I mean, the difference is expectation. If you live in a country where you are expecting to get a pension and they rug pull on you last minute obviously you were spending on the basis of that expectation and are now doomed to misery and homelessness in old age due to no fault of their own.
Further, some countries wages and cost of living make retiring nearly impossible, child or no. But I guess that’s a separate concern.
The primary reason I don’t have a kid might be because of my ideology, but even if I was a pro-natalist I’d not dare have a kid unless I wanted drop into poverty. The US doesn’t give a fuck.
The median net wealth in my country is 250k euros per adult. We spend A LOT on pension. We have an aging population.
More old people, fewer young people.
These people have enough money. They chose not to have kids, that caused them to have more money in the end.
Them getting the exact same pension as my dad, who spent a lot of money on keeping me and my brother alive, while also paying a lot of taxes = unfair.
I don’t want to pay for it. Where are their kids that could help me with producing the goods and services needed to support the elderly? They don’t exist.
I much prefer to invest in immigrants than the elderly that willingly chose this situation
I mean, your morals here makes no sense to me. You are selectively ignoring some things.
Your father owed you. You did not choose to even exist, he and your mother ripped you into existence without your consent. The bare minimum is to try and pay back such an unpayable debt by providing you a good life.
The older people who choose not to have children don’t have that debt burden. They do not owe you or your father anything. They also did not choose to be born and do not deserve to suffer because they chose not to breed and kick the can of our meaningless existence down the road.
That said, those older people still contributed to society in their youth with their labor. Had they not done so your country would be worse or less developed. They labored under the expectation that they’d receive a certain amount of retirement via their pensions.
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.
That’s not how a proper pension is structured, and given we’ve hard far more dependents per worker in modern history than is possible with a declining birth rate it’ll be economically fine.
I’m putting what money I save by not having kids into my retirement fund. Compound interest ftw. I’ll hopefully be able to pay someone else’s kid to take care of me if/when need be.
Bonus: I don’t have to worry about navigating a child through the current American political environment. I’m worried enough about my elderly dog and normal-aged partner.
I’m also saving that money by having kids. But I’m also trying to spend my life facing hard things and enduring difficulty. Then when I no longer have the faculties to care for myself, I’ll walk into the wilderness and become one with the landscape again. Seems more stylish than getting my ass wiped by someone else for years.
My aunt is in her 70s and still traveling the world, very active. She’s visiting Japan last I checked. She and her husband are signed up to move into assisted living in a few years, which seems a gentle way to start slowing down.
I hope I take after her and not grandma-on-the-other-side: surprise dementia in her, iirc, 60s. Didn’t seem to bother her. Bothered the fuck out of everyone around her.
You don’t understand, we have literally voted to lower the pensions right now. The oldies striked. Nobody cared. You can’t strike to get a pension dummy, we’re forcing you to keep working. Young people aren’t striking.
I’ll pay for my dad’s needs. Not for the ones that didn’t have kids.
That’s because I do not give a fuck about the people that caused the aging population.
Yeah you really don’t want a large population of people with nothing to lose start realizing they’ve nothing to lose. Striking, in the modern world, doesn’t exist. Picket lines and stopping work isn’t striking. Blowing up police stations and openly killing government and corporate employees is striking.
All populations eventually get to that point if mistreated.
Revolutions are done by young people. If the large part of society with nothing to lose are the oldies, then they’ll just… Die
Being able to kill 100 oldies is like bragging that you can kill toddlers.
In Indonesia there’s barely any pension. But they don’t have an aging population. The kids take care of their parents. Let’s go back to that. It seems to force people to make better decisions.
Barely any pension, but that’s fine because they have kids to take care of them.
This sounds nice, except for when you think of it for more than a few seconds.
How would a homosexual couple survive while they’re old? They can’t have kids. They can adopt, but that does nothing to enlarge the population. What about people that can’t conceive for medical reasons? Should they have to suffer with “barely any pension” just because they got unlucky? This might be fine for most, but policies like that come at the expense of minority groups, which are already often at a disadvantage.
And if you suggest adoption… If having kids is the only way to have a decent life after retiring, adopting would be an easy choice, because it saves you the pregnancy hassle as well as maybe some stressful first years of childcare. Surely the demand for adoptions would skyrocket, making it close to impossible for every person in a group that can’t have children to actually get them. Also, since kids are so valuable, supply for adoptions would fall, because who in their right mind would give up their pension that easily!
And let’s say a couple can and does have children because of the policy. In your mind they might have been ‘forced to make a better decision’, but ultimately ended up with the right choice, right? Have you considered that having kids might not be a healthy choice for a couple? Maybe the parents are just not cut out for the stress and suffer greatly while their kids grow up. Maybe the kids suffer as well, because a parent that is forced to have kids would hardly be a loving and enthusiastic parent, would they? You’d have to admit that forcing people into a choice is not exactly a good recipe for ensuring that they are happy, right?
Moving the financial burden of taking care of the elderly to an individual level works fine for some people, like your granddad enjoying your financial support, but greatly hurts people in different circumstances that they have no fault to be in. We should support everyone, not just a few lucky ones.
It’s wild to me that you’re equating having children with doing effort in your life. These people were supporting you in your choices too! They were paying taxes, maybe they were open to babysitting because they had no children of their own, maybe they financially helped parents within their family that were struggling. You’re kind of suggesting a two-class society, where childless people are off to fend for themselves with minimal support, regardless of what good they might have done in their lives.
It’s like sending firefighters only to houses of other (ex-)firefighters, and letting all other houses burn because they ‘put in no effort’ themselves.
High adoption demand is good for the kids, but not for people relying on kids for their survival at an older age!
Exemptions will always be made for the unable.
Ruminate on that for a second. Think about how a government would determine if you’re unable. If you’re gay, does the government need to see you having sex with a man to be sure? What if a person has e.g. endometriosis and getting pregnant is far more unlikely but not impossible. Were they unable? Or just not trying enough? And what if a person wasn’t even diagnosed but just thought they were unlucky? We’d need a ridiculously thorough health check for every pensioner just to determine one factor in their eligibility.
The old people here are going to have a fun little surprise when they realise the kids they didn’t have aren’t able to pay for their pension 😁
Its called saving for retirement, which is a lot easier when you don’t have a kid to pay for.
Exactly, they don’t need their society to pay for their pension through taxes and social transfers.
They barely had any costs. So they could invest a lot more.
There’s also no need for generational wealth, so they can just consume that.
Personally I am going to give my kid a whole damn house. That’s money I cannot consume because I need to provide our child with a good future.
I mean, the difference is expectation. If you live in a country where you are expecting to get a pension and they rug pull on you last minute obviously you were spending on the basis of that expectation and are now doomed to misery and homelessness in old age due to no fault of their own.
Further, some countries wages and cost of living make retiring nearly impossible, child or no. But I guess that’s a separate concern.
The primary reason I don’t have a kid might be because of my ideology, but even if I was a pro-natalist I’d not dare have a kid unless I wanted drop into poverty. The US doesn’t give a fuck.
The median net wealth in my country is 250k euros per adult. We spend A LOT on pension. We have an aging population.
More old people, fewer young people.
These people have enough money. They chose not to have kids, that caused them to have more money in the end.
Them getting the exact same pension as my dad, who spent a lot of money on keeping me and my brother alive, while also paying a lot of taxes = unfair.
I don’t want to pay for it. Where are their kids that could help me with producing the goods and services needed to support the elderly? They don’t exist.
I much prefer to invest in immigrants than the elderly that willingly chose this situation
I mean, your morals here makes no sense to me. You are selectively ignoring some things.
Your father owed you. You did not choose to even exist, he and your mother ripped you into existence without your consent. The bare minimum is to try and pay back such an unpayable debt by providing you a good life.
The older people who choose not to have children don’t have that debt burden. They do not owe you or your father anything. They also did not choose to be born and do not deserve to suffer because they chose not to breed and kick the can of our meaningless existence down the road.
That said, those older people still contributed to society in their youth with their labor. Had they not done so your country would be worse or less developed. They labored under the expectation that they’d receive a certain amount of retirement via their pensions.
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.
Block the troll ^ and don’t engage
Why? Because it’s an uncomfortable truth?
What’s your argument on why that’s false?
That’s not how a proper pension is structured, and given we’ve hard far more dependents per worker in modern history than is possible with a declining birth rate it’ll be economically fine.
Old people cost less than kids.
I’m putting what money I save by not having kids into my retirement fund. Compound interest ftw. I’ll hopefully be able to pay someone else’s kid to take care of me if/when need be.
Bonus: I don’t have to worry about navigating a child through the current American political environment. I’m worried enough about my elderly dog and normal-aged partner.
I’m also saving that money by having kids. But I’m also trying to spend my life facing hard things and enduring difficulty. Then when I no longer have the faculties to care for myself, I’ll walk into the wilderness and become one with the landscape again. Seems more stylish than getting my ass wiped by someone else for years.
My aunt is in her 70s and still traveling the world, very active. She’s visiting Japan last I checked. She and her husband are signed up to move into assisted living in a few years, which seems a gentle way to start slowing down.
I hope I take after her and not grandma-on-the-other-side: surprise dementia in her, iirc, 60s. Didn’t seem to bother her. Bothered the fuck out of everyone around her.
You don’t understand, we have literally voted to lower the pensions right now. The oldies striked. Nobody cared. You can’t strike to get a pension dummy, we’re forcing you to keep working. Young people aren’t striking.
I’ll pay for my dad’s needs. Not for the ones that didn’t have kids.
That’s because I do not give a fuck about the people that caused the aging population.
My kid needs my tax money instead.
Yeah you really don’t want a large population of people with nothing to lose start realizing they’ve nothing to lose. Striking, in the modern world, doesn’t exist. Picket lines and stopping work isn’t striking. Blowing up police stations and openly killing government and corporate employees is striking.
All populations eventually get to that point if mistreated.
Revolutions are done by young people. If the large part of society with nothing to lose are the oldies, then they’ll just… Die
Being able to kill 100 oldies is like bragging that you can kill toddlers.
In Indonesia there’s barely any pension. But they don’t have an aging population. The kids take care of their parents. Let’s go back to that. It seems to force people to make better decisions.
Barely any pension, but that’s fine because they have kids to take care of them. This sounds nice, except for when you think of it for more than a few seconds. How would a homosexual couple survive while they’re old? They can’t have kids. They can adopt, but that does nothing to enlarge the population. What about people that can’t conceive for medical reasons? Should they have to suffer with “barely any pension” just because they got unlucky? This might be fine for most, but policies like that come at the expense of minority groups, which are already often at a disadvantage. And if you suggest adoption… If having kids is the only way to have a decent life after retiring, adopting would be an easy choice, because it saves you the pregnancy hassle as well as maybe some stressful first years of childcare. Surely the demand for adoptions would skyrocket, making it close to impossible for every person in a group that can’t have children to actually get them. Also, since kids are so valuable, supply for adoptions would fall, because who in their right mind would give up their pension that easily!
And let’s say a couple can and does have children because of the policy. In your mind they might have been ‘forced to make a better decision’, but ultimately ended up with the right choice, right? Have you considered that having kids might not be a healthy choice for a couple? Maybe the parents are just not cut out for the stress and suffer greatly while their kids grow up. Maybe the kids suffer as well, because a parent that is forced to have kids would hardly be a loving and enthusiastic parent, would they? You’d have to admit that forcing people into a choice is not exactly a good recipe for ensuring that they are happy, right?
Moving the financial burden of taking care of the elderly to an individual level works fine for some people, like your granddad enjoying your financial support, but greatly hurts people in different circumstances that they have no fault to be in. We should support everyone, not just a few lucky ones.
I’m opting out of supporting people that did no effort in their lives.
If you’ve been able and chose not to make an effort, then suffer the consequence financially.
Exemptions will always be made for the unable.
Adoption having no supply and a high demand is a good thing for the kids needing to be adopted.
A general pension for everyone sounds great, until you think about it for a few seconds. People stop having kids.
It’s wild to me that you’re equating having children with doing effort in your life. These people were supporting you in your choices too! They were paying taxes, maybe they were open to babysitting because they had no children of their own, maybe they financially helped parents within their family that were struggling. You’re kind of suggesting a two-class society, where childless people are off to fend for themselves with minimal support, regardless of what good they might have done in their lives. It’s like sending firefighters only to houses of other (ex-)firefighters, and letting all other houses burn because they ‘put in no effort’ themselves.
High adoption demand is good for the kids, but not for people relying on kids for their survival at an older age!
Ruminate on that for a second. Think about how a government would determine if you’re unable. If you’re gay, does the government need to see you having sex with a man to be sure? What if a person has e.g. endometriosis and getting pregnant is far more unlikely but not impossible. Were they unable? Or just not trying enough? And what if a person wasn’t even diagnosed but just thought they were unlucky? We’d need a ridiculously thorough health check for every pensioner just to determine one factor in their eligibility.