According to a report from German media group RND, federal Health Minister Nina Warken has prepared a draft bill that would have adults without children pay a higher percentage of taxes towards publicly-funded elder care.
The entire lgbtqia* community will be affected as well, even if they wanted children, which is incredibly hard to achieve as a same sex couple in Germany due to regulations and massive cost. So by default, 12% of the population will be taxed additionally without the possibility to ever get children. Yeah, thanks, that’s exactly what we needed: more discrimination.
Lots of comments are missing one crucial point: The government assumes that every child will care for their parents and thus save costs. But this isn’t true any more as many children move away from their home town or break up with their parents.
No that’s not what this is about. The government assumes that every child will pay taxes. Every less child born means a lesser future tax base for the future retired. In effect if you don’t have kids yourself you are relying on the taxes of other people’s kids to pay for your retirement.
More like: “German politician proposese to make child free adults pay more for elderly care”
No, let’s not work on fixing the fact that it’s recently reached £250,000 as the typical cost to raise a kid to adulthood today. That thing that means many people don’t, and possibly never will, financially have the option to.
Then there’s the people who could financially make it work, but can see the current trajectory we’re on as all but guaranteeing a life of suffering for a kid, despite otherwise wanting one.
Let’s kick all those people whilst they’re down
Maybe I’m gonna be bashed for this but isn’t this a good solution? We can all agree that forcing people to have children is a bad idea. Most would also argue that the state has no role whatsoever in deciding if people have kids, they should merely make it possible for those who want to have kids, to have as many children that they want. A policy punishing those without kids could be unethical for many reasons.
However that’s not what this is about. This is merely about childless people contributing more to their pensions. Which I think is fair since by not having kids they put pressure on the pension system. Childless people also have more disposable income on average meaning they have the ability to pay this. However those childless people who are actually poor are not unfairly affected since this is paid on their income. Low income low pension payment. Isn’t this the least worst of all possible solutions? I would love a discussion on this because I find this topic very interesting. Please disagree with me on this and let me hear your thoughts!
It seems unfair to impose a tax on someone for physical traits they have no control over. I don’t think a pay-as-you-go system is a sustainable way to fund retirements with birth rates being what they are. A shrinking working population can’t keep funding a growing population of pensioners while maintaining liveable tax rates and liveable pensions.
In my opinion an American or Australian style 401k/superannuation scheme is the most feasible solution. Just hope there isn’t a market crash at the beginning of your retirement.
But why so complicated? Why not have everybody pay the same (percentage) for elder care and reward parents with more child support (Kindergeld)? Rewards are an easier sell politically than penalties. That would be way less controversial.
I’d wager this is because more Kindergeld would increase spending - which means either more debt or an increase in taxes somewhere else, and with the current government that’s not possible.
And considering the CDU probably has more parents than childless people as voters, i guess that’s a demographic they can afford to offend?
Then again, maybe searching for logic in this trainwreck of a government is our mistake to begin with.
This would definitely be better. It’ll avoid some scenarios I wrote about in my other comment
Probably because even with your solution, there would still be a need to increase the amount everyone has to pay. That’s still a hard sell.
By only making some people pay more, you’re actually making it an easier sell because that limits the amount of people that will be upset because they personally will be affected. Those that aren’t affected can be convinced with arguments.
That could also work but then we still have to increase the elder care tax as a whole. In the end the result is the same. Childless people pay more effective tax (taxes - benefits) than parents.
Yes on a financial level it may come out the same, as fisch said but they also said it is less politically toxic to give child benefits than to punish a group in particular for either deciding not to have children or not being able to.
This proposal doesn’t sit well with me, for various reasons.
First, how does it work for people who can’t have children? Will they have to submit a test result proving it? What if a medically sterile person has a child by some unlikely happenstance (I’ve read it happens sometimes)? Do they owe back the unpaid taxes then?
I can imagine a scenario where such a person would elect to be sterilised or abort a fetus to avoid having to pay thousands of euros, leading to one less child being born.
Also, what about rich people? Isn’t it time we start to tax them and punish the methods they use to avoid taxes?
Speaking of rich people: suppose they work out the added tax (if they even pay it, that is) is more than the cost of having a child. Would they have one and proceed to completely forego doing any parenting just for the sake of saving money? How will that child grow up?
If the purpose of the law is strictly to compensate from the strain a childless person puts on the pension system, and not to simply punish them for not having kids. Then I don’t see the problem of involuntarily childless people getting taxed. The involuntarily and the voluntarily childless both get the same benefit of not having to pay for their kids and therefore would have the same ability to pay. And they both put the same strain on the pension system.
Taxing the rich is always good I agree. But regarding having kids only to avoid taxes. Do the pension payments really scale up to super rich level? Or do they have a max ceiling. I don’t know exactly how Germany does it. But yes if the pension payments scale linearly with income that could be a major issue that’s true.
The reason why a couple doesn’t have children doesn’t affect the financial situation. Hence anyone without children over the age of 23 has to pay more no matter the reason why they don’t have children.
The point of the policy is not to punish anyone by the way, but to find money to care for the elderly. They just propose to take it from people who are at an unfair advantage right now. In Germany, having children means having less money than not having children.
Taxing the rich is something that the current German government is especially allergic to, so this policy is probably about the best we can have until the next elections.
What about people who can’t have children? Would they have to prove infertility beyond any doubt? How would that work?
Maybe this is addressed in the law, but the article doesn’t mention it.
The reason why a couple doesn’t have children doesn’t affect the financial situation. Hence anyone without children over the age of 23 has to pay more no matter the reason why they don’t have children.
The point of the policy is not to punish anyone by the way, but to find money to care for the elderly. They just propose to take it from people who are at an unfair advantage right now. In Germany, having children means having less money than not having children.
How is deferring parenthood an ‘unfair’ advantage?
And also what about the real unfair advantage of someone who inherits a fortune?
