- There'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-related costs to families have only increased.
Society gains massively from future workers/tax payers, but economical incentives are not aligned at all; children cost their parents a lot, society reaps all the benefits, but does not compensate parents enough economically.
- I am increasingly of the opinion that you can either be eligible to vote, or collect pension, but not both at the same time.
By the time you start collecting pension, you have effectively ousted yourself from economic production. And unlike a 20yo still in college and not contributing to the economy yet, you don't have 50 more years of your life to worry about. This effectively means it is safe for you to support any short term extractive policies without ever worrying about the longer term consequences.
And demonstrably, this is how pensioners vote — I get to keep my pension, you get to pay more tax. And no we won't let you build any more housing for your beautiful children, we want this town to stay the way it was in 1970. Please come wipe my ass for $15 an hour. And no, don't let people who are actually willing to work that job for that pay immigrate into the country. It's a bunch of feel good policies with insolvable contradictions. Buy because they will not live long enough to feel the backlash, they vote on.
by outside2344
8 subcomments
- So the plan is to make the cost of living even more expensive for people without kids?
Do they understand the problem in the first place? Many people can't afford to have kids.
by matchbok3
7 subcomments
- This 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 gay, etc. I'm not sure how to work through that.
by Ancalagon
1 subcomments
- Wow, once again older generations pulling up the ladder on advantages they had that no longer exist for younger generations.
- Two important things for this discussion:
1. 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.
- As a resident of Germany: I have two kids and would do anything for them, but from a financial point of view, you're way better off without kids in Germany, even if you have to pay these "extra fees". The public pension has already been higher for years for anybody without children.
by jillesvangurp
0 subcomment
- For reference, health insurance + care insurance is super expensive in Germany already (compared to most European countries) and both insurances are mandatory and generally combined. But the system is also super inefficient so a lot of the money is simply wasted on bureaucratic nonsense, making insurers rich, pointless referrals between "specialists" to make them rich, etc. The system actively stimulates waste, if you are privately insured, you get preferential treatment. Which means that if you aren't you get treated like dirt. I've been both private and public insured. I've experienced both.
My own country the Netherlands got rid of the private/public distinction. Everybody is insured via a private insurer. They can't reject patients and patients are allowed to switch insurer up to once a year. Insurers also work with health care providers to make sure money is spent more efficiently. Meaning hospitals can't just offload their inefficiencies onto insurers. And insurers can't just offload that onto patients. Because the patients switch to the insurers with the best relation ships with healthcare providers and the best deal. They all have to provide the same base coverage but you can insure for stuff on top of that.
The Dutch system also has its flaws and deficiencies. But my parents together pay much less than me by myself in Germany. And as far as I can see from their recent experiences, they are well looked after. It seems the Dutch system has a lot less bureaucratic nonsense, better information sharing, more modern hospitals, etc. It also has underpaid nurses, issues with some types of medication not getting covered, and a few other issues. But compared to the expensive German mess; much better.
Germany is mainly legislating to kick the can down the road instead of addressing any of it's structural economic issues: a government bureaucracy that stifles innovation rather than promoting it, a pension system that is essentially a underfunded slow moving train wreck at this point, broken physical and energy infrastructure that will take decades to fix, and a hopelessly inefficient health care system.
by bwestergard
0 subcomment
- "The bill would have contributions from childfree adults increase by 0.7% over a period of years, meaning they would pay 2.5% of their income each month. Their employer will be expected to pay 1.8%. For adults with children the rates will remain the same: 1.8% for people with one child, 1.55% for people with two children, and 1.3% for people with three or more children."
I don't have children and this doesn't seem inherently unfair to me. It's an acknowledgement of the care labor these households are doing.
That said, I'd prefer to see it be progressive by income as well. A couple without children in the bottom income decile shouldn't be paying more than a couple with children in the top income decile.
by ravenstine
2 subcomments
- Because 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.
- An excellent, apolitical(*) video from Kurzgesagt about the current situation in Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-gYFcVx-8Y
It explains how we got there, the problems we are facing, the problems inherent to the proposed/possible solutions, etc.
(*) as in, they really try hard to stay neutral on the topic until the end, in the clearly marked conclusions and opinion section.
- Still a draft bill, nothing final yet.
by fabianholzer
0 subcomment
- This is nothing particularly new. People above a certain age without kids are paying a higher percentage from their income into the social security since 2005 when Gerhard Schröder was chancellor, and that's more than twenty years ago.
What this proposal would change is the concrete percentage. Currently 4.2%, 4.7% if it were enacted.
- I wonder if we'll eventually see a backlash as population growth continues slowing. In a society composed largely of old people being supported financially (and otherwise) by the younger people, it would be very possible for the younger people to decide they're simply tired of spending their lives subsiding the old people who just put the burden on them instead of fixing the system.
by faangguyindia
0 subcomment
- Remember we borrow from future.
by josefritzishere
0 subcomment
- The alternative is to increase immigration, which is a giant glowing "easy" button that will solve 100% of problems with domestic fecundity. re: birthrates.
by halifaxbeard
0 subcomment
- Do children that are the product of sexual assault count?
- Fake kids incoming in three, two, one ...
by bpodgursky
2 subcomments
- Every rapidly aging country (most of them) will need to either do something like this, or deal with a total collapse of social services.
by hollow-moe
0 subcomment
- basically "you WILL have children so ours can have slaves to exploit (and if you don't we'll just exploit you more now)", lol, lmao even
- Ah yes, let’s funnel more money to pensioners!
- Makes sense since they don’t produce future taxpayers. They should also adjust retirement age based on life expectancy -of course people won’t like this but you can’t overcome the math. Separately, I also think airfare should be in part based on weight.
by strathmeyer
0 subcomment
- [dead]
- This is very cruel towards people who want to have children but can't.
- This is very unfair for people that cannot have children. On one side we have the people that can't for biology reasons, on the other those who don't have the economic stability to support a functional family. Also, adopting costs can be very high so it is not an option for many. I won't definitely be voting political parties promoting these measures. There must be other ways.
Hacker News