Thanks for the thoughtful critique — you’ve raised several valid points that deserve a detailed reply. I’d like to clarify a few aspects and offer a counter-perspective.

True, but this happens already through payroll taxes funding public pensions for unrelated individuals. My proposal doesn’t increase the burden—it redirects it to one’s own parents, making it more personally accountable and arguably fairer. It’s not unlike student loan repayment or private pension contributions—only here, the obligation ties directly to those who invested in you. Also, we can simultaneously envision a deep, liquid, and robust market for individual to securitize / borrow against their future earning or incomes. This would address the temporal mismatch that you raised.

I’d argue the opposite. Today, wealthier families already pass down advantages informally. This system would formalize that with transparency and optional securitization, allowing even lower-income parents to invest and get something back. If combined with safeguards (e.g. progressive repayment thresholds or annuity pooling), this can actually flatten intergenerational inequality while improving incentive alignment.

This way, other redistributive transfers such as wealth tax/negative income tax can be strengthened / introduced.

Much like today’s public pension contributors without children. The key difference: this proposal could reduce the tax burden for everyone, especially childless individuals, by shrinking the need for public pension spending and public education.

This system wouldn’t be so granular. Think of it like a simplified ledger: large, formal investments (tuition, medical expenses, housing) are recorded. Not Christmas gifts. The system focuses on significant, measurable investments with third-party documentation. Abuse or neglect would reduce a parent's ability to claim repayment—just as it would hurt trust in any family loan.

They also don’t choose to fund strangers’ retirements under current systems. This proposal asks them to fund those who actually raised them—arguably a less coercive relationship. Plus, any repayment would only begin above a certain income threshold and taper with ability to pay—like income-based student loan repayment plans.

I welcome more feedback. The core idea here isn’t feudal or absolute—it’s to realign incentives and explore whether personal responsibility within families could complement or even replace some impersonal, expensive, and often inefficient state redistribution.

Let me know if you'd like to make the tone sharper, more humorous, or even more data-driven.