[aiilns]

> If the treatment is expensive, then only net-productive individuals would be able to afford it, meaning we would gain the benefit of contributors contributing for longer, without net-recipients receiving for longer.

Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"?

This is wrong on so many levels. And even today rich people live on average longer. Can't see the benefit myself.

[nonameloser]

having money is a sign of being productive, on the whole

[Gud]

Having money is a sign of being able to extract wealth from the current economic system. I know many productive people who never learnt that hard work doesn't equal good money.

[BobaFloutist]

It's actually typically a sign of your parents having money, above all else.

[marcusverus]

People who know how to make money pass this knowledge on to their kids. People who don't, can't. This shouldn't be surprising.

[marcusverus]

> Because rich people are "net-productive" and poor people are "net-recipients"

Yes, in the context at hand this is obviously, objectively true. Poor folks earn little, "pay" negative income taxes, and are eligible for lavish (relative to their contributions) benefits, thus they pay less in taxes than they receive in benefits, making them net recipients from social programs. Some to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year. We used to call them leeches--we should probably start doing it again, frankly.

Meanwhile others pay large amounts of taxes without receiving any services beyond those which are forced on them by the state (which are generally a raw deal), making them massive net contributors.

It's not "wrong", it's the basic arithmetic that undergirds your beloved welfare state. Ignore it at your peril.

[aiilns]

Again you are extremely wrong on this. However it is clear that you hold such misanthropic views that I won't be able to make you even slightly consider a perspective based on the value of equality and human dignity.