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

Ridiculous proposal. How do you prove someone doesnt have children? Do you have to submit a form, what if you have kids but don't see them? Why not tax families with children for polluting, they use more resources and take up housing. Such a nonsense proposal.

I'll admit that it upsets me. I'm childless, not childfree. I cared for my parents and my late husband. There was no input from DH's adult children, though I guess the argument might be that they contributed to the economy of the country.

I worked as a secondary school teacher for more than 40 yrs. I did try for children of my own but was punched in the stomach whilst I was pregnant - by one of my teenage pupils.

I used my income to help provide for my parents and my husband and I'm trying to arrange my affairs so that I won't be a burden.

The thought of being penalised for something that isn't my fault stings a bit.

My next door neighbour has two adult sons who don't officially work. (One used to; the other never has.) The sons aren't disabled, unless you count a liking for drink and drug dependency as disabilities. One of the sons has two teenagers who appear to be going the same way as their father.

They're not contributing to my well-being through tax. If anything, it's the other way round.

They ignore though some of us without children actually save the state money. I don’t have children and would have to be a single mother requiring large amounts of state support to have had children. They never consider that in their calculations or when they demonise people for not having children.

They also ignore many of us will have to pay above the odds for private care so why should we be penalised extra for state support we don’t use?

You are except from paying as soon as you have a child. It dosen't matter where the child lives or even if they are alive.

First so sorry all this happened to you.

Secondly:

The thought of being penalised for something that isn't my fault stings a bit.

This is how I feel too. I am essentially being punished for something out of my control.

It would be like charging single people more for elder care contribution.

It also ignores all the things we fund that we will never access (schools, childcare) thus leaving more money available for parents.

Many will never be able to have a child.

They don't pay the extra tax. Not paying for your children isn't easy unless you don't work in which case you don't pay tax!

It's hard to comment as I have little knowledge of the German tax system, its approach to elder care, or the nuances of their economy.

In principle I don't disagree that families should care for each other as much as possible and not rely on the govt to pay for them, but it's clearly not a one-size-fits-all and comes with problems.

So I suppose I'm not theoretically averse to it given that those who don't have children are more likely to need govt funds to pay for them in old age. Whether or not it's actually fair though is impossible to say without having a more detailed knowledge of Germany and their social system.

I'll add that such a rule penalises women more than men. I was in my 30s when I married, so I'll concede that my age might have contributed towards my childless state. What are women supposed to do? Grab a man from the streets?

A man can avoid penalties by becoming a father later in life...

I dare say the next stage would be as suggested by JD Vance that childless women ( women only mind) are not allowed to vote. As apparently the thinking is they have no part to play in the future of the country.
That is where such policies travel.

Loads of men skip out on maintenance.

I think this idea is outrageous. Having children is bad for the environment and no country should be encouraging people to have more - or worse, punishing them for not having any.

Quite apart from the fact that some people can't have children. And what happens if your child dies before you do?

Well I don’t have children and because of the available time I have I provide tonnes of care for my elderly parents, neighbour and godparents, all of whom are only still at home because I and a few others are able to help them out. On the face of it, being effectively penalised for not having children to care for me when my time comes seems grossly unfair!

It's hard to comment reasonably in isolation without understanding the rest of the German social care framework, law and taxes.

As someone with a passing knowledge I'd throw in Elternunerhault, a provision in the German system that passes on some of the financial costs of supporting an elderly parent in care back to the children. It applies to children with incomes over €100k and, unusually for Germany, excludes the spouse's income.

What you highlight is a proposed increase in the cost childless couples already pay. The original legislation came in just as our third round of ICSI had failed, oh how I laughed.

Although the timing was unfortunate for us I don't disagree with the levy.

Then they will be subject to the same rule. Have kids to help give you care in your dotage or pay more so the state provides it. Makes sense to me.

It seems a very blunt tool.

My ex has 7 children (that I know of) - 2 with me and 5 with later partners - and he sees none of them. He had to be forced into paying by CMS. My two girls with him are working and paying tax, but through no help from him. They’ve not seen him for many years.

If it’s purely to reward him for having children then it works in his case, however if it’s in expectation that someone with children will need less state care then it’ll not work at all in his case. His children won’t care for him, and he won’t fund care from inheritance because his parents have disowned him because of his behaviour.

They are definitely going to ramp up the state targetting of childless people and it will only get worse as birth rates continue to fall.

And as they cannot possibly distinguish childfree from childless a lot of people will face a double punishment: the sadness of childlessness, and then financial penalties for being unable to have children.

I'd say it's more about raising kids than having them.

You dont pay for 'other people's chuff monkeys' because children aren't possessions that belong to their parents! This is a ridiculous view that a lot of people seem to hold. Your contributions pay for the children WHO ARE PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN RIGHT just as others paid for you as a child. HTH.

fewer

I wouldn't worry about that. AI or climate change or both will take out the human race before today's babies reach old age.

And if it doesn't we'll have robots.

Thanks @Mumsntfan1 , that's really relevant and throws the whole thread into a new light.

Every single person? That feels anomalous to me. I'm currently involved in caring for my DM, but not many of my peers have done the same.

It's very easy to check with our tax system. You don't prove that somebody does not have a child. The person proves that they do by applying for tax credits/medical insurance etc.

Conversely those without children have not consumed education, early-years medical care etc and other state supported elements such as childcare.

Yes they have. When they wwre children. They would have had their education and healthcare costs paid for just as todays children do.