No kids means no people working while you don’t work. Simple as that.
We want to motivate people to have kids. Then depend the pension on having kids.
More kids = higher pension.
My wife is indonesian. Her mom barely has any pension. But she has 3 adult children. My wife pays for her cost of living alongside her 2 sisters.
The old people there who have no kids are… Well, they work or die.
Is it moral? That’s not really my concern. Is it sustainable. That’s my concern.
The general pension here, where people can save money by not having kids, retire at age 55, enjoy tax paid healthcare. That caused the aging population.
We made a mistake. We should economically reward having kids. Because having kids rewards the economy.
And you used the word “unfair” in your previous post so you are not “too autistic” for morals. Or at least you aren’t against pretending you have them when they suit your argument.
You are now just embracing “might makes right” now that the elderly childless suckers got their pension’s rug pulled because otherwise its too financially inconvenient.
Can you start talking about the economics part of the subject. We’re one of the highest taxed countries in the world. Taxes and social transfers are genius to offer a trampoline for social mobility.
Childless pensioned people don’t need a trampoline. They just need to slowly end up with no money at the end of their lives. They need basic necessities, but nothing more. If they want more than that then they better have saved up some money.
If I can give my kid a house, outright. Then I can also just afford retirement if I did not have a child.
Why would I need to have a retirement equal to someone else that couldn’t put their money in real estate or stoxx 600 europe or gold or whatever just because they had to buy more consumption goods and services for their child?
Parents produce a productive entity. Why shouldn’t they be financially rewarded for this?
Please, limit yourself to economics only. I do not care about anything else in this thread.
If we have to pay too much money on oldies that didn’t have kids, then we cannot afford to have children. Then the country keeps having an aging population. Vicious cycle.
Economic sustainability is important.
I’m rich enough, this is not about me. This is about the future of the country.
I’m too autistic for morals if I’m honest.
No kids means no people working while you don’t work. Simple as that.
We want to motivate people to have kids. Then depend the pension on having kids.
More kids = higher pension.
My wife is indonesian. Her mom barely has any pension. But she has 3 adult children. My wife pays for her cost of living alongside her 2 sisters.
The old people there who have no kids are… Well, they work or die.
Is it moral? That’s not really my concern. Is it sustainable. That’s my concern.
The general pension here, where people can save money by not having kids, retire at age 55, enjoy tax paid healthcare. That caused the aging population.
We made a mistake. We should economically reward having kids. Because having kids rewards the economy.
I am also autistic.
And you used the word “unfair” in your previous post so you are not “too autistic” for morals. Or at least you aren’t against pretending you have them when they suit your argument.
You are now just embracing “might makes right” now that the elderly childless suckers got their pension’s rug pulled because otherwise its too financially inconvenient.
Can you start talking about the economics part of the subject. We’re one of the highest taxed countries in the world. Taxes and social transfers are genius to offer a trampoline for social mobility.
Childless pensioned people don’t need a trampoline. They just need to slowly end up with no money at the end of their lives. They need basic necessities, but nothing more. If they want more than that then they better have saved up some money.
If I can give my kid a house, outright. Then I can also just afford retirement if I did not have a child.
Why would I need to have a retirement equal to someone else that couldn’t put their money in real estate or stoxx 600 europe or gold or whatever just because they had to buy more consumption goods and services for their child?
Parents produce a productive entity. Why shouldn’t they be financially rewarded for this?
Please, limit yourself to economics only. I do not care about anything else in this thread.
If we have to pay too much money on oldies that didn’t have kids, then we cannot afford to have children. Then the country keeps having an aging population. Vicious cycle.
Economic sustainability is important.
I’m rich enough, this is not about me. This is about the future of the country.