In most Western states, care for the elderly (and especially childless elderly) is funded by the working age professionals, and those need to be born. So unless that 25% doesn't plan on growing old it’s not only moral but essential for them that the other 75% do have kids.
My government is currently desperately trying to paper over this pyramid scheme by importing as many foreigners as possible under the apparent misconception that they will be instant net taxpayers (the opposite is usually true), compounding our economic collapse with a social and cultural collapse as well.
I'm quite sure the average young man here would do better with that cash in his pocket than the government is doing with it. It borders on overtly hostile.
In short, there is no money. It's gone. If anything, there's a moral obligation to avoid contributing.
This is unethical, and will bite your decedents back in the ass even if it doesn't bite you. You think your so good looking? Imagine if your grand son was in that place where he wasn't that good looking. Would you want him to end up like that? Is that really fair to him.
Aren't we supposed to make the world a better place? When we realize that some things are wrong?
You're doing every man who does hard work injustice. You can defer the problem by importing women from 3rd world countries, but for how long?
Not only is it unethical, but immoral.
Remember, no matter how privileged you are, there is no guarantee that your decedents will have the privilege'. Even if you're the most selfish man/woman, it's in your interest to advocate for it.
There's no woman/man who is a better human except for their character. We need to put incentives for these traits in humans. Not discourage them.
> So in the end men who never father children are being taxed for other men's children. Is that moral?
Don't those kids grow up, enter the working force and contribute with taxes? Rough math would suggest a father with 2 kids will contribute together via taxes over their lifetimes more than a single person (no kids) would. I'm sure most governments already made the same calculation.
If at 50 or 60, when some parents have their offsprings already contributing, they got 2-3 times more than you get from the state (pension, welfare, subsidies, whatever else you can imagine) you'd probably not be happy with the explanation "you contributed alone, they contribute together". If you don't care for contributing for someone else's kid, why would someone else's kid contribute anything for you?
This can be taken further with anything that works based on pools of contributions like insurance, pension, schools, public transport, internet, etc. They're all working exclusively because not all contributors actually need to benefit equally from all services. Some need more education, some need more health services, some need more transportation. Trust me, you get plenty of things you didn't pay for.