No, to the contrary, socializing the cost of paying for elderly reduces resentment of the burden they may constitute. Besides, your position assumes that all children can take of all parents, which is economically speaking is just not true. If you are saying  that those who can't should then be covered by means-tested programs, then your position is internally inconsistent, because you are then favoring other people caring just for the poor. Should they alone suffer from a deleterious effect on family relations?

Joel Blau

David B. Shemano wrote:
Daniel Davies writes:

David, would you agree that, Carl's biblical references aside, there is in
almost all traditions that we have any evidence of, evidence that there was
a duty to support the elderly? Speaking to you as a conservative, how
likely do you think it is that literally all previous generations have been
wrong and we are the first to realise the truth; that it is fine and OK to
let the unproductive old starve?

The short answer is that social security has had a deleterious effect on intra-family obligations. To generalize, children do not feel obligated to care for their parents, because it is the obligation of other people to take care of their parents. I do not think that is a good thing. The issue of whether we should permit the unproductive to starve is a different issue. Social security is not a charity program -- isn't that the mantra we are all supposed to repeat?

David Shemano




Reply via email to