[nicoty]

> First tier, high cost of living should be for high earners, singles or childless people, they should pay more taxes while second tier areas should offer UBI, and should generally subsidise people having children

That seems unfair to me. Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?

[raducu]

> Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?

My point was mainly that that kind of first tier city would attract those kind of people, not specifically that they should be targeted.

If you lived in a 2nd tier zone you shouldn't pay extra in taxes even if you're childless.

But specifically to your question, I do think that it's fair that childless people should pay more taxes, because having a stable population is a requirement for a stable society and single/childless people aren't doing their part.

That duty can be offloaded to parents with more children, but they should be compensated for that.

You can frame it whatever you want -- they pay more taxes, parents pay less taxes, parents get tax rebates, parents get higher UBI per child, the outcome is the same.

I do think that first tier cities leach and profit from the work of the parents, educators of the people who migrate there (and generally the whole area -- it takes a village to raise a child), profit from exorbitant property taxes so, I think the only way to solve this curse is higher taxes (if it's required) on those areas and subsidized living in less desirable places -- provided that those 2nd tier places produce competent citizens.

[HPsquared]

Progressive income tax already does this "taxing first-tier cities a higher percentage" thing. The tax bands are the same in all cities, so people living in the cheaper, low pay provincial cities already pay less tax as a proportion of income. This effect is very stark in comparing London to the rest of the UK.

[em-bee]

Why should singles and childless people subsidise people with children?

children are the future of our society. even in today's system, children will be the ones paying your pension when you retire. putting that burden on parents alone is what is unfair. how would you like your pension to be measured based on the number of children you raised? maybe if you have no children you shouldn't get any pension at all?

[singleshot_]

Where did you get the idea anyone will be paying my pension when I retire?

[nasmorn]

Capital Accumulation without labor is a fiction. If nobody had any more children all stocks would gradually decline to zero

[singleshot_]

Pension is also a fiction (as in, I do not have one).

[em-bee]

do you expect not to get any pension at all and just live on your own savings? do you live on a farm growing your own food?

you can't live in this society without relying on others, and they can't live without relying on you. and unless you want humanity to die out, future generations need our support.

[singleshot_]

This is more of a "100% certain" situation than an "expect" situation. Are you mixing pensions up with 401ks and social security?

[em-bee]

i was using it as a general term for whatever money you receive after you retire except personal investments or savings. i could not find out how 401ks work, specifically i did not find out whether 401k works like any other pension scheme or not. the wikipedia page on pensions does not say that 401k is not a pension, therefore i figure it is included in the definition.

i just checked the 401k page, and it says: a 401(k) plan is an employer-sponsored, defined-contribution, personal pension (savings) account.

so it's a pension.

but what we call it doesn't really matter. more important is the question if the payout depends on future generations paying in. in my brief search i could not tell whether the 401k is protected against that or if it even can be protected. but if it is i'll have to retract my claim. my apologies.

[pj_mukh]

Basic social security yield math.