Only a fifth of Canadians younger than 50 plan on having kids
That’s sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.
The poll found 51% say it is “not their responsibility” to fund other people’s childcare, with the most likely group to say this are those who have raised children to the age of 18 or older, where the proportion rises to 59%.
While I’ve got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it’s taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don’t have kids.
So if you don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.
The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.
That’s his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.
This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance… if you don’t need it… it’s not a waste… you got lucky. But if you get unlucky… if you go at it alone… you will be up the creek without a paddle.
Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.
That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.
In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to “retire,” if they don’t already have the full funds to retire. Canada’s right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.
There’s a good chance, you simply cannot retire in 30 years. Or at least not fully. State funded pensions are struggling worldwide. If less new tax payers are coming in, whose taxes pay your pension?
Retirement age for you is 67 with a max 1200/mo in ss, and most pension funds have gone bankrupt. Unless you have a military/federal pension or already have the 2-4 mil needed for “fun” retirement and eol care saved you’re not retiring.
More 70 year olds than ever before are returning to the workforce, and they had everything handed to them.
That’s sustainable as long as those 1 in 5 Canadians who do have a kid each have on average at least 10 kids.
While I’ve got sympathy for that position, the flip side of that is that it’s taxes from those kids who will be paying for pension, medical care, and so forth of people who don’t have kids.
So if you don’t want to pay for someone else’s kids, it does seem a bit unfair that their kids should pay for your old age. I mean, it required a lot of time and work and money on the part of people who did have kids to raise that kid.
The social welfare model in most countries, as things stand, is rather loaded against people who have kids.
But those children will have their education and esrly healthcare paid for by the people they eventually pay for the retirement and healthcare of
That’s his point. The people that say they do not want to pay for other peoples children want to opt out of the social contract that underpins all of this. And if they do, they should not get the rewards side later in life.
This kind of egocentric " me me me" thinking is to the detriment of everyone. Social systems are like insurance… if you don’t need it… it’s not a waste… you got lucky. But if you get unlucky… if you go at it alone… you will be up the creek without a paddle.
Too many people think that life and the world is as you make it. They refuse to believe that probably 20pct is you, the other 80 is (good/bad) luck.
Education and a good job also prevent them from falling into poverty and crime and mugging those old people.
That argument only works on people that believe they will live long enough to see those benefits, or experience them regardless of how long they do live.
In the US at least, there is no reason to believe anyone under 50 is going to “retire,” if they don’t already have the full funds to retire. Canada’s right wing parties desperately want to copy the US so they can get paid what US politicians get paid.
deleted by creator
And Hitler planned to conquer the world.
There’s a good chance, you simply cannot retire in 30 years. Or at least not fully. State funded pensions are struggling worldwide. If less new tax payers are coming in, whose taxes pay your pension?
Retirement age for you is 67 with a max 1200/mo in ss, and most pension funds have gone bankrupt. Unless you have a military/federal pension or already have the 2-4 mil needed for “fun” retirement and eol care saved you’re not retiring.
More 70 year olds than ever before are returning to the workforce, and they had everything handed to them.
deleted by creator