7 ms·
Germany news: Childfree adults to pay more for elder care
- Ancalagon 5mo agoWow, once again older generations pulling up the ladder on advantages they had that no longer exist for younger generations.
- Analemma_ 5mo agoThe final fuck you from the Boomers will be that they will be dying en masse just as the consequences of their behavior really start to bite and it is no longer possible for anyone else to have what they did.
- mc32 5mo agoMakes sense since they don’t produce future taxpayers. They should also adjust retirement age based on life expectancy -of course people won’t like this but you can’t overcome the math. Separately, I also think airfare should be in part based on weight.
- hobofan 5mo agoChildless people have a shorter life expectancy by ~2 years. So if we unsocalize the cost and base it on that factor, people with children should be paying more as they are a strain on the system for longer.
- mc32 5mo agoFair. They need to calculate the numbers and come out with fair payouts. Naively it would seem individuals (children) pay more in taxes than it takes to cover two years.
- skeledrew 5mo agoThat would be counterproductive, as then there would be less incentive to have children, and the fertility rate is already in the tank as is.
- jonhohle 5mo agoTwo years ago I was booked for a flight with my wife and four kids. I would say the average of all 6 of us at the time was about 85lbs. Not only that, but because we have to fit in a vehicle with all of our stuff, we pack light, at most one roll-aboard each. The plane was overweight so they were choosing reservations to involuntary bump to the next day and of course we were selected. No amount of reason mattered; if they bumped us based on an “average weight”, they’d be no better off than when they started.
- wadim 5mo agoShould people with disabled children pay even more, since they not only fail to produce future taxpayers, but are also a huge burden on the social system? What if your children die before even paying a single cent into the system? People with jobs/hobbies with a high risk of being taken out of the workforce? People with genetic diseases? Or just go straight to the root of the issue: anyone above 60, who can't even dress themselves, we get rid of. We should really gamify the system as much as possible to make it fun for everyone involved.
- mc32 5mo agoThere’s a difference between childless by choice and childlessness because of natural infertility, etc. presumably the parents didn’t choose their children to be burdens and so we’d chalk that up to statistical probability.
- wadim 5mo agoHow do you know they didn't? Some people don't want to screen for birth defects or check for compatibility between themselves. They don't do all preventative measures, don't use gene-editing therapies or do harmful things like drinking and smoking while being pregnant.
- jxhcbu 5mo agoSomeone hasnt heard of Goodharts Law.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- bushwart 5mo agoStill a draft bill, nothing final yet.
- bpodgursky 5mo agoEvery rapidly aging country (most of them) will need to either do something like this, or deal with a total collapse of social services.
- dude250711 5mo agoWhat about redistribution of housing and readjustment of older pensions?
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- enachtry 5mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
- azan_ 5mo agoNo, the solution is increasing pension age. Funneling money from young to elderly is the opposite of solution.
- bpodgursky 5mo agoI mean sure, but that's even less likely to happen.
- azan_ 5mo agoI don't think so. I believe that there will be some kind of breaking point and young people will just refuse to provide luxurious space communism for pensioners.
- ravenstine 5mo agoBecause the elders haven't extracted enough wealth from younger generations? Because economics has nothing to do with people choosing not to have kids? I'm picturing Germany as Sideshow Bob walking right into another rake.
- hn_throwaway_99 5mo agoI'm a childfree adult, and this proposed bill makes perfect sense to me. I see it not as incentivizing people to have kids, but instead as a way to more fairly spread the burden as populations age. I can easily understand that if everyone went my route (i.e. no kids) that society would collapse by definition, and my later years would be inherently miserable. I'm depending on others that do have kids (and sacrificed a lot in their 20s, 30s and 40s, a sacrifice I was not willing to make) so I can pay for medical and aged care when I'm old. So paying a slight amount more for this support seems highly reasonable to me.
- fabianholzer 5mo ago> I'm picturing Germany as Sideshow Bob walking right into another rake. Speaking as a German with children: Completely apt image. Yet I would name several dozen of policies that are more serious "rakes in your face" than this. This is merely squeezing a little bit more out of the working population. Everyone knows that social security in the current state is a Ponzi scheme and what ever is collected is immediately redistributed.
- myrmidon 5mo agoThere's a bunch of criticism, but this is in my view the only general approach that makes sense (globally) and should have been done 50 years ago already. IMO a big factor for the whole sub-replacement fertility in developed nations (and resulting demographic problems) is that the state has invalidated/replaced all the economical gain that families got from children (cheap "workers" and elder care), but the chld-related costs to families have only increased. Society gains massively from future workers/tax payers, but economical incentives are not aligned at all; children cost their parents a lot, society reaps all the benefits, but does not compensate parents enough economically.
- lokar 5mo agoSociety pays a lot for children as well. Including members without children.
- dude250711 5mo agoE.g. they have "free" higher education in Germany isn't it? Maybe not even just for domestic students?
- lokar 5mo agoI know a big factor in Korea is social relationships between the genders (expectations about housework, childcare, etc). The current arrangements are not attractive to many women. How is it in Germany? I would guess better
- em-bee 5mo agonot much. the reality is that women still take a hit on their potential careers and income, and are expected to do most of the childcare work. another problem that i see not only in germany is that men are not trusted with children or being capable of doing housework. also on the attractiveness for women, germany being less traditional means that more women are willing to break traditions, so even if the situation there is better for them, women are still less interested, which means the effect in the end is the same.
- sieste 5mo agoThis is very cruel towards people who want to have children but can't.
- JCTheDenthog 5mo agoThey can always adopt?
- handedness 5mo agoThe adoption process is incredibly broken. Prospective adoptive parents need to assume a difficult years-long process with no guarantee of placement, mid to high five-figures expenses or more (prohibitive for the average non-FAANG Americans), assume major undisclosed and significantly heritable mental health disorders, assume undisclosed in-utero substance exposure requiring challenging and costly care, and be aware of revocation periods up to one year in length. I've seen people exhaust themselves financially after many years of trying only to be told by agencies they were now above the age limit. I've seen people learn later of a family history of not just Cluster C or even B disorders, but A. I've seen revocation on the last day of eligibility at the one year mark. International agencies are notorious for not disclosing previously diagnosed FAS, drug exposure, autism, and other major medical issues to the receiving stateside agency a consistent problem adopting out of Eastern Europe, especially. Too many good homes who would love to adopt are being put off of the process. We need major adoption reform so eligible parents have a relatively smooth process they can trust.
- skeledrew 5mo agoFix the process in light of the other necessary changes.
- JCTheDenthog 5mo agoIn what way? Here in the US it takes too long and costs too much, but there are lots of charities that assist with this. Otherwise it's fairly straightforward. I say this as someone dealing with fertility issues and in the process of pursuing adoption myself.
- faangguyindia 5mo agoRemember we borrow from future.
- bwestergard 5mo ago"The bill would have contributions from childfree adults increase by 0.7% over a period of years, meaning they would pay 2.5% of their income each month. Their employer will be expected to pay 1.8%. For adults with children the rates will remain the same: 1.8% for people with one child, 1.55% for people with two children, and 1.3% for people with three or more children." I don't have children and this doesn't seem inherently unfair to me. It's an acknowledgement of the care labor these households are doing. That said, I'd prefer to see it be progressive by income as well. A couple without children in the bottom income decile shouldn't be paying more than a couple with children in the top income decile.
- outside2344 5mo agoSo the plan is to make the cost of living even more expensive for people without kids? Do they understand the problem in the first place? Many people can't afford to have kids.
- suddenlybananas 5mo agoThe point is to incentivize people to have kids.
- nekzn 5mo agoThey could make not having kids more expensive than having them and I still wouldn’t have them. Most people I know with kids can’t afford them and still have them. And most people I know with money don’t have them. In a way it seems wealth is inversely correlated to having kids. It’s not about money, it’s about having interesting stuff to do with your life, and having the education to know what a terrible economic decision it is to have kids.
- matchbok3 5mo agoWhat does "afford" mean in these cases? Do the kids have clothes? Food? Vacation?
- nekzn 5mo agoThat’s as if, in a conversation about the necessity of owning a car to buy groceries, you asked whether being able to afford a car means owning a Toyota or a Maserati.
- lostmsu 5mo ago> it’s about having interesting stuff to do with your life This is the conclusion I came to as well. I do have kids. So I wholly agree with the sibling comment "compromise on lifestyle"
- kiviuq 5mo agoThe Bundeswehr needs human supplies
- strathmeyer 5mo ago[dead]
- pesus 5mo agoI wonder if we'll eventually see a backlash as population growth continues slowing. In a society composed largely of old people being supported financially (and otherwise) by the younger people, it would be very possible for the younger people to decide they're simply tired of spending their lives subsiding the old people who just put the burden on them instead of fixing the system.
- matchbok3 5mo agoThis is a challenging topic to discuss because (rightly) it's very personal. Sadly the fact of the matter is this: we need more children and young people to keep society functioning (and continually improve our quality of life). There is no other known way. So unfortunately the "free rider" problem needs to be addressed somehow. Of course, the "cruel" part is how it affects those who either can't have children, are gay, etc. I'm not sure how to work through that.
- dude250711 5mo agoDo you mean something like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany-law-men-up-to-45-military-permission-long-stays-abroad https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/05/uproar-germany... But aimed at childless women? To balance things out a bit?
- x3ro 5mo agoIf you want people to have children make it an attractive life choice, or even a viable option. A centrally located apartment in a desirable city with the space to house a family of 3-4 is out of reach for a very large part of the population, financially. That’s _before_ you even consider all of the other costs of having children. Meanwhile our chancellor talks of 70h+ work weeks, while spending hundreds of billions on special military budgets, and also cutting health care funding..
- guruide 5mo agoI’m not sure why a central location or a desirable city would be required? If that is more important than having children to someone, by all means, they should make those choices. But if they really want children, like I dreamed of since I was a teenager, then accepting a less costly living arrangement and lifestyle seems like a trivial sacrifice. I sometimes would rather live in a more expensive area, but I definitely would not trade any of my 4 children in order to do that.
- em-bee 5mo agoyou are willing to make that tradeoff, but not everyone is. and as the goal is to get more people to have children, we need to make it more attractive. you want parents to be able to live in the same desirable places as childless couples. and especially as the kids get older, they want to live in the places where other young people live, and where all the action is. that tends to be in the city centers.
- mikef25 5mo agoAs a resident of Germany: I have two kids and would do anything for them, but from a financial point of view, you're way better off without kids in Germany, even if you have to pay these "extra fees". The public pension has already been higher for years for anybody without children.
- hollow-moe 5mo agobasically "you WILL have children so ours can have slaves to exploit (and if you don't we'll just exploit you more now)", lol, lmao even
- azan_ 5mo agoAh yes, let’s funnel more money to pensioners!
- halifaxbeard 5mo agoDo children that are the product of sexual assault count?
- recurseP 5mo agoThis is very unfair for people that cannot have children. On one side we have the people that can't for biology reasons, on the other those who don't have the economic stability to support a functional family. Also, adopting costs can be very high so it is not an option for many. I won't definitely be voting political parties promoting these measures. There must be other ways.
- bwestergard 5mo agoThanks for drawing attention to cases of involuntary childlessness. I'm not sure I agree that it is unfair, I'd need to give it more thought. My initial reaction is that there are all sorts of burdens that we want to incentivize people to take on that not everyone can take on, through no fault of their own. For example, we want people to serve in the military, and we provide all sorts of benefits to people who do, but some people are unable to join the military through no fault of their own (e.g. they are blind).
- nonninz 5mo agoAn excellent, apolitical(*) video from Kurzgesagt about the current situation in Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-gYFcVx-8Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-gYFcVx-8Y It explains how we got there, the problems we are facing, the problems inherent to the proposed/possible solutions, etc. (*) as in, they really try hard to stay neutral on the topic until the end, in the clearly marked conclusions and opinion section.
- Timon3 5mo agoUnfortunately, this video isn't as apolitical as you are saying. I happened to watch this response recently, IMO it's very well argued: https://youtu.be/UjmsfOXy5oM https://youtu.be/UjmsfOXy5oM
- josefritzishere 5mo agoThe alternative is to increase immigration, which is a giant glowing "easy" button that will solve 100% of problems with domestic fecundity. re: birthrates.
- jillesvangurp 5mo agoFor reference, health insurance + care insurance is super expensive in Germany already (compared to most European countries) and both insurances are mandatory and generally combined. But the system is also super inefficient so a lot of the money is simply wasted on bureaucratic nonsense, making insurers rich, pointless referrals between "specialists" to make them rich, etc. The system actively stimulates waste, if you are privately insured, you get preferential treatment. Which means that if you aren't you get treated like dirt. I've been both private and public insured. I've experienced both. My own country the Netherlands got rid of the private/public distinction. Everybody is insured via a private insurer. They can't reject patients and patients are allowed to switch insurer up to once a year. Insurers also work with health care providers to make sure money is spent more efficiently. Meaning hospitals can't just offload their inefficiencies onto insurers. And insurers can't just offload that onto patients. Because the patients switch to the insurers with the best relation ships with healthcare providers and the best deal. They all have to provide the same base coverage but you can insure for stuff on top of that. The Dutch system also has its flaws and deficiencies. But my parents together pay much less than me by myself in Germany. And as far as I can see from their recent experiences, they are well looked after. It seems the Dutch system has a lot less bureaucratic nonsense, better information sharing, more modern hospitals, etc. It also has underpaid nurses, issues with some types of medication not getting covered, and a few other issues. But compared to the expensive German mess; much better. Germany is mainly legislating to kick the can down the road instead of addressing any of it's structural economic issues: a government bureaucracy that stifles innovation rather than promoting it, a pension system that is essentially a underfunded slow moving train wreck at this point, broken physical and energy infrastructure that will take decades to fix, and a hopelessly inefficient health care system.
- pibaker 5mo agoI am increasingly of the opinion that you can either be eligible to vote, or collect pension, but not both at the same time. By the time you start collecting pension, you have effectively ousted yourself from economic production. And unlike a 20yo still in college and not contributing to the economy yet, you don't have 50 more years of your life to worry about. This effectively means it is safe for you to support any short term extractive policies without ever worrying about the longer term consequences. And demonstrably, this is how pensioners vote — I get to keep my pension, you get to pay more tax. And no we won't let you build any more housing for your beautiful children, we want this town to stay the way it was in 1970. Please come wipe my ass for $15 an hour. And no, don't let people who are actually willing to work that job for that pay immigrate into the country. It's a bunch of feel good policies with insolvable contradictions. Buy because they will not live long enough to feel the backlash, they vote on.
- Ekaros 5mo ago[dead]
- qurren 5mo ago> By the time you start collecting pension, you have effectively ousted yourself I disagree. The vast majority of jobs are difficult to work at old age and with medical conditions that typically come with old age. As long as we value keeping people alive for their natural lifespan (I hope we do), then our base assumption needs to be that we every time we pay someone we need to pay them $1 for now and $1 for their retirement. Approximately 1:1 because the actually-productive working age is ~25-65 and the retirement age is ~65-105. Investment returns are never guaranteed, and shouldn't be factored into that. We're hiring people here, not robots.
- soco 5mo agoAnd before that difficulty to perform the work, it's also that willing elderly won't even be considered for a job. I mean even if the job is pure intellectual job, you hear reasons like "oh 10 years only until retirement they won't invest in our culture" - while at the same time the company attrition is 20%. Pure prejudice. Also not allowing for part time jobs, another prejudice "oh they aren't fully focused on us" and mandatory office presence "oh they will do nothing if I don't watch them". We have a doomed system if we can't work on those solutions which would definitely solve, or at least push back a serious while, the current demographic imbalance. But prejudices are probably more difficult to address than passing a law... try to force any of the above and you'll immediately have the right-wing all over you for "removing muh freedoms" and such.
- amai 5mo agoFake kids incoming in three, two, one ...
- fabianholzer 5mo agoThis is nothing particularly new. People above a certain age without kids are paying a higher percentage from their income into the social security since 2005 when Gerhard Schröder was chancellor, and that's more than twenty years ago. What this proposal would change is the concrete percentage. Currently 4.2%, 4.7% if it were enacted.
- karussell 5mo agoTwo important things for this discussion: 1. the difference for the (public) elder care (Pflegeversicherung) is already there: a fee of 2.4% vs. 1.8% with kids (or much less with more kids). And it was now proposed to slightly increase the fee to 2.5%, i.e. +0.1%. But as it was recently increased several times (nearly every year) this is a strange suggestion and looks helpless. 2. this small increase (<1 billion €) does not fix the existing financial gap of approx 4 billions. The gap will increase a lot for the next years.
- casey2 5mo agoGood. But I'd also like to see corporations punished for bias towards Childfree people. If you don't have a child your labor is equivalent to child labor.