Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forget the problem that's being solved here. It's not how to incentivize having kids. It's how to increase taxes while reducing pensions. Increasing the obligations of everyone currently working while decreasing what the state provides at the same time. The full details are: this is an additional 2.5% non-progressive income tax, two thirds paid by employers, one third by employees. Other "currently proposed" chan…
And why wouldn't the elderly need to keep working longer? They did benefit from all the new medical stuff extending their active lives, so how about giving back by working a few years more? It's also their own decision to have less children, thus less workers, and also they generally don't want more immigrants, so there - it's either more work, or magic. And we don't know how to do magic.
Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
151–160 of 216 posts
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#152There's a bunch of criticism, but this is in my view the only general approach that makes sense (globally) and should have been done 50 years ago already. IMO a big factor for the whole sub-replacement fertility in developed nations (and resulting demographic problems) is that the state has invalidated/replaced all the economical gain that families got from children (cheap "workers" and elder care), but the chld-rela…
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can always adopt?
The adoption process is incredibly broken. Prospective adoptive parents need to assume a difficult years-long process with no guarantee of placement, mid to high five-figures expenses or more (prohibitive for the average non-FAANG Americans), assume major undisclosed and significantly heritable mental health disorders, assume undisclosed in-utero substance exposure requiring challenging and costly care, and be aware…
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Poor people have 0 problems having kids. A simply WILD statement given the rates of children raised in poverty with all the trauma and issues that gives, who then oftentimes grow up to be their parents doing the exact same thing. > People can afford kids, they don't want to compromise on lifestyle. Previous generations didn't have to, ours does. So if people don't want to make that compromise, they won't. Maybe if…
we are talking about germany here. no child in germany needs to grow up in poverty even if both parents are unemployed and are living on social welfare.
Like, again, still beats the shit out of America's system, but it's far from perfect too.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re making a value statement in a discussion about factual information. Regardless of whether you think avoiding children for economic reasons is good or bad, it’s the leading reason cited by people who choose to delay having children. Regardless of whether it’s perception or real, that is the problem the needs to be solved if you want people to have kids.
Does it matter that "it's the leading reason cited" if it's further questioning shows it not to be true? I've heard it many many times from many different people, and not once has it been the actual reason.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#156What this proposal would change is the concrete percentage. Currently 4.2%, 4.7% if it were enacted.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#157This is a challenging topic to discuss because (rightly) it's very personal. Sadly the fact of the matter is this: we need more children and young people to keep society functioning (and continually improve our quality of life). There is no other known way. So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Of course, the "cruel" part is how it affects those who either can't have children, are g…
> So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Free rider? I am already paying close to 30% of my income for the state to distribute to ALL.
At the end of the day, taxes don't being to compare to the lifetime (and compounding effect) of children. And yes, you have a good point. You pay taxes (a lot) and so it makes these conversations difficult.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#158Because the elders haven't extracted enough wealth from younger generations? Because economics has nothing to do with people choosing not to have kids? I'm picturing Germany as Sideshow Bob walking right into another rake.
Speaking as a German with children: Completely apt image. Yet I would name several dozen of policies that are more serious "rakes in your face" than this. This is merely squeezing a little bit more out of the working population. Everyone knows that social security in the current state is a Ponzi scheme and what ever is collected is immediately redistributed.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#1591. the difference for the (public) elder care (Pflegeversicherung) is already there: a fee of 2.4% vs. 1.8% with kids (or much less with more kids). And it was now proposed to slightly increase the fee to 2.5%, i.e. +0.1%. But as it was recently increased several times (nearly every year) this is a strange suggestion and looks helpless.
2. this small increase (<1 billion €) does not fix the existing financial gap of approx 4 billions. The gap will increase a lot for the next years.
Re: Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
we are talking about germany here. no child in germany needs to grow up in poverty even if both parents are unemployed and are living on social welfare.
Poverty exists everywhere and Germany is no exception. Looking into it, the average welfare recipient is going to get ballpark 80% of what someone earning minimum wage does. Granted their lives are more stable, at least from an outside view given that the government programs directly cover rent and utilities. That said those numbers only really work for people in practice by way of budget conscious spending, i.e. gro…
i have been there, and i disagree. it's of course about attitude. and yes, sure we didn't get expensive clothes, but that wasn't an issue not in the school i went to. things might have changed, but i am sorry, it's not the problem of a welfare system to account for materialism. i was a boy scout and i got all my clothes from army surplus stores because that's what we were into. not the army style, but the sturdy hiking stuff. i was able to save up for an expensive leather school bag, not the cheap stuff everyone else in school had. i could do that because we were thrifty and didn't waste money on other unneeded luxuries. fun foods, treats? why? i am a lot healthier now because we didn't get that, and, most importantly, there was never any desire for that either. so no stress at all. as a child i never once felt that we didn't have enough money. i was proud of the way we lived.
i raise my kids the same way now. money is not the issue here. our toys were almost exclusively lego. lego is expensive, but only if it is new and if you insist on expensive presents every year. it also lasts a lifetime. you don't need to spend a lot every year to have enough to play with. and nowadays there are alternative brands that are a lot cheaper and just as good. oh, we also had comic books. lots of them. we bought and traded them on flea markets. why would they have to be new, when you could get them used at a fraction of the cost?
that's assuming the parent is devoted and caring
in your scenario the parents already failed. again, it is not the job of the welfare system to account for bad spending habits. but i get it. that argument is not new. i heard it already when i was young. and i just didn't get it. i was able to afford everything that i wanted, and i never felt i was missing anything just because our money was limited. i didn't feel that the money was limited. i didn't know that i was poor. my classmates in school didn't know that i was poor. i didn't notice that some other kids in my class were rich either. even those who actually were. at worst i saw some kids spending money on things that i would never waste my money on, but i didn't envy them. i was able to participate in every scout camp and trip that our group was doing. i was a member of a sailing club and made my sailing license. i was able to travel to various countries in europe and even to america. by the time i finished school i had done more traveling than any of my peers.
sure, i had financial support for that airplane flight, but that's the point. these things are available to everyone, regardless of income. anyone who doesn't take advantage of what is offered is either blind, ignorant or stupid.
to summarize: money is not the issue. what matters is a society where people care for each other and make efforts to ensure that everyone is included, regardless of their income. the problem is, that people don't see that. they argue that the money is not enough, when in reality the problem is lack of education (how to spend your money wisely), the wrong values, false pride that prevents people from accepting help, envy, selfishness, i don't know...