Conflicting Interests of Social Spending on the Elderly and Children

Introduction

The government’s expenditure on kids seems to be continuously decreasing every year as that for the elderly increases. This disparity means that the authorities who prepare the federal budget do not care much about the children’s future. However, the same government increases the national debt annually and might keep paying interest expenses, which may burden the kids without any promising investment. Therefore, this regrettable action might threaten the young generation’s future as the elderly continue enjoying themselves.

Main body

The US spends more money on the elderly than on kids, and this bias toward the old might be higher than in other nations. If the authorities view this action from the life-cycle perspective, then they are not biased when spending less on kids than on the seniors. This assertion is true as every individual develops from being a child to an adult who works, and finally a retiree. Nevertheless, the government’s public spending is not fair to the young generation because it does not fund the health system adequately for the youth. Furthermore, to have a beneficial retirement benefit, the government may tax the current children heavily when they start working in the future. Therefore, for the kids to benefit, the government should stop increasing the seniors’ benefits. Instead, the authorities ought to make sure that the working groups pay their taxes appropriately.

The government’s pity on the interests of social spending on the seniors against those on the kids is short-sighted. Public expenditure for both children and the elderly should be fair because the government’s responsibility comprises protecting all its citizens and redistributing income to all of them regardless of their age. However, many individuals advocate for the authorities to restrict themselves to a few roles as they act for their self-interest. In a country that has two political parties, development happens when people build and sustain coalitions. If one side argues that the government should spend more on the elderly and the other supports more expending on children, both groups might suffer. For this reason, the authorities should devise a fair way of spending on both the children and the seniors.

The reason why the government spends less money on kids than on the elderly could be pensions and healthcare. Naturally, older people spend more cash on healthcare than children do. As a result, the authorities generously cover the seniors more than the youth. The government might also be spending more on the elderly because they were paying payroll taxes when working. Therefore, when they retired, their contributions might have surpassed or equaled the pensions that the authorities eventually pay them. However, based on the labor supply, both groups do not work, and so, their economic status does not differ. Therefore, the government should spend equitably on all of them, especially on health care.

The government needs to stop spending too much on the elderly and balance its expenditure on both the children and the seniors. Excessive outlay on older people affects the spending on kids, which can be destructive to them. This behavior leaves the country with the untapped opportunity to invest in children, and yield good income, therefore, improving economic development while reducing inequality. Financial growth is beneficial to citizens as they enjoy high living standards and consume more products.

Conclusion

In conclusion, when the government spends more money on the elderly than on kids, it regrettably threatens the latter’s future. Children need more funds for education and health to prepare well for jobs in the future. When they start working, they boost the economic development of the nation. Therefore, the government should give the elderly what they contributed only as they worked to ensure that it remains with enough money to support the children.