When I asked myself today who should really be asked to pay the cash, I came across family fathers around 40 in management positions, as is so often the case. Married, 2 children, the wife completely takes care of the household and family and does not have any paid work. And of course the few mothers for whom it is the other way round.
I think these gentlemen (and a few women) have it best in this country. They are in their prime, can have a career without any problems, they still have children (which I personally find very nice) and can save several thousand euros a year in taxes via spouse splitting, depending on their salary.
Why are they not actually paying for the care reform that has just been adopted?
At least if the marriage is happy and the children are girls - otherwise there is of course a discount. (Boys are often more work than girls, especially for dad when he has to play a lot of football or something.)
Instead, childless people should run. Your contribution to long-term care insurance is to increase from 3,3 to 3,4 percent - and although it is only about a few euros per month for each individual, the outcry is enormous. No wonder. Such headlines simply inevitably make any childless person feel that he or she is, by definition, parasitizing their way through life. As if people without children would prefer to have a good time instead of doing their civic duty in the sweat of their brow and nurturing the next generation of taxpayers and contributors.
Now, the new regulation is not as completely involved as one might think at first glance. Childless people already pay a higher contribution to long-term care insurance: as a result of a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in 2001. In it, the Karlsruhe judges demanded that the parents' “generative contribution” should be taken into account when calculating contributions. So the fact that mothers and fathers produce new contributors and spend a lot on them, financially and emotionally.
It is hardly possible to punish citizens financially and fairly
Nevertheless, to exhaust this principle further is fundamentally wrong. Because if you wanted to enforce this supposed justice, parents of one child would have to pay more contributions than parents of two children. And if we spin it all over for other areas of life: How about a CO, for example2-Soli for families with three children or more? After all, every new citizen on earth means a further burden on the climate. Because even if it may be desirable that two adults together also bring two new contributors into the world - and not just one - then one can argue about whether it is right to contribute to global population growth with three or four children. Looking at the climate now.
It is hardly possible to punish citizens financially just because they seem to do too little for the community. In any case, this cannot be determined on the basis of their life models. There are certainly people without children who ruthlessly bully their way up in their job at the expense of single parents and who spend every vacation in the South Pacific. Because they simply don't know what to do with their money. But there are also fathers of families (and mothers) who leave wife / husband and children to sip cocktails in the South Pacific. Probably they are sitting at the bar with the idiots described earlier without children.
And vice versa, of course, there are people without children who look after their own parents for years or look after other relatives. Hold the honorary positions. Or who have a badly paid, heartfelt job in a daycare center, hospital or anywhere else. Who consciously decided against having children, for example because they want to put all their strength and love into this very job. Or who would like to have children but for some reason can't have them. For all of them, this reform feels like a slap in the face.
Incidentally, if you go about who represents what financial risk for the community, you would also have to tax the 40-year-old fathers and their wives described above extra high. And of course all constellations in which the distribution of roles is reversed. Because with this life model, one spouse is financially completely dependent on the other at some point. And if the marriage fails, depending on the constellation, there is a risk of old-age poverty and the state must help.
Are you one of those people who have opted for such a classic marriage? And are you getting really upset about me right now? I understand too. Nobody likes to be condemned across the board for their way of life.
That is why people without children are justifiably angry. If the state wants to distribute costs fairly and support families, then it should not shift individual items on to individual population groups and thus indirectly pillory them. Instead, create a fair tax system, with relief and incentives where it seems right. And there is a lot of room for improvement.
Which brings us back to the single-earner couple. Because the splitting of spouses shows: the state does not treat families financially better than childless - only a special form of family. Unmarried parents, separated parents and single parents cannot save nearly as much taxes with reference to their children as married couples because of their marriage. This also applies if this marriage does not result in any children.
That would be a point where you could start.
And we will all pay for the care reform together.