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

It’s a bit of a minefield I agree. I can see it from both sides though because I had to go through years of unfertility and ivf before I was able to have children.

Before we finally had ivf, I had to go through multiple tests (some quite invasive) while the drs tried to work out why I wasn’t able to get pregnant. It will be all over my medical records and wouldn’t be the sort of thing people would want to go through just so they pay a bit less tax.

That’s only true if you consider that ‘contributing financially to the country’ = paying taxes.

Thats nowhere near the truth.

And that’s without going into the discussion on whether financial contribution is the only way to,assess people’s contribution to the country.

I'm leaving this thread. I'm really happy to pay for kids' education etc even though I'm childless (can't have them, even if I opted to be childfree I would feel the same). Paying taxes for things you don't use is a cornerstone of the welfare state. But this policy - or a version of it - was, genuinely, last mooted in Nazi Germany. And that's pretty worrying. Suggesting people who've undergone failed IVF to "prove" they're infertile is intrusive and so ill-judged.

The way to encourage people to procreate isnt to punish those who don't. We need to look at why people choose not to. There is not enough support-- extra stress, work, finance issues, burden usually on women etc. I also think that just not wanting to be a parent is a valid reason that shouldn't be punished.

What about those who are not child-free by choice, or who are gay and don't want to adopt etc. I can't have kids for medical reasons, should I also be hit with extra tax for that? There are loads of reasons people don't have kids and it isn't fair to tax them more for it.

So you’d have it that women have to go through invasive tests otherwise they’re taxed more?

Of course it’s unfair and punitive. What about people who wanted kids and couldn’t have them? Or the families whose kids just abandon their parents and don’t provide this “free care” you speak of? Or the shit parents that just ditch their kids and don’t want a relationship with them as adults anyway.

It’s not that black and white. Breeding was never stipulated as mandatory.

Yup and let's say we divorce or he dies before me - do I get sanctioned for failing to get knocked up by the postman while I was in my fertile years?

Do they sanction me anyway for having a termination in my twenties (not with DH!) because I could have had a child back then and chose not to?

The Handmaid's Tale all over again.

Only unemployment benefit is linked to what was paid and only for a limited time. This is concidered insurance and not being on benefits.

There's a big old devil in that detail.

Had a termination? Took contraception? Didn't conceive because you hadn't met somebody/they left/you broke up with him because he hit you? Oh, you clearly didn't really want a child after all or you'd have had one already.

I’m horrified at the amount of people on this thread who think it’s a good idea. Handmaids tale indeed - clearly lots of commanders wives here.

Sure @Fauxlein and others- it could sound ‘fair’- but is it?

Will the Minister also be including in that bill rebates for those same individuals who utilise less healthcare- no maternity and child health costs, no state costed education, no local level support, no family linked benefits and no state supported mat leave….. or would that make it that perhaps, shock horror, working child free people are net contributors to country tax systems across their lives? I will await their impact assessment of this!

We do in effect ‘pay more to the state’ we don’t use maternity services, free childcare hours. Schools, child services, free school meals, child benefit…parents get a lot of those things for a similar tax amount. So can I get a tax reduction on these things…wow I never thought nor bring able to have children meant I would have to pay an extra penalty.

It’s not forcing anyone to get pregnant though is it? It’s a tax incentive.

It's short-term sticking plaster politics. I agree it only makes sense if you apply it to all taxes. Why pay for education if you don't have children, why pay for the NHS if you are never ill? Where does it end? It doesn't and it's unworkable

We have seen this problem of care of old people coming down the line for decades and politicians have don't nothing about it. They have allowed immigration to increase to solve this demographic problem and all they have done it introduce even more net beneficiaries of the state.

You’ve got people suggesting I’d have to grant access to my medical records and undergone invasive procedures to stop being financially penalised by the state.

So I have to prove my barren womb wouldn't carry a child to term? No thank you. I don't want to have to fill out a form to prove I longed to have a child but the universe had other ideas. That would indeed be a punishment, to beg that I tried but failed.

I see your point, but no thank you.

Germany are doing something about the cost of elderly care -it’s not fair but they are doing something

childless individuals are already paying for things they never make use of such as daycares which are heavily gov funded. they cost next to nothing to those who utilise them

After I miscarried, I looked into adoption. DH and I were too old for adoption in this country but would have been able to adopt from my father's country in Eastern Europe.

I can't remember specifics now, but the rule was something along the following. If you were of the country's heritage and you could speak the language to an extent, then you were given preference. In terms of age, one member of the couple had to be no more than 46 years older than the child. I recall that at the time, it meant that I could adopt children aged 6 yrs or older.

Dh wasn't keen because of the risks involved - lack of clear info, etc. If I'm being brutally honest with myself, it wouldn't have been fair to a child, given DH's age.

I wonder how adoption from another country would be considered in the German scenario?

It does not matter why you don't have children. Either you have children who are liable for your care home fees or you don't. The policy isn't to encorage people to have children. We have other policies for that.

If you want to take advantage of lower tax and you’ve had to seek medical assistance with fertility then yes - but that is a choice that you would have to make. No one would force you to hand over your personal information if you didn’t agree to it.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I can't speak to the German system. But in the UK state support to the elderly is much much larger than state support for childhood and maternity. I don't think this settles the issue morally either way, but it felt like an interesting data point.

If you adopt a child you are a parent and don't pay the extra tax. The child can be liable to pay for your care.

The middle and working classes will be absolutely taxed to death and forced to fight it out over meaningless differences (like having children and not having children) meanwhile the multi millionaires and billionaires will just….do whatever they fucking want.

TAX.THE.FUCKING.RICH.