It may be annoying, but I agree with you:
statutory pension,
* health insurance,
* infrastructure,
* security,
* care,
* education,
* and social security are not available for free and we are also the state that incurs costs. Reforms as quickly as possible.
statutory pension,
* health insurance,
* infrastructure,
* security,
* care,
* education,
* and social security are not available for free and we are also the state that incurs costs. Reforms as quickly as possible.
•
22
•
@Ichbinak63 If it ended up there, it would still be ok. Under the current policy, however, it is more likely to be spent on further citizens' benefits, even more pointless social benefits for the non-performers in this country, some filthy NGOs or on Ukraine...
•
66
•
@Ichbinak63 This is an important point, but the distribution of the burden must be critically scrutinized. The fact is that demographic change has been known for over 30 years, yet real structural reforms have been largely neglected.
Instead, new debts are constantly being taken on, which the younger generation will have to pay off later, while at the same time they have less leeway for their own lifestyle or private pension provision due to high taxes.
A major problem is the political weighting: according to data on the demographic structure in Germany, over 50% of eligible voters are already over 50 years old. It is a well-known political paradox that governments tend to make patronage policies for the largest and most active group of voters, in this case the older generation. As a result, necessary but possibly unpopular reforms are postponed at the expense of younger people. However, making private provision more difficult through higher taxes deprives young people of the opportunity to make up for the shortcomings of the state systems on their own.
Instead, new debts are constantly being taken on, which the younger generation will have to pay off later, while at the same time they have less leeway for their own lifestyle or private pension provision due to high taxes.
A major problem is the political weighting: according to data on the demographic structure in Germany, over 50% of eligible voters are already over 50 years old. It is a well-known political paradox that governments tend to make patronage policies for the largest and most active group of voters, in this case the older generation. As a result, necessary but possibly unpopular reforms are postponed at the expense of younger people. However, making private provision more difficult through higher taxes deprives young people of the opportunity to make up for the shortcomings of the state systems on their own.
•
11
•It's all subjective, these discussions have been going on for decades. As a boomer, I say we also had our battles to fight, are we now to blame for the fact that we worked 40 hours a week and more, had to fight our way through because there were lots of people but too few jobs, we went into apprenticeships at 16 across the board. The demographic change started with the pill crisis. In the mid-70s, women only had an average of 1.5 children. Nobody touched this hot potato. So today people cry out for the state as soon as things don't go well, everything is so, so bad. The opportunities for young people have become better and better, but people are trying to put their lifestyle above performance, in my opinion. Biology will also solve the boomer problem... because nobody lives indefinitely. And then there will be fewer pensioners again. So before many young people moan about what might happen in 50 years' time, do something for society first, because anyone who doesn't do that isn't behaving socially either. That's another way of looking at things
•
22
•