zlacker

In this scheme, by design, you get the income when the children are grown so it shouldn't yield the negative correlation. I specifically accounted for your concern and designed it to incentivize raising productive children.

>>beaegl+(OP)
Ah. I misread that a bit.

I TOTALLY agree.

We have a system now where childfree people disproportionately benefit from the socialized state. Not only do they not have to engage in any of the sacrifice (both monetary, time, and personal interests) of raising children, but they also get to suck just as much off the productivity of other people's children later in retirement. You might even get MORE than parents, since social security benefit is based off your average income over 35 working years.

For all of human history, your children were your retirement plan. You benefited directly in the future by how many you had that became successful, productive adults. But now retirement is so heavily socialized in the west that that children often can't directly take care of their parents because they're dealing with their own work and tax burden.

I don't have anything against childfree people (I'm one myself), but this system is fundamentally perverse and self destructive. You can't disproportionately reward people that don't reproduce from the bounty of those who do and expect that system to continue for very long. Like a parasite sucking a host dry, both eventually die.