4 ms·
The real reason this is “bad” is because the policy actually being implemented is, as the GP comment demonstrates, to get women into the workforce. This require
by jtbayly 1y ago
The real reason this is “bad” is because the policy actually being implemented is, as the GP comment demonstrates, to get women into the workforce. This requires the goal to be getting them out of the home away from their children. Thus, you must relatively penalize mothers who stay home and care for their children, which is what this policy does. Of course, it is worse for children, worse for families, worse for mothers, worse for just about everything except “business.”
Edit to add: It is only better for the business and the economy short term, because ultimately it results in a lower birth rate and below replacement level fertility is the main problem we currently have for the near-future economy
- stickfigure 1y agoYou're reading waaaay too much into this. Nobody is getting penalized, this is a crab bucket mentality.
- mothballed 1y agoYes they are. If you stay at home you now pay an additional tax on top of everything else.
- stickfigure 1y agoNobody's being targeted for additional tax. But correct, benefits aren't being spread evenly across the population. That's how pretty much all social benefits work. Hell, think about how childless people must feel about this. Or the child tax credit. Nothing is "perfectly fair", but sometimes public policy is good enough.
- mothballed 1y agoChildless people are getting the best deal of anyone. They get new social security payers with a better invested upbringing, all for paying out a pittance and offloading most of the cost onto parents -- all the meanwhile having their social security payout almost completely untied to making the investments needed to get their payment. Childless people basically get their cake and eat it too under the social welfare scheme of most western countries, getting the benefits of children without having to deal with much of the drawbacks.
- stickfigure 1y ago[flagged]
- mothballed 1y agoYou don't pay "into" social security. You pay up. The people you paid are dead and won't be returning your money. Yours will be funded by now-children. That investment lies by far on parents, with some pittances paid into property taxes for schools or low-income welfare programs.
- stickfigure 1y agoIrrespective of how it technically works, the fairness principle is "you paid in therefore you are paid out". Childless people aren't getting a better or worse deal than anyone else.
- mothballed 1y agoBut you are missing the inputs. Social security requires two inputs 1) "Paying in" 2) Raising up the next generation to pay it back out. Without both, the entire system collapses and goes insolvent. If I do (1) but barely do (2) I am subsidized by the people that do both (1) and (2), if my payout isn't linked to (2). The genius of social security argument about the childless "paying in" is they rightly identify their pay out is fairly proportional to (1) but nearly completely decoupled to (2). Thus it poses an argument on the surface that makes sense but is actually incredibly false.
- stickfigure 1y agoAs long as population holds constant, it doesn't matter who does/doesn't have kids. Some people have more, some people have fewer, some people immigrate. It all works out in the end. Childless people pay into the system like everyone else. They aren't freeloaders. As a parent myself I find this kind of savior complex incredibly embarrassing. We have kids, great. I'm glad our government offers tax benefits, services, and an immigration process to encourage population stability. But let's not pretend we're Atlas holding the nation on our shoulders.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- xorcist 1y agos/women/men/g and do you still think your argument holds?