they decided not to have kids?

What if they don't make enough money to take care of a child, so they make the decision not to have any?  Rather than saddle society with the huge costs of schooling, healthcare, WIC, etc., they do everyone a favor by not having kids.  They will get stuck paying a higher rate just because they made the (correct) decision not to have kids that other taxpayers would have to support?

What if someone's kid turns out to be a drain on society?  Instead of providing a taxpayer, they created a tax-taker.  Does that mean they won't get SS, and perhaps they'll even owe extra for the burden they put on society?

Exactly. Even if you accept the premise that producing a child benefits society as a whole (and I'm not saying I do), that doesn't mean we should penalize someone who doesn't do it. Try extending the argument, and you see how ridiculous it is. Society needs nurses, so we're going to penalize everyone who chooses not to become a nurse. Society needs civil servants, so we're going to penalize everyone who chooses not to become a civil servant - even the nurses!

I've seen variations of OP's position before, and my impression is that it often comes from people who resent the sacrifices that parenthood has required of them. Sucks to be them, but not my problem.

[PKFFW]

Honestly, I am not trying to be a troll.

Any time someone starts a post with the words "Honestly, I am not trying to be a troll." you can be sure the exact opposite is true.  That's as true and undeniable as Godwins' Law.

[Eric]

No one has addressed the biggest issue here in this most serious thought project.  The thread subject states "Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?".  See how Child-Free is in quotes?  That makes it sound like these people without children are not really child free.  Instead, they're "Child-Free", as if they actually have children but are hiding them under the basement staircase in order to appear child free.

Once this is addressed, you'll notice that no one is "Child-Free".  They are either child free or have children.  Therefore, the whole argument is mute as the designation "Child-Free" doesn't exist.  Or at least the N is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

This made me laugh out loud. 

But it sounds like Elliot is "Child-free," so maybe the N is larger than previously stated.

This is what I get for assuming!  Apparently I need to start a new thread with a poll to figure out how many people keep their children under the basement staircase.  And I should probably include attic crawlspaces as well.  But as a separate option of course.  Then we'll really be making some progress on this issue!

[4alpacas]

No one has addressed the biggest issue here in this most serious thought project.  The thread subject states "Should the "Child-Free" get Social Security?".  See how Child-Free is in quotes?  That makes it sound like these people without children are not really child free.  Instead, they're "Child-Free", as if they actually have children but are hiding them under the basement staircase in order to appear child free.

Once this is addressed, you'll notice that no one is "Child-Free".  They are either child free or have children.  Therefore, the whole argument is mute as the designation "Child-Free" doesn't exist.  Or at least the N is so small as to be statistically insignificant.

This made me laugh out loud. 

But it sounds like Elliot is "Child-free," so maybe the N is larger than previously stated.

This is what I get for assuming!  Apparently I need to start a new thread with a poll to figure out how many people keep their children under the basement staircase.  And I should probably include attic crawlspaces as well.  But as a separate option of course.  Then we'll really be making some progress on this issue!

I would also include shed storage too.  Children can be loud, so you might not want to keep them in the house. 

[EricL]

It certainly frustrating be child free and watching everybody with children get assorted benefits "just because".  But I'm reluctant to initiate any kind of "fixes".  They'd probably initiate a tailspin of  rock, paper, scissors second and third order effects to make things worse. 

[God or Mammon?]

Do you think procreation is the only contribution people can make to society?

Do child-free people get credits if they do something meaningful for society, other than having kids?  What if they create cures for diseases, work overtime at hospitals, help the poor, teach your kids, etc.?  None of that matters and they are stuck paying higher taxes because they decided not to have kids?

What if they don't make enough money to take care of a child, so they make the decision not to have any?  Rather than saddle society with the huge costs of schooling, healthcare, WIC, etc., they do everyone a favor by not having kids.  They will get stuck paying a higher rate just because they made the (correct) decision not to have kids that other taxpayers would have to support?

What if someone's kid turns out to be a drain on society?  Instead of providing a taxpayer, they created a tax-taker.  Does that mean they won't get SS, and perhaps they'll even owe extra for the burden they put on society?

Exactly. Even if you accept the premise that producing a child benefits society as a whole (and I'm not saying I do), that doesn't mean we should penalize someone who doesn't do it. Try extending the argument, and you see how ridiculous it is. Society needs nurses, so we're going to penalize everyone who chooses not to become a nurse. Society needs civil servants, so we're going to penalize everyone who chooses not to become a civil servant - even the nurses!

I've seen variations of OP's position before, and my impression is that it often comes from people who resent the sacrifices that parenthood has required of them. Sucks to be them, but not my problem.

Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)

[former player]

"In the USA, a pea-and-shell game is being played on taxpayers. More money is taken in for social security than is shelled out, but the remainder vanishes instead of being invested for future pensioners. The solution to having our nest eggs stolen isn’t to lay more eggs."

- Quote from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement website.

http://www.vhemt.org

[PKFFW]

Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)

Actually  it is a logical fallacy that is commonly employed to negate an otherwise rational and reasonable argument and is generally considered poor form.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

[Cressida]

Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)

Actually  it is a logical fallacy that is commonly employed to negate an otherwise rational and reasonable argument and is generally considered poor form.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

Uh-huh. So, PKFFW, what is your opinion on the topic under discussion in this thread? Do you have anything to add?

[Villanelle]

I'll give up SS as soon as I no longer have to pay the taxes that fund schools, and as soon as tax credits for children go away.  Or does this proposal only work in the direction that benefits those with kids?  Punish the child-free by taking away a benefit if you think (incorrectly, I might add; see below) they benefit more then those with kids.  But when it is the people with kids who benefit, it's find to have an imbalance?

 Then of course, there is the fact that those who have kids create future payers, but they also create future collectors.  I, OTOH, didn't create a payer, but I also didn't create a collector, so it is pretty much a wash. 

[Cressida]

Then of course, there is the fact that those who have kids create future payers, but they also create future collectors.  I, OTOH, didn't create a payer, but I also didn't create a collector, so it is pretty much a wash.

What I'm Saying.

[PKFFW]

Taking a premise to its logical extreme is a simple test for whether a policy is good for society.  It is also one of the tenets of environmentalism (which many speciously argue for in their quest for self preservation of why their decision to go childless is so noble)

Actually  it is a logical fallacy that is commonly employed to negate an otherwise rational and reasonable argument and is generally considered poor form.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes

Uh-huh. So, PKFFW, what is your opinion on the topic under discussion in this thread? Do you have anything to add?

IMHO, the topic is so inane and the premise so ridiculous it doesn't warrant discussion.  Furthermore, as per my first post, anyone who feels the need to start a thread by assuring readers he is honestly not trying to be a troll is almost certainly trolling.  So no I don't have anything to add.

ETA:  I just realised how you might have taken my previous post.  My apologies, I did not mean to imply you were engaging in the appeal to extremes fallacy.  It was directed at God or Mammon's second sentence claim of speciousness on the part of childless people.

[JLee]

I think the US government should pay me extra Social Security because I've been paying for other people's children to go to school for free.

You are not paying for other people's children to go to school for free.  You are paying back the free schooling that was provided to you.  But let's assume that you owe nothing to society. Isn't it in your best interest to make sure we have an educated population?  When you need to go to the doctor or need to fly in an airplane, don't you want the persons supplying that service to be educated? We all depend on goods and services supplied by someone's children.  If you choose not produce any children, you still benefit from someone who did.

I was homeschooled and I have no kids.  Where can I pick up my refund check? :)

[God or Mammon?]

The arguments used to explain why childless people are getting a raw deal are irrational, unless those individuals specifically want to go to a system where everyone pays for what he consumes (a very conservative philosophy, which I doubt most of those people would truly want to espouse).

Being in a high income bracket, I pay an absurd amount in federal, state and city taxes, but my usage of public goods and services that are funded by those taxes is much lower than average.  So by the logic used in this thread I should be paying nothing outside of my share of usage.

[Cpa Cat]

The arguments used to explain why childless people are getting a raw deal are irrational, unless those individuals specifically want to go to a system where everyone pays for what he consumes (a very conservative philosophy, which I doubt most of those people would truly want to espouse).

Have you actually read this thread? Here's a quote from the very first post:

It just strikes me as somewhat unfair that the child-free are not paying their fair share for the benefits that they receive.  Your thoughts?

If you didn't want to hear anyone's rebuttal to that statement, then why did you keep reading?

[JLee]

The arguments used to explain why childless people are getting a raw deal are irrational, unless those individuals specifically want to go to a system where everyone pays for what he consumes (a very conservative philosophy, which I doubt most of those people would truly want to espouse).

Being in a high income bracket, I pay an absurd amount in federal, state and city taxes, but my usage of public goods and services that are funded by those taxes is much lower than average.  So by the logic used in this thread I should be paying nothing outside of my share of usage.

The general premise of the thread is that those who don't have children shouldn't receive the social security benefits that they've paid for, because they're not producing more people to pay into social security down the line.

I agree that the higher income brackets generally pay substantially more while receiving much less than the low income brackets (add up the societal cost of a welfare family with six kids in public school and compare it to a child-free couple making six figures). That's necessary to keep the fabric of civilized society intact, but I do disagree with removing benefits from people paying into a fund because they aren't creating further fund-payers.

Also, a note for the OP - I was ineligible for social security for quite some time as I had a government job with state retirement and I did not pay into social security. If the intent of social security was for children to pay for you, and not for your contributions to count towards yourself, the situation I was in would be impossible.