Yes the 17% are excluding the state pension - which comes on top.Sarenco,
It is positive that EU from 2017 forces our (leaders?) to face this obvious issue.
It will be interesting to see how they can dance round this one ?
Merowig.
Is that 17% + state pension.
If so state pension @230 ,plus private of 17% of say k30 = circa 100 per week , so in retirement average Joe gets 330 .
That wouldn,t be bad , provided retiree has no debt/mortgage.
Yes the 17% are excluding the state pension - which comes on top.
E.g. one idea floated would be that a full state pension (or as an alternative a significantly increased state pension) is only given to people who had three children.
And sooner or later this has to happen.The idea of calibrating State pension payments according to an individual's virility/fertility, rather than the number or value of contributions made to the social fund, is an interesting idea.
Future taxation of the children in Ireland should not be taken into account. Nor education costs. Children are an investment not a liability. Education is increasing human capital - which has more value economically speaking than machines/infrastructure....Would any offspring have to be paying taxes in Ireland to be taken into account? Would the fact that we insist that children receive an education, at a significant cost to society, be taken into account?
It is not unduly.Is it wise to unduly incentivise procreation from an environmental perspective?
You are absolutely right that the nub of this issue is changing demographics but I am personally very nervous about any proposal or solution that necessitates or implies an element of social engineering. It's not a huge intellectual jump to justify some really unpleasant practices/policies.
It doesn't matter if you agree or not - the Maths and statistics speak for themselves. If couple is having less than 2.1 children - the population will shrink. This can be seen already in Russia, Japan, Italy, Germany,... etcI would tend not to agree with Merowig. Hopefully I didn't misunderstand your points but we are having no problem maintaining our populations in the West - the seemingly accepted idea of a replacement rate is that we have children which take our place when we go. However, our children are not replacing us - their grandparents (and in a lot of cases great grandparents) are still around when they are born, so effectively we are adding to the population with each generation.
At least for Germany there is no way that immigration will be able to solve the problem. See:On top of that, there is the migration effect from developing countries to the west.
I advocate to have a sustainable population. E.g. at least a ~ 2.1 fertility rate. A higher fertility rate in e.g. Pakistan or Bangladesh doesn't solve the Wests problems. Some countries have a too high fertility - others too low.Globally we are doubled our population every 45 years or so and that is simply unsustainable. Environmentally, a child born into the West consumes a multiple of the resources of one born in the third world/developing nations and we have simply reached the tipping point of our claim on the planet - we're already exploiting 54% of the non-ice covered land on the planet (according to the national Geographic) and the UN projections updated last year is no projecting a population of 11 billion by 2050 (based on a medium fall off in the fertility rate). Our economic growth addiction will be curbed by the environmental limitations of our planet soon enough but that's still beyond the political horizon for the majority of nations.
Children pay future state pensions and taxes, create jobs. If you dont have enough children the system collapses. Thats the way the system is designed.All taxpayers heavily invest in the decision of some to have children - indirect taxation for education, child benefit, tax allowances that are only available to those that choose to have children. All taxpayers have to pay towards the pensioners of current pensioners. The notion that children are born to pay the pensions of their parents is wrong and the culture needs to change (as I think everyone agrees) but the idea that the childfree fritter away their hard earned savings is overly simplistic. Everyone should save towards a pension and then the cost of their pension should be paid from their own resources but the idea that you don't have to save as much if you choose to procreate surely only incentivises procreation further. It would seem like an 'opt-out' if you have a big enough brood. It's late, more on this when I've though about. Ultimately I guess it matters little what we say here as our political class only see the way in five-year blocks and long-term planning earns no votes in this country.
With respect, I think it is rather presumptuous of you to conclude that there is something inevitable, or even desirable, about your proposal to link retirement benefits to an individual's virility/fertility, rather than their monetary contribution to society over their working lives. I would note that your proposal hasn't been adopted, or even seriously considered, in any other jurisdiction that is facing this issue.
It is certainly true that falling fertility rates in many western countries is a significant problem. I also fully accept that social transfers already impact behaviours. However, it is a huge jump to somehow tie State retirement benefits to the number of children you have managed to breed. There are many other ways to support and incentivise families through our social provision and taxation systems.
I am looking at the macro level - we're adding almost a net quarter of a million additional bodies to the planet every day, 80 million a year. That's a pretty big 'if' statement, the evidence shows it's not born out by the numbers...It doesn't matter if you agree or not - the Maths and statistics speak for themselves. If couple is having less than 2.1 children - the population will shrink. This can be seen already in Russia, Japan, Italy, Germany,... etc
Italy will e.g. lose a third of their population most likely.
Germany has achieved population stability over recent decades. That should be seen as a positive, not some ticking time bomb. I understand what people are saying when they talk about aging populations but the idea that the solution is some sort of ponzi schemee, where we continue to NEED more younger people because there are more older people isn't sustainable. The ratio of pensioners to taxpayers is increasing so we need to build a pension system that takes that into account, rather than try to keep increasing our numbers and then having even more pensioners when they reach retirement age. If we need 5 taxpayers now to support a pensioner then we'll need 25 taxpayers to support those 5 in their own retirement.At least for Germany there is no way that immigration will be able to solve the problem. See:
United Nations (2001), Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, New York.
Furthermore at least for Germany immigrants are causing more costs than the taxes they will later pay.
Well, the human population is already having an irreparable impact on the planet - we're the cause of the sixth mass extinction event currently underway. We live on a planet of finite resources but we insist on a perpetual growth model. The doomsday sayers' time is here!I advocate to have a sustainable population. E.g. at least a ~ 2.1 fertility rate. A higher fertility rate in e.g. Pakistan or Bangladesh doesn't solve the Wests problems. Some countries have a too high fertility - others too low.
By the way the club of Rome already prophesied apocalyptic scenarios in 70s - so I take this with a pinch of salt.
But I thought this was exactly the system that we MUST get away from? Having children to prop up the existing pension model isn't sustainable. Making the decision to have children is for each individual but shouldn't be incentivised (is that a verb? my spellchecker doesn't like it!). I agree that having less children will put people in a more financially secure position but that is precisely why we should look to have people set aside these additional resources for their retirement, rather than plough them into further increasing our numbers and placing those problems at the feet of our children in their retirement.Children pay future state pensions and taxes, create jobs. If you dont have enough children the system collapses. Thats the way the system is designed.
Childcare is expensive - plus opportunity costs as one parent usually needs to stop working for a while in order to take care of the children.
And that the childfree are fritter away their hard earned savings is not overly simplistic. If you don't have children you have a higher standard of living and many people don't reinvest this in pensions but spend it. Procreation needs to be incentivsed as the current system incentivses "double income - no kids" (and no savings). The state is intervening already in demographics negatively - and the state needs to intervene again to correct the previous intervention...
It wasn't a singular statement but showing a number of incentives that exist - in this case the child carer credit.P.S.: What tax allowances for parents with children are available in Ireland? My French colleague at work would love to have some
That is completely irrelevant for the topic here - as there is no global pension system and very likely we will never see one.I am looking at the macro level - we're adding almost a net quarter of a million additional bodies to the planet every day, 80 million a year. That's a pretty big 'if' statement, the evidence shows it's not born out by the numbers...
http://www.dw.com/en/german-population-plunge-expected/a-2229744Germany has achieved population stability over recent decades. That should be seen as a positive, not some ticking time bomb. I understand what people are saying when they talk about aging populations but the idea that the solution is some sort of ponzi schemee, where we continue to NEED more younger people because there are more older people isn't sustainable. The ratio of pensioners to taxpayers is increasing so we need to build a pension system that takes that into account, rather than try to keep increasing our numbers and then having even more pensioners when they reach retirement age. If we need 5 taxpayers now to support a pensioner then we'll need 25 taxpayers to support those 5 in their own retirement.
According to the doomdays sayers - the apocalypse should have already happened some decades ago.Well, the human population is already having an irreparable impact on the planet - we're the cause of the sixth mass extinction event currently underway. We live on a planet of finite resources but we insist on a perpetual growth model. The doomsday sayers' time is here!
I would like to see a sustainable population too but we're far beyond that stage already. Maybe we won't see the results for a number of decades but by then, it'll be too late to reverse the impact we've had or the problems we've created.
The system propsed by Hans-Werner Sinn makes sense - everyone is forced to save for their pension - for every child you have to save a third less and you can access a third of the already saved amount. Current state pensions are not further increased. Incentive will make the population level much stable - and people have to put money aside because its made mandatory.But I thought this was exactly the system that we MUST get away from? Having children to prop up the existing pension model isn't sustainable. Making the decision to have children is for each individual but shouldn't be incentivised (is that a verb? my spellchecker doesn't like it!). I agree that having less children will put people in a more financially secure position but that is precisely why we should look to have people set aside these additional resources for their retirement, rather than plough them into further increasing our numbers and placing those problems at the feet of our children in their retirement.
It wasn't a singular statement but showing a number of incentives that exist - in this case the child carer credit.
one idea floated would be that a full state pension (or as an alternative a significantly increased state pension) is only given to people who had three children.
I can understand the thinking behind this idea but I am totally shocked that it could be considered a viable option, there are many reasons why a couple or a single person cant/wont have children and to be penalised for not having children would I suspect be viewed as discrimination amongst other things
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?