Quote from Incognito

I've never heard anyone cite that reason not to have kids. I don't think that in general, people say to themselves, "oh I think I'll just have the government take care of me instead of my kids when I get to be of old age." I hate to say it, but I really don't think many people even think that far ahead when they are 20 or so years old (starting families.)

I do agree that the cost of raising children is a big factor for not having kids or for having smaller families.

Well, remove the ton of taxes going to welfare programs and you'd have money to start a small family.

And yes, they don't cite that because that's not their reason for not having kids. But without the pension system, they'd HAVE to have kids if they'd want someone to take care of them when they retire. Same as why rural families are bigger. They need the children for stuff.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Well, remove the ton of taxes going to welfare programs and you'd have money to start a small family.

And yes, they don't cite that because that's not their reason for not having kids. But without the pension system, they'd HAVE to have kids if they'd want someone to take care of them when they retire. Same as why rural families are bigger. They need the children for stuff.

Understood.

The thing is, you can't really assume your kids will take care of you when you're old. There are many reasons why it might not work out that way.

I think there are many people who find it somewhat of a relief to know there is social security...in case they find themselves in need of it. Of course it costs money, but it's an investment in a generation that has spent its lifetime working and thereby contributing to society and hopefully its economic betterment. It would be nice to not spend your whole life working and then in your golden years possibly finding yourself homeless or unable to buy the absolute necessities of life.

Quote from Incognito

The thing is, you can't really assume your kids will take care of you when you're old. There are many reasons why it might not work out that way.

Your post makes me think back of when I was a young kid... and memories of what my father told me of my late grandparent's family.
My grandfather already had passed on and my grandmother had alzheimer, including my father, the family consisted of ten children.
Typically enough everybody shoved the care of my grandmother on my father's shoulder and when there came a point when my father was focussing more on his own family as I was born he could no longer take care of her alone.
As a result the care finally got switched between other siblings and funny enough all that eventually was said was 'Geez... It's darn heavy to take care of her.' to wich my father replied 'Then you guys now know what you've put me up with.'
Eventually she ended up in the eldery house and as a child I and my father visited my grandmother every now and then, and despite her affliction she sometimes suddenly had moments she was very bright again and one of those times, in my presence she spoke 'So I get dumped in an eldery house? Funny... ten children can't do for a parent what a parent can do for ten children.' Good ole memories...



So in short, it's not garanteed that children will care for their older folks, like in my story... And times have also changed as life has become much more expensive and different in terms of costs and lifestyle. Nevertheless, I do believe it's importnant to give people reasons to get children, ussualy there are two practical ways you can walk to encourage something:

• Reward something
• Make something neccesary

Rewarding having children is not the way for sure I believe as that would involve financial benefits wich we all would have to pay for with our taxdollars. At this point is where we come at RVs point to make children neccesary by removing the pension system wich probably sounds to me like the best road to walk eventually, but do not ask me how this should be done (economy isn't my field of expertise lol), better leave that up to people who are better at economy.

Regardless of how families would be stimulated, it is for sure that the next generation(s) will pay up allot because they are severely outnumbered by the amount of retiring people they have to finance through taxes.

Social security isn't an investment. If people would stop paying, an investment would be able to pay off the shareholders. It's a pathetic pyramidal scheme that allows retired people to leech onto the children of others. And obviously, you can't expect children to take care of you if you were a shitty parent. Hence there was much more sense for children to be involved with the family, which stopped happening around that time.

All this, welfare, social security and so on are replacements of the family with the state. Just like the father is replaced in a relationship by the state, the children are replaced by social security. And yes, it is nice to have something to fall back on and for this you can save your money.

And life got more expensive because governments spend a lot more, which is a cost that is paid by taxpayers and savers. And companies don't pay taxes - they increase prices and cut wages, depending on the tax they're hit with. So life gets more expensive because of it. Let alone the inefficient regulations that run more and more business out of Europe and the US and the capital destruction in the US and UK through borrowing and spending(which in itself increases prices). By the way, this idiotic retirement system actually supports consumption, instead of capital accumulment through savings, which drives higher wages and a better standard of living.

And we already reward people to have kids - welfare does that. Actually, for me it would make sense in this country to have a child at each two years until I can't have any anymore and live off benefits. This is what a lot of the people we import in Europe do.

Nynrah, you just do away with retirement benefits and move everyone who can't work on disability benefits. But this won't fly politically in the next years, at least in Europe, because politicians will rather bankrupt a country. And no, we won't pay the taxes. I'm going to emigrate. It is like Schiff said it about the US putting future generation in debt. He said that the future generations won't be paying the debt, we will because the young people will be able to just emigrate into a lot of countries that will welcome them. The current Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt. A more politically viable way to improve birth rates is exempt people with over three children from paying any social security, medicare or the European alternatives taxes and cut the current pension and healthcare systems down.


This is how pyramidal schemes are. But probably they will just hike up taxes by a lot and decrease payments by a lot(and with inflation it will mean nothing), until the system will go broke regardless, even though this will completely destroy the economy and society.


Europe is on the same path but lagging behind. In order to maintain the status quo for a little longer, we are destroying our societies and culture through massive immigration, which will led to not only an economical shithole, but a cultural shithole.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Percy, you are one of the few retired people who admits that pay as you go social security/pensions are a fraudulent pyramidal scheme. lol

That is the nature of the banking system and the state, they make promises that they change the terms of as they go along.. There is never any gaurantee of anything in this world when you are dealing with those folk who have the ability to change the rules as they go along..

The problem is this - if we wouldn't be taken care of by the state when we are old, we'd have to have kids because we'd have to do it.

Doesnt follow at all.

Kids dont necessarily look after anyone other than themselves.. Many old folk used to die while they were still able to work enough to pay their way..

Retirement is not really an "essential" thing, many old folk work well into their old age and contribute a lot.

Also, folk can make their own personal arrangements for retirement as they have always done and many old folk would rather pay specialists to care for them than trust their own kids!

Childless folk have a good opportunity to save up a lot of money for their retirement..

And besides, here social security taxes(combined from what the employer pays and you pay) is around 43%. Now, kids are expensive, so considering I slave for the state more in a year than keep the money, how will I finance having kids?

Get a better paying job, or pair up with someone who can earn enough. Or just wait till someone dies and leaves you a shedload!

(Funny how when these "destitute" oldsters die, they leave a big cash pile for their kids, or the state!)..

The state pays folk to have kids when they are poor anyway, in case you havent noticed.. And the state will always tax folk as much as they can get away with, and if the state doesnt do it, then the bankers will do it and call it "your savings..."..

By the way, here's why the single-income family went away - taxes increased by a lot in the last 50 years and inflation destroyed savings and so on. Also, the US and UK are short of capital.

Taxes increased a lot BECAUSE the single income family went away.. This was what the tool of feminism was all about.. Getting more folk onto the hamster wheel, so that the state/elite could then tax and extract more from them..

Bottom line is that kids nowadays aren't a positive from an economic point of view, but an economic drain so people have them only because they want to. Before, having kids was needed.

Having kids has never been "needed" as such from an individuals point of view, but of course as part of a wider social plan it has always been a good idea to propogate the species and breed new slaves..

A vast sector of society is now PAID to have children, they are supported by others, this is commonly seen and commonly complained about by the middle class moaners who feel that THEY are paying for the fact that only "welfare scroungers" have kids and the middle classes cant afford to..

The middle classes cant "afford" to have kids because they are more intrested in ladder-climbing, status seeking, self-indulgence and feathering their own nests than breeding..

Feminism, of course, is very much the tool that has enabled all this..

I wont even say it is a "bad" thing, because, it is so fucking transparent and so easier to work around..

Originally Posted by RebelliousVanilla
Percy, you are one of the few retired people who admits that pay as you go social security/pensions are a fraudulent pyramidal scheme. lol

Yes, a pyramid scheme.

But of course it did not HAVE to be that.

And the 'unfunded' aspect has been largely confined to the Public Sector. The Private sector has had both a compulsory and a non-compulsory contribution schemes for donkey's years. But everywhere you go it is the Public Sector employees who get the cream.

Another aspect has been the 'fixed percentage of final pay' crap. That has been an uncontrolled fiasco and again largely confined to the Public Sector.

That did not HAVE to be that way either.

The annual taxation could have provided adequate reserve and cushion were it not spent on subsidising Gay Mardi Gras and 'diversity officers' and a raft-shipyard of totally non-essential expenditures, which would not only have husbanded the financial resources better but allowed surpluses to accumulate and interest to accrue.

As it is the corruption gathered pace until it was 'normal'. There would not be a problem with 'aging' issues. The decline in birth rate has gone hand in hand with all the crapulation of public finances and the corruption of moral life.

By the way, RV, my pension is a military one for which I paid into for 20 years and simultaneously laboured under very low pay. When I retired, my Officer's pay was a little over 7000UKpounds pa. My civilian counterparts doing a far easier job were paid 18000. My small pension has been fixed at 1980 levels.

Quote from Percy

By the way, RV, my pension is a military one for which I paid into for 20 years and simultaneously laboured under very low pay. When I retired, my Officer's pay was a little over 7000UKpounds pa. My civilian counterparts doing a far easier job were paid 18000. My small pension has been fixed at 1980 levels.

I too am a pensioner and my pension is annually adjusted to allow for inflation..

It is not really important though, because, like most pensions, it is part of the "give with one hand, take with the other" that happens to most folk who are trying to provide for their future privately when they encounter the state system..

All that private or public sector or any pensions really ever do is fund the state or banks..

Because if the pension is paying you, say, £100 per week, and the state has a "minimum gauranteed income level" of £500 per week, then you will get a state payment of £400 to top it up..

If you dont pay into your pension and have no savings, you get £500..

Its all a fucking con aint it?

But we, are just the lowly cattle, not the farmers..

The slavemasters/farmers have an easy answer for the shortage of labour due to low birth rates..

Import fully grown mature slaves into the cuntry to do the work on the cheap..

Then, send them back (or watch them go back of their own free will) when their labour is no longer needed..

Kids don't necessarily help their older family members because the burden of it isn't on them or the family anymore, but the state. It's the same with private charity - the more taxes to help the poor, the less of that. I have no moral obligation to help poor people because the state does it. Sure, I do it once in a while, even though my economic situation is a disaster because I realize how idiotic governments are with our money.

Same with children. Children would help their family if they'd have family values, which were destroyed by the state. Same with destroying the father in a marriage and in parenthood.

And I'd always take having 5 kids with a stream of income over savings as a retirement benefit. Obviously, the economic factor isn't the only one as I stated in the first post.

Taxes have no relation to feminism. This is pseudo-economic claptrap that I found a lot. The same with things being more expensive. It has nothing to do with more people working because it actually increases productivity without the government making it inefficient.

Actually having kids was needed. Read some early 20th century novels related to rural life, for example. Same with urban life.

Percy, any system based on compulsion is a pyramidal scheme that isn't susceptible to competition or choice so it is inherently inefficient. If it would be efficient, people would choose it regardless and it wouldn't have the need to be compulsory.

Quote from RebelliousVanilla

Kids don't necessarily help their older family members because the burden of it isn't on them or the family anymore, but the state. It's the same with private charity - the more taxes to help the poor, the less of that. I have no moral obligation to help poor people because the state does it. Sure, I do it once in a while, even though my economic situation is a disaster because I realize how idiotic governments are with our money.

Same with children. Children would help their family if they'd have family values, which were destroyed by the state. Same with destroying the father in a marriage and in parenthood.

And I'd always take having 5 kids with a stream of income over savings as a retirement benefit. Obviously, the economic factor isn't the only one as I stated in the first post.

Taxes have no relation to feminism. This is pseudo-economic claptrap that I found a lot. The same with things being more expensive. It has nothing to do with more people working because it actually increases productivity without the government making it inefficient.

Actually having kids was needed. Read some early 20th century novels related to rural life, for example. Same with urban life.

Percy, any system based on compulsion is a pyramidal scheme that isn't susceptible to competition or choice so it is inherently inefficient. If it would be efficient, people would choose it regardless and it wouldn't have the need to be compulsory.

Just lost a fucking huge post..



Basically, I agree with much of that but if you think feminism is not related to taxation..

Think again!!

Quote from haahoo

Just lost a fucking huge post..



Basically, I agree with much of that but if you think feminism is not related to taxation..

Think again!!

Indeed, feminism did have a lot to do with taxation!
In fact some of the elites came flat out and said they used feminism to destroy the family and to get more women working and paying taxes!
You can rule out that those devils got their pound of flesh!

Putting the burden of taking care of old people on the young generation sure doesn't help them afford having children. I can look at my country and no middle class couple can afford more than one child due to taxes. The government, after all is said and done, spends 80% of a person's income. As long as the welfare state will continue and as long as the break up of families will be subsidized, this won't change.

Oh, and just ask the Romans how this mass immigration, population replacement worked.

Let's not get confused. The situation which occurred in Rome can hardly be compared with the current system, save in the most distant sense as a vague, cultural analogy. In Rome it was not immigration, but allowing the movement, wholesale, of entire cultures into parts of the Empire; these then moved in, lock, stock, and brought their own ways of life, created their own communities, etc. Current immigration is not like this, though it might mirror it in the vague sense that immigrants, after coming individually, band together and form culturally coherent communities these communities are formed within larger communities and there is a much greater chance for assimilation. Further Rome had no choice, due to its situation, but to allow jump at this chance for new people to move in who would be willing to help defend their Empire, in our situation mass immigration is actually against our best interests in many ways and not something we require; which is to say we could allow immigration from countries (many of which exist) who’s people more readily assimilate, or who share our cultural values, etc.

The problem we have is easily solved. The Roman problem was a disaster because it was an ad-hoc solution in which they were forced to impose upon themselves in order to combat a greater problem. Also, don't tell me that the population issue is our 'greater problem' as that is also something which can easily be solved.

Quote from dad_savage

Let's not get confused. The situation which occurred in Rome can hardly be compared with the current system, save in the most distant sense as a vague, cultural analogy. In Rome it was not immigration, but allowing the movement, wholesale, of entire cultures into parts of the Empire; these then moved in, lock, stock, and brought their own ways of life, created their own communities, etc. Current immigration is not like this, though it might mirror it in the vague sense that immigrants, after coming individually, band together and form culturally coherent communities these communities are formed within larger communities and there is a much greater chance for assimilation. Further Rome had no choice, due to its situation, but to allow jump at this chance for new people to move in who would be willing to help defend their Empire, in our situation mass immigration is actually against our best interests in many ways and not something we require; which is to say we could allow immigration from countries (many of which exist) who’s people more readily assimilate, or who share our cultural values, etc.

The problem we have is easily solved. The Roman problem was a disaster because it was an ad-hoc solution in which they were forced to impose upon themselves in order to combat a greater problem. Also, don't tell me that the population issue is our 'greater problem' as that is also something which can easily be solved.

You think immigrants to Europe integrate?! That has to be a joke. And yes, Europe is doing the same thing as Rome, we are literally moving other countries inside ours.

Besides this, I agree. Immigration does more bad than good to Europe, at least and the US or Canada. I know the situation of these countries, I do know that Australia is stricter than other countries, but I doubt the situation is that much different.