Europe
News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
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!
No, it's an absolutely horrible solution. It's yet another tax to the average Joe, playing out people with and without children against each other, while the rich continue to hoard more and more wealth, draining everyone else dry. The government is planning to reduce the benefits of parents at the very same time, so their goal is most certainly not some fairness or balance between parents and non-parents, they just fuck everyone over for the benefit of a few rich elites.
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.
It seems unfair to impose a tax on someone for physical traits they have no control over. I donβt 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 canβt 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 isnβt a market crash at the beginning of your retirement.
But people who get kids already receive various financial benefits from the state in many countries. But it is usually framed as giving them money, instead of taking from everyone else. In the Netherlands you literally get money per child.
So if I were to reframe this tax as: "people with children get a tax deduction on their pensions", nobody would bet an eye, as similar benefits are already in place for them. But where does that money come from? Right; Tax payers. So, to give people with children a tax deduction, everyone else needs to pay more. Financially, you end up in the same situation as what is proposed here.
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.