Is Germany being unreasonable? Childfree adults paying more for elder care

[Fauxlein]

"Childfree adults to pay more in elder care contributions — report
According to a report from German media group RND, federal Health Minister Nina Warken has prepared a draft bill that would have adults without children pay a higher percentage of taxes towards publicly-funded elder care.
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.
Under the proposal, all adults over the age of 23 who are working full-time would be affected.
It is unclear when Warken, a member of Chancellor Friedrich Merz's center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), will submit the draft to the cabinet. Her ministry had originally said it would present a proposal for elder care reform in mid-May. With a long-stagnating birthrate mildly buoyed by immigration, Germany needs to act fast to make sure older generations can be taken care of without placing an undue burden on young people."

YABU - German Health Minister is being unreasonable, it's not kids responsibility to look after elderly parents and is unfair to penalise child free people
YANBU - this seems like a fair counterbalance to increasing costs to the state of elder care

This is an excellent point.

Many adult children either don't or cannot care for their aging parents. And adults who don't have children aren't using any services for those non-existent children, yet are still paying into the system to support those services. Is it better for society if people have more children? Yes, but this doesn't seem the way to encourage it. I think it's unfair.

Today's children will provide many things for the elderly, not just care: literally every single thing, big and small, that an elderly person consumes will be provided by someone else's child. Food, maintenance of roads and the electricity network etc., clothing, car and house repairs, television, the Internet etc. etc. You don't need to be in care or in hospital to need someone else's child's services! This is why the argument "I'm childfree, so shouldn't be paying for schools etc." is invalid.

I suppose it might be good IFF tied to a guarantee of better support if you are childfree and more responsibility if you are one of the children. In reality it's not going to do that though - the tax is going to be based on a statistical likelihood of people needing care, and of children providing care for those that do, not whether or not they actually do. I don't think I agree with tax being used like that vs being universal. That said, maybe an opt in to pay for extra insurance somehow, for childfree people and for those who want to reduce the future burden on adult children, could be good for individuals and a country, perhaps? That's sort of what they're saying this tax is, but with no choice.

Massive eye roll at the pp's description of children as chuff monkeys though - my sympathy towards childfree people with that level of disdain for other humans ran out years ago when I read them writing like that on Usenet (before I had children myself).

Also, when people pay taxes towards eg education they get the benefit of living in a society with an educated workforce, whether or not they have children themselves. Similarly, paying for the care of childfree people even if you have children yourself is part of living in a stable society where people feel safe and invested in the community.

Perhaps not but a lot of people's kids will. You wouldn't design a policy around a minority. That wouldn't make any sense. You create policies that are in line with current trends. Eg. People not having kids because it's too expensive => create a policy that makes it less expensive to incentivise it.

Over the age of 23? That's steep.

I don't like the idea of this but I see there is already differing tax rates for those with more children.

It is interesting and it also highlights that the claims of child free people that they typically take up less of the nation’s resources by not taking up educational places etc are often unfounded.

Although I always reject that anyway as it’s like someone who always takes the train/ tram saying “oh well I don’t use the roads so why should I pay for them?”

People without children already pay tax towards all other people children re education, transport, medical etc.

The child-free adults have been paying for the education, health care etc of other people's children, so it seems very unfair on the face of it.

But alot of gay people do, sometimes by adoption but not always.

I was going to say this. Being gay does not mean not having your own children!

They have a very different society where intergenerational living is far more common than here.
Fundamentally I don’t like the idea. Taxing people for not having children. Like some sort of punishment.
Give it time and that rate will be tapered. Only two children and you pay more tax than someone with three.
Not nice.

You also have the situation where someone who has paid a shed load of tax but has no children being charged more than someone who has paid less and has had many.

I think you need to look at kids as your pension. The more there are, the more you will get back. We all pay towards educating them equally. Then most parents pay countless thousands to feed, clothe and entertain them which, hopefully, leads to them becoming contributing citizens in the future. Kids are really expensive. If every parent could put what they spend on their kids in a bank account for their retirement, there would be no need for state assistance.

It’s highly unreasonable but with the panic behind birth rates it was not long before countries started punishing people for the “crime” of not having children.

So the involuntarily childless face double punishment.

Why are kids my pension? I am the one funding my pension?

It's already the case that childless people pay extra tax to cover care needs here in Germany. I pay 32,12€ a month extra on a good salery so it's not going to persuade people to have children. Although we have very generous incentives in other ways.The system is totally different to the UK. The state funds most of the care home fees. If you still can't afford it your aldult children can be made to contibute.

I think this is short-sighted. An extra percent of tax on your income versus paying to raise a child is incomparable.

Why not everybody equally? (And having children does not stop you being reliant on the state for care when elderly)

People who were once children pay tax towards the health, education etc. of people who are currently children. That's the pattern that repeats.

Who the current children belong to and whether the taxpayers have children themselves is not the most important thing here from the point of view of giving us a well educated and healthy community and workforce.

It’s not short sighted. You seem to think people without children all chose that. So it is punishing people for not having children.

Not your state pension. The younger generations pay for the older ones. That's how it works. If there's no one to pay it, it won't exist to give it to you. You pay taxes to pay for the elderly. When you are elderly, someone needs to be there to pay for you.

Lots of people in state care have children they never see.

Lots of childfree people are supported by nieces / nephews and other family. You are being simplistic. And the reasons people don’t have children are so complex this will not be an incentive.

All that said, I hate the idea of my kids being saddled with my care in old age, especially as elder care often comes when their own children are just leaving home, and would rather pay.

It really isn't. I nearly never had a child. It cost me 60,000 to have one and she'll be my one and only. I was pretty sure I wouldn't be a mother 3 years ago but still held these opinions. Everyone needs to be involved in paying for what society needs. Either pay for it through paying to raise a child who will generate income for the state or pay for it (in far lesser amounts) through tax.
I'm obviously not talking about people who raise kids at the state's expense. That's entirely different.