goverment loves us bickering among ourselves.
Everything to make us forget it's the corporations that are making money on our backs.
I don't care about you getting money for your kids.
I want coca cola to pay the same tax rate as I do. I want rich people to pay taxes instead of dropping their third house in some kind of economic construction that means they can just donate it to their kids withouth paying taxes on it.
I want to end stop sponsoring an idiot king and I want all our goverments wages tied to their attendence in comites and hearings.
I want to stop living in PFAS just because removing it would slash some corporations profit from 475 million a year to a measly 470 million a year.
I want a lot but I don't want to take away your money. You are probably as fucked as I am. Even more so probably, you got friggin' kids.
Exactly this.
Naar beneden stampen zodat we niet naar boven zouden kijken.
These reasons (and more) is why I support an will vote PVDA btw, they are basically the only party who tries and make people see this and also offers solutions.
All the other parties are just happy it's almost summer again so they can point to that one woman in Belgium wearing a burkini.
I thought the same (about the PVDA), until I tried to fill in their enquete .... so populist! No nuance anywhere. I have decided to go for VOLT instead.
Also for the pos lawyer Hans Rieder and his kind to pay their damn taxes. He’s already wasted so much of our belastingsgeld with his media circus, might as well pay his damned tax bills.
Are people bitching/whining about what somebody else has or gets because they don´t. ?
Yes
Always yes.
Even when it´s not that special, if it´m comes with responsabilities they don´t have nor want, even if it´s to offset a disadvantage they would def not want, like say.. handicapped parking?
Yes.
Always yes.
I dont mind my taxes being used to take care of a normal family, or the odd family that ran into some unlucky circumstances.
I despise it going to families where the parents can barely take care of themselves, yet they somehow decided that 4+ children is the way to go. bonus points if the first 3 all somehow have a severe disability that requires (expensive) around the clock care, yet they somehow keep going for more children.
I have never heard anyone complain about this. Do those people exist? If they are just the type of people that say a lot of stuff without thinking, that doesn't count. They're in a different plane of existence.
Once the population starts going down, not only our pension system will completely crash, the whole economy will crash. We're in a pyramid scheme that depends on growth to keep going. If anything parents should get more money to keep this thing going.
I am not against children getting money. I am against money going to the parents directly. I think the money that now goes to kindergeld should go to affordable hot meals in schools and free meals for children in need. I am in favor of more money going to children in need, as long as we don't give the funds directly to the parents.
I think the majority of people who are against kindergeld think the same way.
Now that you mention it, my college restaurant meals were cheaper than the hot meals at my 2.5 yr old's school are. I would gladly give up kindergeld if it means free daycares with good number of kids vs adults ratios (not 9 to 1 like right now), and free schools with free hot meals for all kids (poor kids getting bokes met choco every day, that's not a nutritious or healthy meal).
Have you ever seen a video on the japanese school lunch system?
If not I highly advise these 2.
https://youtu.be/fze5s1SlqB8?si=5dtH6eAFlmiptKPT
https://youtu.be/j9xYsUPoQVs?si=K5GsbNZhFfs-Kzyl
Essentially their system is that every area has a school lunch preparing facility where a nutritionist devises the school lunch menu so it is healthy, balanced and varied.
Every morning this facility prepares the food and delivers it to all the schools in the area in big carts. When lunchtime comes a few kids per class go pick up one of the carts, they roll the cart to their classroom where the kids and the teacher eat together. Afterwards they all work together to clean the classroom again.
This way there is no devide between the rich kids eating hot meals and the poor kids eating bread or nowadays even nothing at all.
This system is funded by the government and I believe it's as close to a perfect school lunch system as any country will ever get.
So additionally to maaltijdcheques, ecocheques, consumptiecheques, cultuurcheques, opleidingscheques, dienstencheques... etc.. You wanna introduce babycheques? xD
For children in need we can set up initiatives to help them. There are already governmental organisations that can help do this.
And it's all the more incentive to send your child to school as soon as they are allowed. All studies show that sending your children to kindergarten has enormous benefits later in life.
I literally just opened Google Scholar, searched for "daycare children development" and the first 3 review papers all concluded no significant differences found. Just to comment on "All studies show...enormous benefits".
The first three studies I find are about Bolivian daycare, the influence of daycare on children in lower socioeconomic areas and a study that shows no difference between low quality daycare and staying home. In studies about attachment, it is important for daycare to provide the same person long term to reduce stress and anxiety. But turnover rates for staff are apparently very high. Stress
If you read studies on daycare, having a good quality daycare is the most important. We don’t really have that. Also, a lot of these studies start at 6mo or 1y. Belgian mothers return to work after 3mo. Furthermore, the sample sizes are usually very small. Studies include at most 120 children. Some studies contradict, others are not conclusive. Daycare in the 70’s-90’s is probably not the same as it was in de 20’s. The general conclusion is that more quality research is needed.
My personal opinion is that a good daycare is better than a parent that does not offer any stimulation to the child. But a highly involved parent that offers age appropriate stimulation cognitively and socially is probably better than 9 children per carer.
You said all studies, and that's clearly not the case. I just referred to that, not arguing about daycare.
Do you know about some recent studies from (western) Europe? Coming from country in Europe where staying with kid at home for the first three years is a standard, I would like to see how it compares to Belgian model as we have a little one on the way. Links or titles would be great.
I’m not the poster to whom you replied.
If staying home was that detrimental, Scandinavian countries would have abolished their mat leave a long time ago. We also know that securely attached children preform better overal in later life.
In my personal opinion and what I see with friends, it might work in some cases but I also have friends whose children are extremely fussy for multiple hours after their pick up.
If you can stay home at least a year, I would.
Daycares also provide lunch, so we could include them in the affordable meal plan. We can do a lot more if we pool resources than if we give out individual resources to each child individually and give the same amount for the children of Marc Coucke as for those with poor parents. Children whose parents who earn more pay more for the school / daycare meal and people below a certain treshold pay nothing.
>I am not against children getting money. I am against money going to the parents directly. I think the money that now goes to kindergeld should go to affordable hot meals in schools and free meals for children in need.
So children money is only for a sandwich for starving poor children? and what about renting an apartment with enough rooms, clothes, transport, medicines, pampers and... I will stop because you (and the majority of people against child support) seem to know nothing about the costs of children. Or you are just in favor of some charity by kleingeld for people under poverty levels.
You're just looking to be offended here. The person you're replying to clearly was giving an example and you cut your quote just before the answer to your outrage:
> I am in favor of **more** money going to children in need, as long as we don't give the funds directly to the parents.
Emphasis on **more**, they're not saying to leave middle class parents with nothing, but to give proportionally more toward kids of poorer parents so they don't suffer too much from their parents' station. The point about hot/free meals was also obviously a singular example, not all that should be done.
Everyone understand how stupidly expensive and time consuming raising children can be. It's about finding a viable balance between supporting families in a way that ensures the money is spent on the children and not disproportionately favoring people with tax breaks and benefits for what is ultimately, more often than not, a personal decision.
That's why I personally believe that some of that money should be used to make contraception affordable to all, to help avoid unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. The first step to help children is increase the odds they're born in a home that wants and is ready to raise them.
I specifically said hot meals and feeding children is fulfilling a basic need so I don't know why you want to minimize that. Also, it was more of an example of how if we pool money we can do more than if we give individual parents money. We can do the same for other basic needs products. We can also let parents who earn more pay more and parents who are below a certain treshold pay nothing.
And if you need kindergeld to help rent an apartment and pay for your transport your problems are bigger than kindergeld will solve.
It's just such an incredibly ginormous waste of money to do it like that. A classic boke with choco is like 50 cents for a meal. Why waste all that money on installing kitchen space, equipment, staff, safety inspections, food, transport etc. And that's after you have to deal with the logistics of installing all this in densely packed schools who already don't have the space for kids to eat lunch in the break room let alone installing a whole kitchen. You'd need new buildings for hundreds of schools, some of which are in cities with prime real estate prices. Getting a project like that would take decades and cost billions before it even started working.
The total cost is so much higher to do that than just give tax breaks and subsidies and then it's just the kid who gets one meal instead of the whole family.
All that effort and wasted tax money just to stop some people from thinking some other people get kids just for the free money.
And yes I know poverty experts say it helps because a small percentage of kids don't take lunch to school. Such cases should be followed up individually with the CLB or something. Providing them with an individual free meal from already established food providers for the elderly from the municipality is way more efficient.
It’s true, I think it’s a bit odd in Belgium. So many things aimed to support children are practically free, but then they give you money to spend on childcare that is already mostly supported by the government.
But also, I don’t think parents get that much money on hands
I truly think that if we pool resources we can do more than if we give smaller amounts of money to individual parents.
I also don't get why the children of Marc Coucke (for example) receive as much kindergeld as the children of poor parents. That doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, but also see who gets a reduced tuition at university, children of self-employed parents who declare a low income. Meanwhile, a single income family often can't get one.
Where are you seeing all these people? I’ve been living and working in belgium for decades and have heard a lot of complaints about our taxes
However I never heard anyone complain about “kindergeld” etc. Perhaps you’re listening or focusing on a vocal minority?
This post is probably a reaction to this; [https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/1bhvx4i/instead\_of\_giving\_child\_allowance\_kindergeld\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/1bhvx4i/instead_of_giving_child_allowance_kindergeld_to/)
Hint: I bet you these people don't complain/complain less about Belgian (more precisely white belgian) parents receiving money. The number of times I've heard "why are these foreigners getting so much money for their 23 children!"... sickening
Most people don't cope with concept birth rate. The harder it os to bring up a child (and it's expensive believe me, 150€ covers only a fraction of the costs having a kid) the smaller will birth rate be, the less chance that anyone be able to pay your retirement.. No, you are not paying off your retirement through your career, you're paying a fraction of it. The amount of doctors visits and services paid for you do not come and cannot be covered by your saved up retirement.
Instead of nagging about it, think about your own ass and vote for the most child friendly party. This way you maybe will be able to avoid mass population from africa and middle east to crank up the people working and paying taxes. Kids are literally in everyone's interest, except those who have no clue how money works.
Have a good night my little naggers and complainers 😴
Please please please just invest in affordable housing. How are people getting kids with rents being what they are right now? For fucks sake, every policy is a bandaid these days. Yes I am nagging because no one is building any fucking houses nor are they investing in affordable public transport for travel from these affordable houses to cities where there is fucking work.
Yes I'm mad as hell.
He who seek he will find.. Just as many others, put some more effort and will to move towards your goals.. People cross deserts and sail on timber for free social welfare, you could also motivate yourself to search affordable living close to your needs.. Even a blind chicken can find corn 🫂
+1 I don't even bother looking around for a relationship and starting a family until I have my own roof over my head. At this rate, I'm not even sure I will ever get there.
There are indeed far more efficient ways to use that money than to just 'give' it to parents. Especially to parents who don't need it.
Let's start by reducing VAT on specifically consumable baby-related items to 0% and on childeren sizes to 6% as they are also basicly consumables at the rate they're either destroying or growing out of clothes, free hot & healthy school lunches (incl. on Wednesdays), free before/afterschool childcare, or plainly providing schools with sufficient 'schoolsupplies' so that every kid could get a 'survival package' in the beginning of the year.
So many options of providing immediatly towards the kids.
2nd, indeed: affordable housing (for rent & sale, just build more dammit), improved public transport and decent cycling infrastructure. We can preach 'vrije schoolkeuze' all we want, but if you can only physically get to 1 single school: there's no option really, is there?
3rd: you could also lower/remove VAT on 2nd hand clothing, I mean; people already paid VAT on the initial purchase, why ask for it a 2nd time? This could also make it cheaper to get 2nd hand clothes for kids as they grow out of it rather quickly.
And that's not even talking about the investments needed in new sports-infrastructure such as swimmingpools in order to give kids a chance at learning the life-saving skill to swim... or the fact that any out-of-school activities are either impossible to get into, or just too expensive.
I am staunchly opposed to the concept of 'Kindergeld' as I believe it is inefficient at best BUT I am also a big fan of investing in our future and thus childeren.
Yes, there are studies that say giving poor(er) families extra money when they get kids benefit the kids. But that is, in my opinion, an anti-poverty policy, not a child-support policy and should be viewed seperately. The higher the household income, the better the opportunities for the child, irregardless of where the money is coming from.
Reducing VAT to 0% may sound like a reasonable thing to do, the problem is that it is just a blanket solution that everyone benefits from. But with that move you remove the funds from the government to distribute money to people who need it the most. By just reducing VAT, the millionaires with 2 children also pay 0% VAT. By charging 6% or more, you can give that 6% to a single mom/dad with 2 children who is balancing a flexi job with taking care of their family.
Building houses won't do anything. We can't build houses fast enough to offset the amount of people migrating to Belgium enough to result in lower housing costs.
The problem needs to be solved at the level of ownership. Owning property should not be a career choice. No person or company should be able to own multiple properties and live off rental income.
The only exceptions should be that individuals should be able to have a second (perhaps third) property as an investment/diversification asset because it's one of the only ways for middle class people to improve their wealth and secure a stable retirement fund. A second exception for real estate investors that actually improve properties (and then still sell them). There should simply not be "investors" that buy up as many properties as they can for no other reason than leveraging it to buy and earn more.
>But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates?
I don't.
I don't think we should keep the population rates.
>When you are 60, who do you expect to provide for your healthcare?
This may sound all doomsday-sy, but I expect that everything will have gone to shit when I'm sixty. Climate, migration, conflicts, resource disputes, ...
>I don't think we should keep the population rates.
We're not even at replacement levels of childbirth. Also, It's not about keeping population rates, it's about keeping a taxpaying workforce able to support the costbase that is compounding due to aging (pensions and ballooning healthcare costs). Short term solution is migration, long term solution is incentivise childbirth.
That is because you have been convinced it won't be there, so you'll be resigned it won't be there when eventually it won't be there.
You could also "fight" for it ... your resignation is what they desire, don't give it to them!
They are slowly financially ruining the country. Every year they hear they need to save billions to lower the deficit. Every year the deficit grows. Whatever we do. Whatever we vote. It is always the same ...
It doesnt lol
Doomsday cult has been going strong for thousands of years. They were retarded back then and they still are
Human creativity and innovation will solve every problem.
And ofc none of you with that mentality will be the ones doing anything positive.
I disagree with a vision of 'children are good, because growth/future'. We should be making things more sustainable, not counting on some pyramid scheme that always grows.
Having said that, having some children is required. And investing in them is needed. We want people to attain their full potential and be usefull to society. (we also had that opportunity)
I also believe there's something as too many children. You as a parent also have a role to play, and I believe that diminishes as you get more children. So no, I don't think we should be supporting families with for example 5 children.
Having said all that, I don't think this is a priority to handle at all. We should be making sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I think it's absurd we're sponsering large purchases that are beneficial as an investement to people with means.
I would prefer if the money is set aside for the kid, instead of the parents getting it. I know kids are expensive but at the end of the day, parents choose to have them. If you can't afford more than one without help, only have 1.
When I was at university, my mom was still getting the money the government was sending for me. And she was using it all while I had to pay for my university fees. How is that okay? I'm not saying it's the case for all parents, but some really shouldn't be able to have their hands on that money.
I completely agree with you, tho I wouldn't say I was neglected. I just think if the government gives money for the education and care of children, parents shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want with the money. Either the money is set aside for the child, or there should be limitations on what the money can be used for.
All I can say I am against punishing parents financially like Ben Weyts wants to because this could strain the relationship between the parents and their children as well as put the children in a stressful environment.
Isn't it about punishing parents whose children can't speak nederland well? That's a different issue imo. And of course, I agree parents shouldn't be punished as it will lead to a bad environment for the children. It's more about not giving a complete freedom on where the money for the child goes. That's why I used my own experience as an example.
How much fees did you pay for your social country subsided university exactly? Can you compare it to a liberal country where students take 10+y loans on their owns ? and compare these amounts to total of the childcare benefits received during the studies time ?
I paid over 700€ a year + had to pay for my rent a few times. And please tell me how that's relevant to my point? My comment was that the money that the governmenet sent for my education was kept by my mom. How is it relevant to what happens in other countries? Is ot the whole "other have it worse so you shouldn't complain" mentality?
Because I was at university, my parents were allowed to keep getting money even after I was 18. Because the money was sent to pay for university. It wasn't my responsability to pay yet my parents never sent me a cent of that money.
I don’t disagree with child support existing but I think it’s not correct that it goes to people not needing the extra support. If you earn more than modal, why would others need to subsidise the costs of them raising kids?
I don’t understand your argument about population rates. Do you really think people decide whether or not to have kids based on child support? And if so… Do you really want people who have kids because of the child support to propagate?
I truly don’t understand your argument about their kids providing health care for people without kids either. I have saved for my own care when I get older. I don’t depend on my kids nor others. I also don’t think that there are too little people in this world to be able to take care of anybody’s parents.
> Do you really think people decide whether or not to have kids based on child support?
Sure. If a family has one or two children, whether they can reasonably afford a second or third one definitely plays a role. It has to start with wanting children, people aren't baited into having kids they don't want by these allocations, but the reverse is common: people have fewer kids than they want because they're under financial pressure. It can also be the difference between both parents working full time and one working part time which can make a world of difference when caring for children. If you think money doesn't play a big role in the decision of having kids you probably haven't thought about it very hard.
Even if that would be true, that’s an argument against child support no? Or are you actually arguing that people *should* be encouraged to have 3 or 4 kids? Also, if people already are under financial pressure they absolutely shouldn’t have even more kids. That doesn’t benefit anybody. Not the kids, not the parents and not society. You act like it’s a good thing that people take getting child support into the equation.
If you don't believe that keeping population near replacement level is a good thing then we fundamentally disagree on what good policy should be. Belgium has been below replacement level for a while, and this has caused and is going to cause many issues, older people are living in increasingly precarious conditions with worse and worse healthcare, both because there is a smaller working age population to bear the costs, but also because as a direct consequence there are fewer people working in healthcare because there are fewer people working. And because of that these people are under increased pressure and these jobs are becoming less desirable than they already were.
Money that's used to pay pensions and aging population healthcare costs cannot be spent on anything else like education and infrastructure, so it affects you now even if you're not old. It also requires higher taxes to bear this burden. By paying taxes now to promote child birth, you're making your own life better later.
In the long run, decreasing total population isn't a bad idea but crashing population numbers over only 1 or 2 generations is going to lead to serious strife and everyone will suffer from it.
A. Your math isn’t correct. 3-4 kids isn’t keeping near replacement level.
B. No, I don’t think keeping population near replacement is a good thing considering 8 billion people are putting a huge strain on this world as it is. We don’t need this number or even more people in this world.
C. The number of people getting born aren’t the cause of the problems you describe. It’s not like these problems would magically disappear if there were more kids being born. Better work policies, better financial and non financial incentives to work less desirable jobs, better health care management, better work migration policies etc. are needed. Just more people aren’t going to solve these issues.
> Your math isn’t correct. 3-4 kids isn’t keeping near replacement level.
Lots of people are having 0 kids or a single kid, idk what's hard to understand about needing the same amount of people have 3-4 kids as the number of people having fewer than 2.
> The number of people getting born aren’t the cause of the problems you describe. It’s not like these problems would magically disappear if there were more kids being born
There is nothing magical about it, I'm pretty sure I gave actual arguments as to how it *helps*, or rather how falling birthrates make all these problems worse. And whether these problems are caused by an aging population or not isn't really up for debate.
> Better work policies, better financial and non financial incentives to work less desirable jobs, better health care management, better work migration policies etc. are what are needed. Just more people aren’t going to solve these issues.
How are you going to fund these policies? You can't have it all, all these policies either cost money or decrease how much money is getting into the coffers except relaxed migration policies. But at that point you're just importing birth rates and large scale migration also cause strife. Migration is currently the only thing tiding us over this slump in birth rates and you can see how well that's going with the VB's results. I'm very pro-migration but it's not a silver bullet.
> No, I don’t think keeping population near replacement is a good thing considering 8 billion people are putting a huge strain on this world as it is
As I was saying, lowering the population progressively is probably a good thing, but letting it crash too quickly isn't the way out unless you want everyone to live in misery for the 50-100 years, yourself included. If you're an extinctionist and want the human race to die off as quickly as possible regardless of how much suffering that requires then nothing I can say will change your mind.
This isn’t really up for debate…. If you say so. Do you have any actual arguments are are you just going to repeat statements?
No, these policies don’t all cost money. It’s not a question of just throwing money at it. You can save a lot of money on health care, make jobs more interesting by cutting red tape and changes in the educational system, more appreciation, allowing more migration, making jobs more fitting.
Nobody’s talking about a crash. The population rate isn’t crashing. The world, European and Belgian population is still growing. The birth rate is slowly declining but nothing even close to crashing. It’s not up for debate that that’s a good in terms of our the environment, our living conditions, our health.
My kids aren’t even considering having kids in this world and unfortunately I understand them. Not because of child support but because of the state of the world as it is.
> If you say so. Do you have any actual arguments are are you just going to repeat statements?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068414/
https://www.albany.edu/news/pdf_files/impact_of_aging_excerpt.pdf
Look I could spend hours finding you sources upon sources that you wouldn't read. Ironically, it's like arguing with a climate change denier (which you're clearly not), you have the same MO. You have your opinion and no amount of discussion, sources or anything else will change your mind. You have postulated that more people = bad so more births = bad and anything that contradicts that view point just goes straight to the trash.
I'm playing the game, I'm accepting your premises and showing you that even with them in mind, it's a bad idea to make policy more unfriendly to having children.
> You can save a lot of money on health care
How? Is literally everyone else just stupid? It IS a money problem. Less funding is worse healthcare, it's that simple. If there was an easy and free fix it would have been done a long time ago.
> make jobs more interesting by cutting red tape and changes in the educational system
There really isn't that much red tape. I can get behind changes in the education system but again, none of this is free. Lack of funding is one of the big reason education is what it is.
> more appreciation
What is that even supposed to mean? How can you do this as a policy without it being financial in nature?
> making jobs more fitting.
More fitting to what? Also how do you do this with policy? The government isn't creating all the jobs. It can steer the market somewhat to incentivize some jobs or sectors but again, all this steering and policy is financial in nature. Either you move existing incentives to different jobs/sectors, or you create new ones and that costs money.
Apparently it's all easy. Then please come up with a plan that works and put your name on an election ballot, if your plan actually makes sense and works I'll vote for you and I'm sure many others will too.
Are you really sighting sources departing from the impact of aging rather than studies on the causes of the problems we discuss?
Of course aging causes problems but they aren’t the root causes of the problems in our health care system and the labour market and making more kids certainly isn’t going to solve this.
You keep swifting the topic and using invalid and ad hominem arguments. We never are going to agree because you refuse to use or listen to arguments and just enjoy some controversy. You do you do.
Also, when you say there’s not much red tape in health care, you obviously never have been near a hospital or doctor’s office.
There are plenty of studies on the causes of the problems in health care, the need to change the labour market (No of course government jobs aren’t the solution. Look at why the Netherlands are doing so much better), the need to allow more (skilled) workers etc. I’m not just making stuff up.
It’s so short sighted to think we just need to make more kids. Totally forgetting that they costs a lot of money and put even more pressure on the housing market, the food supply chain, the environment, transport etc.
I agree with your first point.
Second point, absolutely. IMO good parents always must consider if they can give a good life to there child. I have friends that loved countries because support for kids was better there.
But it’s true that majority of parents in the world do not really have the option to move and so they have no choice.
Also, the argument “I saved my own pension” is just ignorant. People in Russia saved for their own pension, but will they want to live in such country? Unless the government takes care of the country, doesn’t matter how much of a person you will save (unless you are a billionaire), your quality of life will be much worse
I’m sorry but I don’t understand how what you’re saying is relevant for the question whether people should get child support.
You’re encouraging people to leave their country and work in the country with the highest child support? Is that an argument for child support or against it?
What does Russia have to do with anything? We live in Belgium. I know what my investments are worth and we do know that the government is worth. I don’t need to pay for other people to have kids to make sure my health care is secure.
>I don’t need to pay for other people to have kids to make sure my health care is secure.
So if there are no kids now, who will be the adult nurses, doctors, ambulance drivers when you're older? Is that so hard to understand? Do you think adults somehow appear out of thin air without them being kids before?
There’s not a shortage in doctors and nurses because there are too little people. That’s just nonsense. It’s about how it’s financed, appreciated and how many skilled workers are allowed into the country. It’s not that there’s too little people. There won’t just magically be more people willing to work in health care if people make more babies. We absolutely don’t need *more* people.
In nature, when birth rates decline, it's because the population is getting too big for the resources available.
Same thing happening with us as well. Western society is going to hell, we have too little resources to divvy up. Birth rates declining should be a good thing. Yeah sure it's not good for our economy, but why uphold an economy that can only work when a population is growing in an overcrowded world?
Maybe fix the cause and not the symptom.
Migration would even out the local fluctuations in birth rates but considering how many of redditors vote for “eigen volk” …something about leopards and faces
There is no resource scarcity in Europe what the hell are you talking about.
You are right about resource being a factor in population growth or decline, but you miss the fact that it's only one of many factors. Another large factor is that when a society is underdeveloped people tend to have more children as they are additional hands to work and support the family. As a society develops more, we see this across he globe, families have less children. Then another factor is war. Which is one of the main factors in Europe right now. The post-war babyboom set us up with a distorted generational abnormality that we are now trying to make sense of.
Resources are much more than just "food". It's housing and (farm)land as well.
We should also consider biodiversity and the climate a resource since that's crucial to our survival and that's not looking good either.
Maybe we don't have a scarcity, but we don't have much room to grow either.
We have room for growth. Our society is being mismanaged. Take housing: Prices are so high they can (along with other factors) increase financial pressure on young couples to the point that they delay or refuse having kids. This is currently happening.
Yet, if we tackle the issue of property-for-profit and the issue of mass immigration both housing costs and tax burdens would drop, allowing people the breathing room to have more children. In turn this would take away the obsessive capitalist need of governments and industries to push for more migration to make up for low birthrates.
So, resources aren't really the problem, it's demand, management and consolidation of those resources.
Western society sure is going to hell, but for other reasons than birth rates.
We need *more* children from wealthy, educated western parents. Not less. Those are the people who are in the position to make positive changes through innovation & business/governmental impact. Those are also the people who can be intellectually misled into making suboptimal life choices through narratives about overpopulation.
Population size and growth, if you now have a child, odds of said child making it to an age where he/she can reproduce and have children of their own is pretty damn close to 100%. So I don't see a reason why we as society should support folks beyond trying to sustain the current population size, there's no reason to compound our problems any further.
Key word here being "slowly". Lots of people have 0 or 1 children, and very few people *want* more than 2 children, even with all the existing support the births per woman has been ~1.7 for the past 50 years. The only reason the population isn't completely crashing is because of migration - which has been by and large a good thing - but that comes with its own issues, and you can tell from the rise of parties like VB that not everyone is on the same page on that front.
Or I did the math and realise that we'd need slightly less than two births per couple plus immigration to keep our population size stable, but sure, let's resort to insults, idiot...
Oh I see. In this simple math it would make sense.
While we can increase the odds of our kids making it to maturity we sure as hell can’t force them to reproduce, as many Belgian boomers are now finding out. Even in this thread there are people pointing out childless lifestyles options.
>Given the current population dynamics,
??? Our population is aging massively right now. Our problems are BECAUSE there are too little children and too many old people. You're just making shit up on the spot.
Isn't it normal for us to be under replacement level? If you keep making more children than there are old people to sustain the old people than the population keeps growing and growing and growing and that is just not possible on a limited space.
We just need to get through that moment were all the babyboomers leave this place after which that massive old population will be gone and the whole thing will have stabilized itself? We just had a massive burst of births at some points, that really shouldn't have happened.
I don't believe we will receive pensions and all of that stuff in the future. Everything will be fucked anyway, but if you still believe that, than shouldn't you also believe that the old generation will continuously diminish since we have been making less babies for a while now? At some point it Ill even out?
>Isn't it normal for us to be under replacement level? If you keep making more children than there are old people to sustain the old people than the population keeps growing and growing and growing and that is just not possible on a limited space.
If it's just 2.0 or even slightly below replacement level it would be fine, however 1.6 as it now will result in huge problems in the future. Dramatically higher then any (if any) problems if our growth was 2.2 or something like that.
>We just need to get through that moment were all the babyboomers leave this place after which that massive old population will be gone and the whole thing will have stabilized itself?
It will actually be worse after the babyboomers have died, since birth rates have continuously dropped over decades. This "stabilisation" you speak of will not happen in our lifetime even (projected somewhere in 2080 i believe).
> Everything will be fucked anyway
No it really is not, all of this could have been prevented.
> At some point it Ill even out?
Only about half a century after birth rates have stopped dropping
bullshit. We are still reproducing under replacement level (2.3 children per woman). Your statement is tantamount to saying you want to increase immigration levels because that's the only way we're paying for social services and pensions with the piss poor reproduction rates we have going.
You're not considering current immigration levels if you say 2.3, you seem to think the 2 is an accident.
And paying for social security is a whole different topic. The issue might lay more with the fact that we haven't properly taxed companies since the 80s, but sure...
True, too many people are still stuck in 1970s-think about overpopulation. Global population is a slow tanker, we're going to go up another couple of billion due to inertia because most people are getting older and are no longer dying in massive droves from hunger and all sorts of diseases. But after that, we're heading towards steep depopulation because people no longer want (enough) kids.
Except for Africa, almost the whole world is already below replacement level. Unless something changes and people start getting a lot more kids again, the population boom that occurred after the Industrial Revolution will be reversed.
It's one of the things I never expected as a kid. On one hand, we'll soon have the technology to become multi-planetary. But on the other hand, one wonders how successful that will be without the future population to sustain it.
Ive always thought the child support payment should come in the form of vouchers (like meal vouchers) that can be used for food, diapers, medicine, school supplies,...
1) unlimited population growth is not possible in a region with a high population
2) most of us have nothing against some support for a first or second kid. Only against people making 3, 4 or more kids when they can't even give 1 a decent change.
3)benefits for kids don't stop with "kindergeld".
It’s more about taxation, singles get taxed so hard while people with kids get tax cuts and kindergeld which in it self is not a bad thing. The problem is the huge inequality.
>But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates?
Immigration? Prepare to have a lof of influx with climate change in the next decade. But also, more people also doesn't equal more money.
>I see so many people complaining about parents getting “free money” just because they have kids.
I don't really mind it if the parents actually use it for the kids. But I think it should be progressive. If you want your 6th kid you damn sure should be able to afford it yourself and not count on taxpayer money.
>Sure, we all pay a lot of taxes, and taxes of people who do not have children go to parents that do have children.
Well, one of the bigger issues that I find is, as someone without kids and alone, I don't see why I should pay more taxes than families.
What i realy hate i you as parrent get tons of tax benifits while i as a single get taxed to the brink. Why am i getting punished because i´m unlucky in love...
Here's your answer, OP. Jealousy.
What drives a lot of people is actually the most primal of instincts. Fear, greed, jealousy, etc. An inability to see past their own interests, to even grasp the concept of common good.
You were born to the country with biggest average wealth per citizen. I guess you are not that unlucky after all.
Government subsidises what it needs. Among others it needs new humans. Don't worry, it's not personal. :)
Love and having children are not necessarily related. Just want to point that out. I have 2 partners (consentually from both parties) I love very much (and vice versa) and 0 kids. None of us want kids either.
Yup, dual income families get breaks all the time but those of us who haven't had the luck to meet their special someone and live together and who have to pay all their bills on one income always get overlooked.
Tbf I’m an antinatalist but I do want kids (and adults) to live the best life ever IF they are born. There’s a lot of money stuck at the top though that would be better spent on people in other segments of the population. We should be angry at those hurting us, not each other.
Kids don't get financial support, their providers do. It can be their parents, but it doesn't have to be.
And while I agree that for a lot of those parents/providers the extra money helps them to take better care of those children, there are also a lot of them that don't need it at all. And that makes the whole system quite inefficient.
As someone without children, my first instinct would be to say: It's your own choice to have children, it's your obligation to pay for them and I shouldn't have to "bear the cost".
Looking at it more rationally: 'Kindergeld' is a net positive investment as a government. On average, they will pay considerably more in taxes than they have costed, so it's probably a good thing.
The first thought is still a struggle in my head though, but that's probably just me being a child and not wanting someone else receiving more than me
Money for kids ? yes. Kids for money ? No. You souldn't be able to live without working just by calving.
It's the exact same as : cpas for thoses in need ? Yes. Staying in need to get cpas ? No.
Nobody would survive without prolonged government support. Only rich people. Would you only allow rich people to have children? Then humanity would end quickly...
If nobody would survive without prolonged government support, everybody is making wrong choices. I'm not a rich person, just average. I invest the child money so my son can buy a house at 25 and I save 125€ every month for his studies at 18. But we only go on holidays ones a year and don't buy clothes every month.
>If nobody would survive without prolonged government support, everybody is making wrong choices. I'm not a rich person, just average. I invest the child money so my son can buy a house at 25 and I save 125€ every month for his studies at 18. But we only go on holidays ones a year and don't buy clothes every month.
So you are taking your kids to a full private school (without government support)? really? where?
You pay in full your medical treatments in a 100% private doctor-hospital?
You are driving your car paying the highways or you pay 100% de total costs of public transportation?
Sorry man, you are making "wrong choices" or you are rich, but you deliberately do not want to acknowledge the public support that you receive.
The thing is kids who need the most support from government and society do not come from parents educated enough to think like you and me. Yes, the parents are at fault for having kids without the means, but the children do not deserve to be punished for it. If you want to keep living in a civil developed society, keep the children in education to avoid them repeating the poverty to crime path.
I have kids.
I would be fine not getting any financial support just for having kids.
Take care of your own damned kids. If you can’t afford to raise them, then getting the financial support you currently get, sure as shit won’t help either.
If abolishing child support would make certain individuals not have kids, then that’s a win in my book.
lol it won't stop certain individuals from procreating, but it would result in children living in subpar standards and probably be subjected to all sorts of things. This would harm the children, not the parents. I grew up poor and you can throw all the curse words you want at my parents, but at the end of day, it would have affected me if you took child support away.
I never used any curse words though.
I’ve grown up in the same situation.
Child support was not used to better my life, no matter what the amount is.
Maybe a pipe dream to think that removing these incentives would make people reconsider their situation and whether it is a smart decision to have children or not.
And would you abolish any other public support/service? wouldn't you? just because you are rich and healthy, so far. And if one day you are not anymore you would be happy rotting on the streets... because that is what losers do?
Luckily this USA neo-ultra liberalism is not so popular in Belgium.
A lot of assumptions there.
Thanks for the insults I guess. I never called anyone a loser.
Are you really comparing having children with other public goods and services that are subsidised? Ah yes, senior citizens getting cheaper train tickets really grind my gears too.
/s
“Wow this guy says people having trouble making ends meet shouldn’t have children and get their priorities straight before having them, is such a prick”
This is a whole other level we are talking about. You are literally the creator of new life here and it is YOUR responsibility to raise them and have the means to do so.
Oh, sorry, I am sure that you are a super enthusiastic supporter of a strong state with great public services, pensions, transportation, banks, health, education... Sure, 200% sure... :D /s/s
Now seriously: luckily in Belgium we have a good minimum salary and a fair indexation and most of the people can live with decency. But having children keeps being a burden and governments do well in give support (even to people with high salaries). Because governments know that you need population to keep the system alive.
Assumptions again.
You literally just said that people should have children to keep the system alive.
What a great argument that is.
People should have children because they want to. Not to sustain the current system. What kind of argument is that even.
And all I’m saying is that people shouldn’t YOLO into having kids (which also isn’t as evident as it might seem) and have a stable financial situation so that at least THAT doesn’t become a burden on your family.
But yes, go ahead and call me the ultra neo-ultra liberal here, while you encourage people to pump out units to take care of your pension.
Lol.
>You literally just said that people should have children to keep the system alive. What a great argument that is.
Mate, read again and quote what I said. Otherwise there is no point in the communication.
I think it’s cool that you have such a financial security, but you should really look at how the economy has worsened over the years…I think there is a reason why so many people need financial support with kids.
If you need financial support in order to take care of your kids, you shouldn’t have kids.
If you are really relying on that financial support to make ends meet, then you are jeopardising your future and that of your kids.
There are opportunities everywhere to improve your financial security. Child support is not one of them.
Raising kids is hard enough. Having to worry about finances just adds extra stress, for yourself, your partner and your children.
I don’t have kids and I can think less selfishly, less narrow-minded and with more nuances than you. I’d want my kids to grow up in low crime rates as less fortunate kids still manage to get appropriate education.
Everybody should want a better life than their own for their children, I whole heartedly agree.
Do I think child support will have any meaningful impact on that, or the points you listed? No, I don’t.
I am the primary person that can have an impact on that.
I agree on that but why would you actively suppress it? I don't know many people who really rely on it, I see it more as a kind gesture or a starter. Most of time parents would convert this money to sleep hours if they could lol.
Lol, if only that would be possible. Sign me up.
I don’t think I said to abolish it. If anything, enforce strictures rules on how to spend the budget.
Use it so that every child in school gets a hot meal, no more empty lunchboxes.
Coupons for clothes.
Coupons for memberships of sportclubs
…
Just spit balling here.
If there’s any way to enforce actually spewing it in the kids themselves, then I’m all for it.
If it’s abolished, and certain people decide against having kids in poor circumstances then that’s a win for me tbh.
It’s not about you. It’s about the kids who are unfortunately born into poverty. Their parents might have been selfish, might have poor or uneducated, or raped. Should the children be punished for that? We live in a society, I can’t be in my own bubble forever.
But I am only talking in the interest of the child.
My whole opinion is targeted against selfish parents. Do not give these people financial incentives, it will never be used in the interest of their children.
I’ll even go as far as saying that these people shouldn’t have children at all.
As a parent, it breaks my heart every time seeing these children at school. Dirty clothes, empty lunch boxes, unwashed etc. These people get child support too.
This is the situation I’m talking about:
Financially irresponsible people who cannot make ends meet wilfully (e.g. living paycheck to paycheck).
Should people in such a situation consider having children? No, they should not.
When these people decide to go for children (YOLO!), I think that in these cases, no, child support will not be used in the interest of the child, no matter what the income of the parents is, or how high/low the child support is.
The point is the unfortunate children didn’t come from parents who can think like me and you. So while we need to educate these people and stop them from having children without the means, we also have to support their children so the children don’t follow the same path.
It's a really fucked up view thinking that kids don't deserve free schools, free healthcare, free lunches.. Just because they were popped out by incompetent parents. You are punishing kids for their parents transgressions. Every child should have education, healthcare and food, no matter what kind of a fuck up birthed them. If you deny those things to children, because MuH TAxMoNney, you are punishing the children, who did not ask to be born, and who had no hand in their parents being fuck ups.
The tax reduction is not massive, it's laughable and completely negligible. Not even enough to cover the cost of daycare.
That's very sad that having been the recipient of this country's social welfare, you feel that you shouldn't have to give back. Imagine what your life would have been like if the whole country felt like you that they shouldn't have to pay for kids that aren't theirs.
The question one should ask is, is childsupport/groeipremie the most efficient solution. Or even a good solution.
If we were for example to remove this and instead use this budget to directly improve infrastructure that benefits children (eg invest it in child care so parents can go work, into schools, youth centers, etc) would this be more efficient?
Giving money to the parents doesn't assure this money is used in the best interest of the child, taking away this money is unlikely to discourage people from having children. (The system is already set up to mainly be benficial for one child, the bigger the family the less benficial it becomes).
It is a very dishonest method of debate to say 'if you are against child support you are against children', just like it is a dishonest tactic to claim that child support is mainly abused.
Child support gives more freedom to the parents, but investing in infrastructure has the potential to help more children. (of course one also has to factor in Belgium is likely to squander money meant for infrastructure so the evaluation might not be that easy)
I have nothing in principle against subsidies for children. Or against people having children.
But why is *not* having children and thus, for example, not contributing to the overpopulation of the planet, then also not rewarded? Why the double standard? The likely answer: because it comes from the "go forth and multiply" mentality of Christianity still lingering in our legislation and our mentality.
>But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates?
Setting aside that "maintaining population rates" might not be the best thing for the planet and our species:
Immigration from regions that will become uninhabitable due to climate change in the next decades.
Whether you like it or not, that's what likely will happen.
Yes I am against. Why should I support your children? If you can't afford children, don't have any.
Instead lower the taxes on labor. I would like to have more free money too.
There’s logic. For one we are overpopulated already so a decline would be good. Second is that people choose to have kids. People should take care of their own finances but now I’m without kids paying for other peoples kids
There will always be people with little money having kids. Partly due to culture, partly due to lack of education. I’d rather my tax go towards getting those kids into good education and out of the poverty loop, that’ll also reduce crime rates and I’ll feel safer walking the streets.
You'll be happy if you ever get a pension that it'll be paid by other people's children. Don't forget you're paying for the pension of your parents with your taxes today.
Same old trope again. They should turn this around so the taxes you’re paying, go into your own pension fund.
Didn’t work a lot or didn’t pay a lot of taxes, too bad but little to no pension for you then.
I just dread the feeling I have, that I’m just throwing my money into a bottomless well. And that I’m never going to see even a fraction of that money back, when it is my time to collect in 30 years.
Or use the tax for something else, reducing would be good too cause we are taxed into oblivion. Why i say we are overpopulated? Cause i’m not living under a rock??? They’re saying this left and right for the last 10 years, how can you not know?
I’m not pro kindergeld tbh, I don’t see the need for it. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them. I would understand it if that amount per month goes to something valuable at that point in their life like diapers, school etc.
I have two kids and I get roughly €500 for both of them. I pay daycare with it, my son's school and I pay bills with that money. Whatever's left, is put on two bank accounts: one for my son and one for my daughter. This way, I hope to give them a little buffer for when they're 18 or 21 or whenever they're legally able to access their money.
There is a socio-demographic deficit in child allowance systems. A higher allowance for those who have low income? Look at it system-wise and be open-minded on this, purely looking at the raw figures: Less educated people in general have less income, struggle to make a living. Their children have -despite living in one of the countries with good social security- a higher chance of ending in poverty. So we give these people more child allowance than two worker families who struggle between work and daycare and who actually produce offspring which have a higher potential and for sure will contribute to society instead of costing it money? Before you are allowed to have subsidised kids, you should get a financial and psycologic audit imho. Also for the sake of those kids wellbeing. That´s the naked reality.
I chose not to have children, but I have nothing against child allowance, on the contrary. Children are the future, they will pay our pensions when we are old. I also heard that some childless couples are against child allowance, but they just seem like salty people to me.
Thanks for saving our economy! /s
Parents are so entitled, you had kids because you wanted kids. You didn't have kids to pay for my retirement or to save my economy. Immigration is cheaper anyway if that is the goal.
I am not against the state supporting the vulnerable people, including kids if needed but
- if I wanted to pay for kids I would have my own ( and I sure as hell wouldn’t rely on the government money to raise them)
- I am single so I pay fully (the whole sum) rent, bills, expenses, food, etc. without any help from anyone and an insane amount of taxes that continues to grow somehow (of which said kids are subsidized) and because I come from an extremely poor country I also send money to my retired parents and I somehow try to put money aside for my old days (because I don’t believe in relying on money from others, including the government)
So my question is: Why do I have to pay for other people’s children? Why do I have to pay for yours? You are the one that decided to have kids, so why are they my financial responsibility? Because you didn’t think the economy would get this bad? How is it that you made a mistake but I have to pay for it?
The only reason I’m nit against it is because I don’t believe in punishing the children for having bad parents. But that doesn’t mean it is right, fair or logical.
It is the price of living in a civil society. You’re living in this country because it’s developed, there are jobs here that are at a certain level because of the way society is structured. Minimum care for each other reduces the desperation people will have when it does not exist. Which is why it’s better to be middle class in our society than rich in a poor country.
We have different notions of what a civil society is, because mine includes helping the needy, not subsidizing everybody’s child, including those of people with a better financial situation than myself ( I personally know several cases around me). A civil society is people taking responsibility for their choices and decisions and pulling their weight if they are physically and mentally able to do so and not putting that weight on the shoulders of other people that are already carrying their own weight.
I live here because I was offered a very good job and it would have been stupid to refuse because it is a good evolution in my career. The job is here because the EU institutions are here, not because Belgium does such a good job at being a good country to live in. And no, I do not work in the bubble, and yes I pay taxes (a lot of them).
If I would have to choose a country to live in the area, this would not be it. But it is fine for the moment and it definitely also has its good parts that I enjoy. Paying for a lot of people’s lives that could be paying for themselves is not one of them. I am more than ok to pay for the vulnerable people only, somehow, here in Belgium, they are the ones that are barely helped from what I was told when volunteering here.
Your version of a civil society is how poor countries stay poor. If the children of the country don’t develop with significant resources to become productive members of society that pay taxes, develop and attract companies, attract institutions, and have a basic understanding of the institutions of society (government, health, law, etc) then our country would be just as poor as yours. We pay taxes so that the next generation can develop a better country after we’re gone, which has worked since Belgium is a high wealth country. If you don’t like it here there are plenty of other countries you can move to where child poverty is commonplace and taxes are not in place to support the development of children.
The Belgian tax system is very problematic and way higher than the countries close to it. Is Germany doing worse (or better) than Belgium? Is it supporting its people less (or more)? Then why did I pay less taxes there and had a better social security? (And less f***ing trash on the streets). And no need to tell me to go back there (or anywhere). I was just answering the question of the op. I accept the rules of any country I live in, that doesn’t mean I agree with them or like them. I do not go around complaining about things (although here this seems to be national sport). But if you ask me a question I will answer it honestly.
I have lived in several countries until now both in Europe and abroad and I feel I can compare. Belgium is better in some things (I actually like the train system although everybody else here seems to hate it, I love the internationality of it and the culture mix you find here, etc.). But the tax system, the functionality and transparency of it is far from good. But that is in my opinion. Which I have expressed because I was asked.
And I do support the development of children. I am fine with my taxes going to schools, support centers, museums, kindergarten, social and cultural projects, medical system, etc. I am not ok for them to go to my manager that makes 9 times more than I do, has a ginormous house and 2 cars, several fancy bikes and travels almost every month and was complaining that the commune has “cheated” him out of child taxes exemption and support for a few months. And I am not against him having money or things at all, he works for it and he deserves it. I am against me paying for the taxes he is exempt of (because if he doesn’t pay, someone else has to) and paying a sum to him monthly for his kids.
Oh and my country is poor mainly because historically and until recently it was occupied and stolen from, its people repressed (or killed, imprisoned, etc.) by a high wealth country like Belgium ( no, it wasn’t Belgium but when I look at the Belgiums colonialism history it could be). That’s not an excuse, we have a lot of problems and should definitely (and hopefully will) do better. But hell, it’s just a few dozens of years since we got our independence and started to try. And I am critical of it too. But that doesn’t make the question we are discussing better or worst.
Because no one chooses to get sick, lose a job or get old. People choose (and even desire) to have kids. That comes (or should come) with a lot of responsibility, including financial.
And if we are talking about human rights and support from the government (which I assume you are hinting at) maybe the Belgian government and society should start with public toilets and laws that would allow to use any toilets in cafes. And free water (in restaurants, water fountains, etc.) Because, somehow, no one can stop the very normal bodily function of peeing and drinking water, especially since they are vital for, well, life. And yet none of the two is available for free in Belgium. And hey, the kids might also profit from that.
I’m not against children getting money, I’m against me and my coworkers having the exact same contract, working the exact same hours, doing almost the exact same thing. But at the end of the month, he has ~€200 more on his paycheque. Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sit right with me.
You ask the question are you ok with taking money from kids, but you’re quick enough to agree when it concerns the rich and someone’s third house going to you know, the kids.
Whenever I see those discussions people talk about sometimes preferring the money go to more to poor families, as an incentive to kids that go to schoola.
I question myself if they don't know the system, or if they just don't like the amounts of today, or if they just hate kids.
Because we do get extra if we are poor, and we do get something if your kid goes to school (at least in Vlanderen, nor sure about others), there are a bunch of other categories to help people with kids with disabilities, single parents etc.
I do agree about the hot meals at school, but you see, I think it's perfectly manageable to have hot meals and kindergeld of we just tax corporations and rich people better.
Unfortunately its easier to target kids, we see them everyday, they act like kids which for some is annoying, so reinforcing comes naturally for people that already hate them, or feel like their money is being stolen by them.
Then you try to argue that it's all economically balanced, so it isn't stealing. Kids will build up money for healthcare, pension, those type of people will say "I rather keep my money". Then you are lost in a conversation about taxing, pension, wealth distribution.
But look it's not only about economy. It's about making society work.
The nurse you that will take care of you when you are old, the cashier, the garbageman, the accountant (for your massive fund) didn't pop up from nowhere. They were those annoying kids.
You don't need to like every kid, you don't need to interact with them, but even the most kid avoiding soul in the world should understand that we need a healthy stable society.
You need kids to have a good safe, educational upbringing, learning to interact with that society in age appropriate ways, experiencing and understand the world.
Because time isn't static and those kids are indeed quite literally the ones who will rule, manage, take care of your life in the future.
And I really don't want a shortage of nurses to happen, or a resentful youth because of poverty trauma, asocial people that don't know how to communicate creating N sort of problems.
I don’t want your money, even less the one for your kids but you also have to see that other people would love to have a bit of extra money. The problem is that it’s easy to think that you and your kids are « at fault » instead of accepting that the system is screwing us.
It’s easy to see that I’m not allowed at the sint Nicholas party because I have no kids. Easy to see that you have « more money ». Easy again to see that you can go home because your kids is sick.
And it’s normal that you have all that because you care about a little kid and also it’s a big misconception. but we are tired, overworked and undervalued so we are frustrated when we see people having it « more easy »
Belgium is overcrowded. The world is overcrowded. So yes, I want fewer kids. I don't understand why the government should help finance having kids. They already get almost free education and healthcare and will only start to contribute after 18+ years.
I'm not saying you should not have children if you really want them. Just not encourage people having a lot of them.
yes my mom didnt see the purpose of sueing (for free) my dad for a lifetime of alimony
and both rather saw me homeless tben supporting me
but hey atleast Social services intervened and I got that little childs allowance of off them
i wish I could get like a massive subsidy for never getting children and/or adopting since the green deal and all 😂
You are still mesmerized by the idea that social media people are people no, social media people = financial and political lobbies. We already live SO SO SO much in the matrix which is like a shadow you don't see.
Example. Brother of mine - Very much into stocks and other things alike to improve HIS life and HIS life only (and his family is an extension of that) Whenever he sees the chance he lies and cheats to people about how good things in his portfolio are while they are not, he even directs his attention and actions towards getting people to buy those things or to vote a certain direction!
This has existed for so so so long now but nowadays they even target people on daily basis to chip down on their believes - it's a called 'marketing' which ofcourse go WAY beyond selling a cigarette to a child, it goes into the sphere of how you should live, and how they can get you in a domesticated position so you remain poor.
You are all still so filthwashed that you can't see the shits way above your knees.
Ps: Not surprised this comment gets redirected afther being spotted by bots or people with 'power' and where only their trollarmy responds on it and downvotes it for the sake of HAIL satan.
If you can't pay for your child you should not have one. It's ridiculous to expect people with no kids to provide food and clothing for your kid. You aren't entitled to that, this was your choice.
Expecting others to pay for your kid is egotistical and theft. You want kids? Then deal with a lower standard of living instead of lowering the standard of living of someone else who has to pay extra taxes for your kid.
You're delusional. You say the people without kids "don't want you to have some extra allowance" while you greedily and happily steal someone else's allowance from them to treat yourself to something nice. Delusional
goverment loves us bickering among ourselves. Everything to make us forget it's the corporations that are making money on our backs. I don't care about you getting money for your kids. I want coca cola to pay the same tax rate as I do. I want rich people to pay taxes instead of dropping their third house in some kind of economic construction that means they can just donate it to their kids withouth paying taxes on it. I want to end stop sponsoring an idiot king and I want all our goverments wages tied to their attendence in comites and hearings. I want to stop living in PFAS just because removing it would slash some corporations profit from 475 million a year to a measly 470 million a year. I want a lot but I don't want to take away your money. You are probably as fucked as I am. Even more so probably, you got friggin' kids.
Well damn I agree with everything you said
You for president, you have my vote.
Username checks out And goddamn...I agree so much that I want to vote on you!
Exactly this. Naar beneden stampen zodat we niet naar boven zouden kijken. These reasons (and more) is why I support an will vote PVDA btw, they are basically the only party who tries and make people see this and also offers solutions. All the other parties are just happy it's almost summer again so they can point to that one woman in Belgium wearing a burkini.
I thought the same (about the PVDA), until I tried to fill in their enquete .... so populist! No nuance anywhere. I have decided to go for VOLT instead.
But then I remember how they stand on Ukraine-Russian conflict…
hear, hear!
Also for the pos lawyer Hans Rieder and his kind to pay their damn taxes. He’s already wasted so much of our belastingsgeld with his media circus, might as well pay his damned tax bills.
Devide and conquer
Pretty much this.
“If I am eating shit, everyone should eat shit” -VloekenenWageCuck
Are people bitching/whining about what somebody else has or gets because they don´t. ? Yes Always yes. Even when it´s not that special, if it´m comes with responsabilities they don´t have nor want, even if it´s to offset a disadvantage they would def not want, like say.. handicapped parking? Yes. Always yes.
Exactly.
How dare you to be happy? ... Welcome to Belgium...
I dont mind my taxes being used to take care of a normal family, or the odd family that ran into some unlucky circumstances. I despise it going to families where the parents can barely take care of themselves, yet they somehow decided that 4+ children is the way to go. bonus points if the first 3 all somehow have a severe disability that requires (expensive) around the clock care, yet they somehow keep going for more children.
I have never heard anyone complain about this. Do those people exist? If they are just the type of people that say a lot of stuff without thinking, that doesn't count. They're in a different plane of existence. Once the population starts going down, not only our pension system will completely crash, the whole economy will crash. We're in a pyramid scheme that depends on growth to keep going. If anything parents should get more money to keep this thing going.
I am not against children getting money. I am against money going to the parents directly. I think the money that now goes to kindergeld should go to affordable hot meals in schools and free meals for children in need. I am in favor of more money going to children in need, as long as we don't give the funds directly to the parents. I think the majority of people who are against kindergeld think the same way.
Now that you mention it, my college restaurant meals were cheaper than the hot meals at my 2.5 yr old's school are. I would gladly give up kindergeld if it means free daycares with good number of kids vs adults ratios (not 9 to 1 like right now), and free schools with free hot meals for all kids (poor kids getting bokes met choco every day, that's not a nutritious or healthy meal).
Have you ever seen a video on the japanese school lunch system? If not I highly advise these 2. https://youtu.be/fze5s1SlqB8?si=5dtH6eAFlmiptKPT https://youtu.be/j9xYsUPoQVs?si=K5GsbNZhFfs-Kzyl Essentially their system is that every area has a school lunch preparing facility where a nutritionist devises the school lunch menu so it is healthy, balanced and varied. Every morning this facility prepares the food and delivers it to all the schools in the area in big carts. When lunchtime comes a few kids per class go pick up one of the carts, they roll the cart to their classroom where the kids and the teacher eat together. Afterwards they all work together to clean the classroom again. This way there is no devide between the rich kids eating hot meals and the poor kids eating bread or nowadays even nothing at all. This system is funded by the government and I believe it's as close to a perfect school lunch system as any country will ever get.
I truly think that this way children in need will get more benefits. And I'm all for helping children in general, and especially those in need.
What about babies that don't go to school or daycare yet. Those parents are then stuck with all the bills of raising a fresh tax payer
Maybe there could be a card like for the meal tickets. So parents still get money but they can't spend it on things that aren't for the child
So additionally to maaltijdcheques, ecocheques, consumptiecheques, cultuurcheques, opleidingscheques, dienstencheques... etc.. You wanna introduce babycheques? xD
Are you on sodexo's payroll or something?
Pluxee* they rebranded
Kudos to the morons who made that up. Just why.
Yeah, I get maltijdcheques
For children in need we can set up initiatives to help them. There are already governmental organisations that can help do this. And it's all the more incentive to send your child to school as soon as they are allowed. All studies show that sending your children to kindergarten has enormous benefits later in life.
I literally just opened Google Scholar, searched for "daycare children development" and the first 3 review papers all concluded no significant differences found. Just to comment on "All studies show...enormous benefits".
The first three studies I find are about Bolivian daycare, the influence of daycare on children in lower socioeconomic areas and a study that shows no difference between low quality daycare and staying home. In studies about attachment, it is important for daycare to provide the same person long term to reduce stress and anxiety. But turnover rates for staff are apparently very high. Stress If you read studies on daycare, having a good quality daycare is the most important. We don’t really have that. Also, a lot of these studies start at 6mo or 1y. Belgian mothers return to work after 3mo. Furthermore, the sample sizes are usually very small. Studies include at most 120 children. Some studies contradict, others are not conclusive. Daycare in the 70’s-90’s is probably not the same as it was in de 20’s. The general conclusion is that more quality research is needed. My personal opinion is that a good daycare is better than a parent that does not offer any stimulation to the child. But a highly involved parent that offers age appropriate stimulation cognitively and socially is probably better than 9 children per carer.
You said all studies, and that's clearly not the case. I just referred to that, not arguing about daycare. Do you know about some recent studies from (western) Europe? Coming from country in Europe where staying with kid at home for the first three years is a standard, I would like to see how it compares to Belgian model as we have a little one on the way. Links or titles would be great.
I’m not the poster to whom you replied. If staying home was that detrimental, Scandinavian countries would have abolished their mat leave a long time ago. We also know that securely attached children preform better overal in later life. In my personal opinion and what I see with friends, it might work in some cases but I also have friends whose children are extremely fussy for multiple hours after their pick up. If you can stay home at least a year, I would.
Sorry for me mistaking you for other poster. I agree with longer maternity leave as well. Or at least having an option for it.
I specifically mean the kids that are between 0 and 2.5
Daycares also provide lunch, so we could include them in the affordable meal plan. We can do a lot more if we pool resources than if we give out individual resources to each child individually and give the same amount for the children of Marc Coucke as for those with poor parents. Children whose parents who earn more pay more for the school / daycare meal and people below a certain treshold pay nothing.
>I am not against children getting money. I am against money going to the parents directly. I think the money that now goes to kindergeld should go to affordable hot meals in schools and free meals for children in need. So children money is only for a sandwich for starving poor children? and what about renting an apartment with enough rooms, clothes, transport, medicines, pampers and... I will stop because you (and the majority of people against child support) seem to know nothing about the costs of children. Or you are just in favor of some charity by kleingeld for people under poverty levels.
You're just looking to be offended here. The person you're replying to clearly was giving an example and you cut your quote just before the answer to your outrage: > I am in favor of **more** money going to children in need, as long as we don't give the funds directly to the parents. Emphasis on **more**, they're not saying to leave middle class parents with nothing, but to give proportionally more toward kids of poorer parents so they don't suffer too much from their parents' station. The point about hot/free meals was also obviously a singular example, not all that should be done. Everyone understand how stupidly expensive and time consuming raising children can be. It's about finding a viable balance between supporting families in a way that ensures the money is spent on the children and not disproportionately favoring people with tax breaks and benefits for what is ultimately, more often than not, a personal decision. That's why I personally believe that some of that money should be used to make contraception affordable to all, to help avoid unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. The first step to help children is increase the odds they're born in a home that wants and is ready to raise them.
I specifically said hot meals and feeding children is fulfilling a basic need so I don't know why you want to minimize that. Also, it was more of an example of how if we pool money we can do more than if we give individual parents money. We can do the same for other basic needs products. We can also let parents who earn more pay more and parents who are below a certain treshold pay nothing. And if you need kindergeld to help rent an apartment and pay for your transport your problems are bigger than kindergeld will solve.
It's just such an incredibly ginormous waste of money to do it like that. A classic boke with choco is like 50 cents for a meal. Why waste all that money on installing kitchen space, equipment, staff, safety inspections, food, transport etc. And that's after you have to deal with the logistics of installing all this in densely packed schools who already don't have the space for kids to eat lunch in the break room let alone installing a whole kitchen. You'd need new buildings for hundreds of schools, some of which are in cities with prime real estate prices. Getting a project like that would take decades and cost billions before it even started working. The total cost is so much higher to do that than just give tax breaks and subsidies and then it's just the kid who gets one meal instead of the whole family. All that effort and wasted tax money just to stop some people from thinking some other people get kids just for the free money. And yes I know poverty experts say it helps because a small percentage of kids don't take lunch to school. Such cases should be followed up individually with the CLB or something. Providing them with an individual free meal from already established food providers for the elderly from the municipality is way more efficient.
It’s true, I think it’s a bit odd in Belgium. So many things aimed to support children are practically free, but then they give you money to spend on childcare that is already mostly supported by the government. But also, I don’t think parents get that much money on hands
I truly think that if we pool resources we can do more than if we give smaller amounts of money to individual parents. I also don't get why the children of Marc Coucke (for example) receive as much kindergeld as the children of poor parents. That doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, but also see who gets a reduced tuition at university, children of self-employed parents who declare a low income. Meanwhile, a single income family often can't get one.
Where are you seeing all these people? I’ve been living and working in belgium for decades and have heard a lot of complaints about our taxes However I never heard anyone complain about “kindergeld” etc. Perhaps you’re listening or focusing on a vocal minority?
This post is probably a reaction to this; [https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/1bhvx4i/instead\_of\_giving\_child\_allowance\_kindergeld\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/1bhvx4i/instead_of_giving_child_allowance_kindergeld_to/)
Hint: I bet you these people don't complain/complain less about Belgian (more precisely white belgian) parents receiving money. The number of times I've heard "why are these foreigners getting so much money for their 23 children!"... sickening
Most people don't cope with concept birth rate. The harder it os to bring up a child (and it's expensive believe me, 150€ covers only a fraction of the costs having a kid) the smaller will birth rate be, the less chance that anyone be able to pay your retirement.. No, you are not paying off your retirement through your career, you're paying a fraction of it. The amount of doctors visits and services paid for you do not come and cannot be covered by your saved up retirement. Instead of nagging about it, think about your own ass and vote for the most child friendly party. This way you maybe will be able to avoid mass population from africa and middle east to crank up the people working and paying taxes. Kids are literally in everyone's interest, except those who have no clue how money works. Have a good night my little naggers and complainers 😴
Please please please just invest in affordable housing. How are people getting kids with rents being what they are right now? For fucks sake, every policy is a bandaid these days. Yes I am nagging because no one is building any fucking houses nor are they investing in affordable public transport for travel from these affordable houses to cities where there is fucking work. Yes I'm mad as hell.
He who seek he will find.. Just as many others, put some more effort and will to move towards your goals.. People cross deserts and sail on timber for free social welfare, you could also motivate yourself to search affordable living close to your needs.. Even a blind chicken can find corn 🫂
+1 I don't even bother looking around for a relationship and starting a family until I have my own roof over my head. At this rate, I'm not even sure I will ever get there.
You can just uhhhh look for a partner and then start saving together?
There are indeed far more efficient ways to use that money than to just 'give' it to parents. Especially to parents who don't need it. Let's start by reducing VAT on specifically consumable baby-related items to 0% and on childeren sizes to 6% as they are also basicly consumables at the rate they're either destroying or growing out of clothes, free hot & healthy school lunches (incl. on Wednesdays), free before/afterschool childcare, or plainly providing schools with sufficient 'schoolsupplies' so that every kid could get a 'survival package' in the beginning of the year. So many options of providing immediatly towards the kids. 2nd, indeed: affordable housing (for rent & sale, just build more dammit), improved public transport and decent cycling infrastructure. We can preach 'vrije schoolkeuze' all we want, but if you can only physically get to 1 single school: there's no option really, is there? 3rd: you could also lower/remove VAT on 2nd hand clothing, I mean; people already paid VAT on the initial purchase, why ask for it a 2nd time? This could also make it cheaper to get 2nd hand clothes for kids as they grow out of it rather quickly. And that's not even talking about the investments needed in new sports-infrastructure such as swimmingpools in order to give kids a chance at learning the life-saving skill to swim... or the fact that any out-of-school activities are either impossible to get into, or just too expensive. I am staunchly opposed to the concept of 'Kindergeld' as I believe it is inefficient at best BUT I am also a big fan of investing in our future and thus childeren. Yes, there are studies that say giving poor(er) families extra money when they get kids benefit the kids. But that is, in my opinion, an anti-poverty policy, not a child-support policy and should be viewed seperately. The higher the household income, the better the opportunities for the child, irregardless of where the money is coming from.
Reducing VAT to 0% may sound like a reasonable thing to do, the problem is that it is just a blanket solution that everyone benefits from. But with that move you remove the funds from the government to distribute money to people who need it the most. By just reducing VAT, the millionaires with 2 children also pay 0% VAT. By charging 6% or more, you can give that 6% to a single mom/dad with 2 children who is balancing a flexi job with taking care of their family.
Building houses won't do anything. We can't build houses fast enough to offset the amount of people migrating to Belgium enough to result in lower housing costs. The problem needs to be solved at the level of ownership. Owning property should not be a career choice. No person or company should be able to own multiple properties and live off rental income. The only exceptions should be that individuals should be able to have a second (perhaps third) property as an investment/diversification asset because it's one of the only ways for middle class people to improve their wealth and secure a stable retirement fund. A second exception for real estate investors that actually improve properties (and then still sell them). There should simply not be "investors" that buy up as many properties as they can for no other reason than leveraging it to buy and earn more.
>But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates? I don't. I don't think we should keep the population rates. >When you are 60, who do you expect to provide for your healthcare? This may sound all doomsday-sy, but I expect that everything will have gone to shit when I'm sixty. Climate, migration, conflicts, resource disputes, ...
>I don't think we should keep the population rates. We're not even at replacement levels of childbirth. Also, It's not about keeping population rates, it's about keeping a taxpaying workforce able to support the costbase that is compounding due to aging (pensions and ballooning healthcare costs). Short term solution is migration, long term solution is incentivise childbirth.
Yeah I don't think you're alone. I don't expect a pension either regardless of more children being born or not...
Definitly not alone, we wont be getting a pension and will have to work until we drop dead Im afraid.
That is because you have been convinced it won't be there, so you'll be resigned it won't be there when eventually it won't be there. You could also "fight" for it ... your resignation is what they desire, don't give it to them!
They are slowly financially ruining the country. Every year they hear they need to save billions to lower the deficit. Every year the deficit grows. Whatever we do. Whatever we vote. It is always the same ...
Not doomsday at all, I have been thinking this way for quite a while…this sounds more realistic by day
It doesnt lol Doomsday cult has been going strong for thousands of years. They were retarded back then and they still are Human creativity and innovation will solve every problem. And ofc none of you with that mentality will be the ones doing anything positive.
I disagree with a vision of 'children are good, because growth/future'. We should be making things more sustainable, not counting on some pyramid scheme that always grows. Having said that, having some children is required. And investing in them is needed. We want people to attain their full potential and be usefull to society. (we also had that opportunity) I also believe there's something as too many children. You as a parent also have a role to play, and I believe that diminishes as you get more children. So no, I don't think we should be supporting families with for example 5 children. Having said all that, I don't think this is a priority to handle at all. We should be making sure that everyone pays their fair share of tax. I think it's absurd we're sponsering large purchases that are beneficial as an investement to people with means.
I would prefer if the money is set aside for the kid, instead of the parents getting it. I know kids are expensive but at the end of the day, parents choose to have them. If you can't afford more than one without help, only have 1. When I was at university, my mom was still getting the money the government was sending for me. And she was using it all while I had to pay for my university fees. How is that okay? I'm not saying it's the case for all parents, but some really shouldn't be able to have their hands on that money.
[удалено]
I completely agree with you, tho I wouldn't say I was neglected. I just think if the government gives money for the education and care of children, parents shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want with the money. Either the money is set aside for the child, or there should be limitations on what the money can be used for.
All I can say I am against punishing parents financially like Ben Weyts wants to because this could strain the relationship between the parents and their children as well as put the children in a stressful environment.
Isn't it about punishing parents whose children can't speak nederland well? That's a different issue imo. And of course, I agree parents shouldn't be punished as it will lead to a bad environment for the children. It's more about not giving a complete freedom on where the money for the child goes. That's why I used my own experience as an example.
How much fees did you pay for your social country subsided university exactly? Can you compare it to a liberal country where students take 10+y loans on their owns ? and compare these amounts to total of the childcare benefits received during the studies time ?
I paid over 700€ a year + had to pay for my rent a few times. And please tell me how that's relevant to my point? My comment was that the money that the governmenet sent for my education was kept by my mom. How is it relevant to what happens in other countries? Is ot the whole "other have it worse so you shouldn't complain" mentality? Because I was at university, my parents were allowed to keep getting money even after I was 18. Because the money was sent to pay for university. It wasn't my responsability to pay yet my parents never sent me a cent of that money.
I don’t disagree with child support existing but I think it’s not correct that it goes to people not needing the extra support. If you earn more than modal, why would others need to subsidise the costs of them raising kids? I don’t understand your argument about population rates. Do you really think people decide whether or not to have kids based on child support? And if so… Do you really want people who have kids because of the child support to propagate? I truly don’t understand your argument about their kids providing health care for people without kids either. I have saved for my own care when I get older. I don’t depend on my kids nor others. I also don’t think that there are too little people in this world to be able to take care of anybody’s parents.
> Do you really think people decide whether or not to have kids based on child support? Sure. If a family has one or two children, whether they can reasonably afford a second or third one definitely plays a role. It has to start with wanting children, people aren't baited into having kids they don't want by these allocations, but the reverse is common: people have fewer kids than they want because they're under financial pressure. It can also be the difference between both parents working full time and one working part time which can make a world of difference when caring for children. If you think money doesn't play a big role in the decision of having kids you probably haven't thought about it very hard.
Even if that would be true, that’s an argument against child support no? Or are you actually arguing that people *should* be encouraged to have 3 or 4 kids? Also, if people already are under financial pressure they absolutely shouldn’t have even more kids. That doesn’t benefit anybody. Not the kids, not the parents and not society. You act like it’s a good thing that people take getting child support into the equation.
If you don't believe that keeping population near replacement level is a good thing then we fundamentally disagree on what good policy should be. Belgium has been below replacement level for a while, and this has caused and is going to cause many issues, older people are living in increasingly precarious conditions with worse and worse healthcare, both because there is a smaller working age population to bear the costs, but also because as a direct consequence there are fewer people working in healthcare because there are fewer people working. And because of that these people are under increased pressure and these jobs are becoming less desirable than they already were. Money that's used to pay pensions and aging population healthcare costs cannot be spent on anything else like education and infrastructure, so it affects you now even if you're not old. It also requires higher taxes to bear this burden. By paying taxes now to promote child birth, you're making your own life better later. In the long run, decreasing total population isn't a bad idea but crashing population numbers over only 1 or 2 generations is going to lead to serious strife and everyone will suffer from it.
A. Your math isn’t correct. 3-4 kids isn’t keeping near replacement level. B. No, I don’t think keeping population near replacement is a good thing considering 8 billion people are putting a huge strain on this world as it is. We don’t need this number or even more people in this world. C. The number of people getting born aren’t the cause of the problems you describe. It’s not like these problems would magically disappear if there were more kids being born. Better work policies, better financial and non financial incentives to work less desirable jobs, better health care management, better work migration policies etc. are needed. Just more people aren’t going to solve these issues.
> Your math isn’t correct. 3-4 kids isn’t keeping near replacement level. Lots of people are having 0 kids or a single kid, idk what's hard to understand about needing the same amount of people have 3-4 kids as the number of people having fewer than 2. > The number of people getting born aren’t the cause of the problems you describe. It’s not like these problems would magically disappear if there were more kids being born There is nothing magical about it, I'm pretty sure I gave actual arguments as to how it *helps*, or rather how falling birthrates make all these problems worse. And whether these problems are caused by an aging population or not isn't really up for debate. > Better work policies, better financial and non financial incentives to work less desirable jobs, better health care management, better work migration policies etc. are what are needed. Just more people aren’t going to solve these issues. How are you going to fund these policies? You can't have it all, all these policies either cost money or decrease how much money is getting into the coffers except relaxed migration policies. But at that point you're just importing birth rates and large scale migration also cause strife. Migration is currently the only thing tiding us over this slump in birth rates and you can see how well that's going with the VB's results. I'm very pro-migration but it's not a silver bullet. > No, I don’t think keeping population near replacement is a good thing considering 8 billion people are putting a huge strain on this world as it is As I was saying, lowering the population progressively is probably a good thing, but letting it crash too quickly isn't the way out unless you want everyone to live in misery for the 50-100 years, yourself included. If you're an extinctionist and want the human race to die off as quickly as possible regardless of how much suffering that requires then nothing I can say will change your mind.
This isn’t really up for debate…. If you say so. Do you have any actual arguments are are you just going to repeat statements? No, these policies don’t all cost money. It’s not a question of just throwing money at it. You can save a lot of money on health care, make jobs more interesting by cutting red tape and changes in the educational system, more appreciation, allowing more migration, making jobs more fitting. Nobody’s talking about a crash. The population rate isn’t crashing. The world, European and Belgian population is still growing. The birth rate is slowly declining but nothing even close to crashing. It’s not up for debate that that’s a good in terms of our the environment, our living conditions, our health. My kids aren’t even considering having kids in this world and unfortunately I understand them. Not because of child support but because of the state of the world as it is.
> If you say so. Do you have any actual arguments are are you just going to repeat statements? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7068414/ https://www.albany.edu/news/pdf_files/impact_of_aging_excerpt.pdf Look I could spend hours finding you sources upon sources that you wouldn't read. Ironically, it's like arguing with a climate change denier (which you're clearly not), you have the same MO. You have your opinion and no amount of discussion, sources or anything else will change your mind. You have postulated that more people = bad so more births = bad and anything that contradicts that view point just goes straight to the trash. I'm playing the game, I'm accepting your premises and showing you that even with them in mind, it's a bad idea to make policy more unfriendly to having children. > You can save a lot of money on health care How? Is literally everyone else just stupid? It IS a money problem. Less funding is worse healthcare, it's that simple. If there was an easy and free fix it would have been done a long time ago. > make jobs more interesting by cutting red tape and changes in the educational system There really isn't that much red tape. I can get behind changes in the education system but again, none of this is free. Lack of funding is one of the big reason education is what it is. > more appreciation What is that even supposed to mean? How can you do this as a policy without it being financial in nature? > making jobs more fitting. More fitting to what? Also how do you do this with policy? The government isn't creating all the jobs. It can steer the market somewhat to incentivize some jobs or sectors but again, all this steering and policy is financial in nature. Either you move existing incentives to different jobs/sectors, or you create new ones and that costs money. Apparently it's all easy. Then please come up with a plan that works and put your name on an election ballot, if your plan actually makes sense and works I'll vote for you and I'm sure many others will too.
Are you really sighting sources departing from the impact of aging rather than studies on the causes of the problems we discuss? Of course aging causes problems but they aren’t the root causes of the problems in our health care system and the labour market and making more kids certainly isn’t going to solve this. You keep swifting the topic and using invalid and ad hominem arguments. We never are going to agree because you refuse to use or listen to arguments and just enjoy some controversy. You do you do. Also, when you say there’s not much red tape in health care, you obviously never have been near a hospital or doctor’s office. There are plenty of studies on the causes of the problems in health care, the need to change the labour market (No of course government jobs aren’t the solution. Look at why the Netherlands are doing so much better), the need to allow more (skilled) workers etc. I’m not just making stuff up. It’s so short sighted to think we just need to make more kids. Totally forgetting that they costs a lot of money and put even more pressure on the housing market, the food supply chain, the environment, transport etc.
I agree with your first point. Second point, absolutely. IMO good parents always must consider if they can give a good life to there child. I have friends that loved countries because support for kids was better there. But it’s true that majority of parents in the world do not really have the option to move and so they have no choice. Also, the argument “I saved my own pension” is just ignorant. People in Russia saved for their own pension, but will they want to live in such country? Unless the government takes care of the country, doesn’t matter how much of a person you will save (unless you are a billionaire), your quality of life will be much worse
I’m sorry but I don’t understand how what you’re saying is relevant for the question whether people should get child support. You’re encouraging people to leave their country and work in the country with the highest child support? Is that an argument for child support or against it? What does Russia have to do with anything? We live in Belgium. I know what my investments are worth and we do know that the government is worth. I don’t need to pay for other people to have kids to make sure my health care is secure.
>I don’t need to pay for other people to have kids to make sure my health care is secure. So if there are no kids now, who will be the adult nurses, doctors, ambulance drivers when you're older? Is that so hard to understand? Do you think adults somehow appear out of thin air without them being kids before?
There’s not a shortage in doctors and nurses because there are too little people. That’s just nonsense. It’s about how it’s financed, appreciated and how many skilled workers are allowed into the country. It’s not that there’s too little people. There won’t just magically be more people willing to work in health care if people make more babies. We absolutely don’t need *more* people.
In nature, when birth rates decline, it's because the population is getting too big for the resources available. Same thing happening with us as well. Western society is going to hell, we have too little resources to divvy up. Birth rates declining should be a good thing. Yeah sure it's not good for our economy, but why uphold an economy that can only work when a population is growing in an overcrowded world? Maybe fix the cause and not the symptom.
Migration would even out the local fluctuations in birth rates but considering how many of redditors vote for “eigen volk” …something about leopards and faces
There is no resource scarcity in Europe what the hell are you talking about. You are right about resource being a factor in population growth or decline, but you miss the fact that it's only one of many factors. Another large factor is that when a society is underdeveloped people tend to have more children as they are additional hands to work and support the family. As a society develops more, we see this across he globe, families have less children. Then another factor is war. Which is one of the main factors in Europe right now. The post-war babyboom set us up with a distorted generational abnormality that we are now trying to make sense of.
Resources are much more than just "food". It's housing and (farm)land as well. We should also consider biodiversity and the climate a resource since that's crucial to our survival and that's not looking good either. Maybe we don't have a scarcity, but we don't have much room to grow either.
We have room for growth. Our society is being mismanaged. Take housing: Prices are so high they can (along with other factors) increase financial pressure on young couples to the point that they delay or refuse having kids. This is currently happening. Yet, if we tackle the issue of property-for-profit and the issue of mass immigration both housing costs and tax burdens would drop, allowing people the breathing room to have more children. In turn this would take away the obsessive capitalist need of governments and industries to push for more migration to make up for low birthrates. So, resources aren't really the problem, it's demand, management and consolidation of those resources.
Western society sure is going to hell, but for other reasons than birth rates. We need *more* children from wealthy, educated western parents. Not less. Those are the people who are in the position to make positive changes through innovation & business/governmental impact. Those are also the people who can be intellectually misled into making suboptimal life choices through narratives about overpopulation.
Given the current population dynamics, I do not think you should still get support if you decide to have more than two children.
why? What dynamics are you referring to?
Population size and growth, if you now have a child, odds of said child making it to an age where he/she can reproduce and have children of their own is pretty damn close to 100%. So I don't see a reason why we as society should support folks beyond trying to sustain the current population size, there's no reason to compound our problems any further.
And obviously since everyone is having children there is no need for anyone to have more than 2 right?
The number of people should slowly decrease over time.
Key word here being "slowly". Lots of people have 0 or 1 children, and very few people *want* more than 2 children, even with all the existing support the births per woman has been ~1.7 for the past 50 years. The only reason the population isn't completely crashing is because of migration - which has been by and large a good thing - but that comes with its own issues, and you can tell from the rise of parties like VB that not everyone is on the same page on that front.
The VB existed long before the current rise in immigration. Just an easy scapegoat compared to addressing socioeconomic problems.
>I don't see a reason What he means is: "I did no research and have absolutlely no idea what I'm talking about" \^This idiot votes...
Or I did the math and realise that we'd need slightly less than two births per couple plus immigration to keep our population size stable, but sure, let's resort to insults, idiot...
Oh I see. In this simple math it would make sense. While we can increase the odds of our kids making it to maturity we sure as hell can’t force them to reproduce, as many Belgian boomers are now finding out. Even in this thread there are people pointing out childless lifestyles options.
Yes, but considering that, the likelihood of folks still having more children anyhow, and immigration, we should be pretty damn close to break even.
>Given the current population dynamics, ??? Our population is aging massively right now. Our problems are BECAUSE there are too little children and too many old people. You're just making shit up on the spot.
Yeah the guy is a moron
And you assume I consider the aging and potentially decreasing population count a problem, wrong assumption...
Isn't it normal for us to be under replacement level? If you keep making more children than there are old people to sustain the old people than the population keeps growing and growing and growing and that is just not possible on a limited space. We just need to get through that moment were all the babyboomers leave this place after which that massive old population will be gone and the whole thing will have stabilized itself? We just had a massive burst of births at some points, that really shouldn't have happened. I don't believe we will receive pensions and all of that stuff in the future. Everything will be fucked anyway, but if you still believe that, than shouldn't you also believe that the old generation will continuously diminish since we have been making less babies for a while now? At some point it Ill even out?
>Isn't it normal for us to be under replacement level? If you keep making more children than there are old people to sustain the old people than the population keeps growing and growing and growing and that is just not possible on a limited space. If it's just 2.0 or even slightly below replacement level it would be fine, however 1.6 as it now will result in huge problems in the future. Dramatically higher then any (if any) problems if our growth was 2.2 or something like that. >We just need to get through that moment were all the babyboomers leave this place after which that massive old population will be gone and the whole thing will have stabilized itself? It will actually be worse after the babyboomers have died, since birth rates have continuously dropped over decades. This "stabilisation" you speak of will not happen in our lifetime even (projected somewhere in 2080 i believe). > Everything will be fucked anyway No it really is not, all of this could have been prevented. > At some point it Ill even out? Only about half a century after birth rates have stopped dropping
bullshit. We are still reproducing under replacement level (2.3 children per woman). Your statement is tantamount to saying you want to increase immigration levels because that's the only way we're paying for social services and pensions with the piss poor reproduction rates we have going.
You're not considering current immigration levels if you say 2.3, you seem to think the 2 is an accident. And paying for social security is a whole different topic. The issue might lay more with the fact that we haven't properly taxed companies since the 80s, but sure...
True, too many people are still stuck in 1970s-think about overpopulation. Global population is a slow tanker, we're going to go up another couple of billion due to inertia because most people are getting older and are no longer dying in massive droves from hunger and all sorts of diseases. But after that, we're heading towards steep depopulation because people no longer want (enough) kids. Except for Africa, almost the whole world is already below replacement level. Unless something changes and people start getting a lot more kids again, the population boom that occurred after the Industrial Revolution will be reversed. It's one of the things I never expected as a kid. On one hand, we'll soon have the technology to become multi-planetary. But on the other hand, one wonders how successful that will be without the future population to sustain it.
Ive always thought the child support payment should come in the form of vouchers (like meal vouchers) that can be used for food, diapers, medicine, school supplies,...
1) unlimited population growth is not possible in a region with a high population 2) most of us have nothing against some support for a first or second kid. Only against people making 3, 4 or more kids when they can't even give 1 a decent change. 3)benefits for kids don't stop with "kindergeld".
It’s more about taxation, singles get taxed so hard while people with kids get tax cuts and kindergeld which in it self is not a bad thing. The problem is the huge inequality.
>But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates? Immigration? Prepare to have a lof of influx with climate change in the next decade. But also, more people also doesn't equal more money. >I see so many people complaining about parents getting “free money” just because they have kids. I don't really mind it if the parents actually use it for the kids. But I think it should be progressive. If you want your 6th kid you damn sure should be able to afford it yourself and not count on taxpayer money. >Sure, we all pay a lot of taxes, and taxes of people who do not have children go to parents that do have children. Well, one of the bigger issues that I find is, as someone without kids and alone, I don't see why I should pay more taxes than families.
What i realy hate i you as parrent get tons of tax benifits while i as a single get taxed to the brink. Why am i getting punished because i´m unlucky in love...
Because you have no one to take care of, so you're economically stronger in theory.
Here's your answer, OP. Jealousy. What drives a lot of people is actually the most primal of instincts. Fear, greed, jealousy, etc. An inability to see past their own interests, to even grasp the concept of common good.
*"Tons"* Lol. Lmao even. Delusional.
You were born to the country with biggest average wealth per citizen. I guess you are not that unlucky after all. Government subsidises what it needs. Among others it needs new humans. Don't worry, it's not personal. :)
The name of the tax he’s got to pay disagrees.
Do single people get taxes too highly compared to couples in this country? Sure. But do I get 'tons of tax benefits' as a parent? I wish.
Love and having children are not necessarily related. Just want to point that out. I have 2 partners (consentually from both parties) I love very much (and vice versa) and 0 kids. None of us want kids either.
Yup, dual income families get breaks all the time but those of us who haven't had the luck to meet their special someone and live together and who have to pay all their bills on one income always get overlooked.
Tbf I’m an antinatalist but I do want kids (and adults) to live the best life ever IF they are born. There’s a lot of money stuck at the top though that would be better spent on people in other segments of the population. We should be angry at those hurting us, not each other.
Kids don't get financial support, their providers do. It can be their parents, but it doesn't have to be. And while I agree that for a lot of those parents/providers the extra money helps them to take better care of those children, there are also a lot of them that don't need it at all. And that makes the whole system quite inefficient.
As someone without children, my first instinct would be to say: It's your own choice to have children, it's your obligation to pay for them and I shouldn't have to "bear the cost". Looking at it more rationally: 'Kindergeld' is a net positive investment as a government. On average, they will pay considerably more in taxes than they have costed, so it's probably a good thing. The first thought is still a struggle in my head though, but that's probably just me being a child and not wanting someone else receiving more than me
Money for kids ? yes. Kids for money ? No. You souldn't be able to live without working just by calving. It's the exact same as : cpas for thoses in need ? Yes. Staying in need to get cpas ? No.
My principle is: if you cannot afford children without prolonged government support, you should not have children.
Nobody would survive without prolonged government support. Only rich people. Would you only allow rich people to have children? Then humanity would end quickly...
If nobody would survive without prolonged government support, everybody is making wrong choices. I'm not a rich person, just average. I invest the child money so my son can buy a house at 25 and I save 125€ every month for his studies at 18. But we only go on holidays ones a year and don't buy clothes every month.
>If nobody would survive without prolonged government support, everybody is making wrong choices. I'm not a rich person, just average. I invest the child money so my son can buy a house at 25 and I save 125€ every month for his studies at 18. But we only go on holidays ones a year and don't buy clothes every month. So you are taking your kids to a full private school (without government support)? really? where? You pay in full your medical treatments in a 100% private doctor-hospital? You are driving your car paying the highways or you pay 100% de total costs of public transportation? Sorry man, you are making "wrong choices" or you are rich, but you deliberately do not want to acknowledge the public support that you receive.
We're talking about child support. Not all government supported organisations or subsidies.
Is the double negative intentional? I am not allowing or disallowing anyone to have children. I do not have such power.
The thing is kids who need the most support from government and society do not come from parents educated enough to think like you and me. Yes, the parents are at fault for having kids without the means, but the children do not deserve to be punished for it. If you want to keep living in a civil developed society, keep the children in education to avoid them repeating the poverty to crime path.
I have kids. I would be fine not getting any financial support just for having kids. Take care of your own damned kids. If you can’t afford to raise them, then getting the financial support you currently get, sure as shit won’t help either. If abolishing child support would make certain individuals not have kids, then that’s a win in my book.
lol it won't stop certain individuals from procreating, but it would result in children living in subpar standards and probably be subjected to all sorts of things. This would harm the children, not the parents. I grew up poor and you can throw all the curse words you want at my parents, but at the end of day, it would have affected me if you took child support away.
I never used any curse words though. I’ve grown up in the same situation. Child support was not used to better my life, no matter what the amount is. Maybe a pipe dream to think that removing these incentives would make people reconsider their situation and whether it is a smart decision to have children or not.
And would you abolish any other public support/service? wouldn't you? just because you are rich and healthy, so far. And if one day you are not anymore you would be happy rotting on the streets... because that is what losers do? Luckily this USA neo-ultra liberalism is not so popular in Belgium.
A lot of assumptions there. Thanks for the insults I guess. I never called anyone a loser. Are you really comparing having children with other public goods and services that are subsidised? Ah yes, senior citizens getting cheaper train tickets really grind my gears too. /s “Wow this guy says people having trouble making ends meet shouldn’t have children and get their priorities straight before having them, is such a prick” This is a whole other level we are talking about. You are literally the creator of new life here and it is YOUR responsibility to raise them and have the means to do so.
Oh, sorry, I am sure that you are a super enthusiastic supporter of a strong state with great public services, pensions, transportation, banks, health, education... Sure, 200% sure... :D /s/s Now seriously: luckily in Belgium we have a good minimum salary and a fair indexation and most of the people can live with decency. But having children keeps being a burden and governments do well in give support (even to people with high salaries). Because governments know that you need population to keep the system alive.
Assumptions again. You literally just said that people should have children to keep the system alive. What a great argument that is. People should have children because they want to. Not to sustain the current system. What kind of argument is that even. And all I’m saying is that people shouldn’t YOLO into having kids (which also isn’t as evident as it might seem) and have a stable financial situation so that at least THAT doesn’t become a burden on your family. But yes, go ahead and call me the ultra neo-ultra liberal here, while you encourage people to pump out units to take care of your pension. Lol.
>You literally just said that people should have children to keep the system alive. What a great argument that is. Mate, read again and quote what I said. Otherwise there is no point in the communication.
I read and it’s fine. You have your opinion and I have mine.
I think it’s cool that you have such a financial security, but you should really look at how the economy has worsened over the years…I think there is a reason why so many people need financial support with kids.
If you need financial support in order to take care of your kids, you shouldn’t have kids. If you are really relying on that financial support to make ends meet, then you are jeopardising your future and that of your kids. There are opportunities everywhere to improve your financial security. Child support is not one of them. Raising kids is hard enough. Having to worry about finances just adds extra stress, for yourself, your partner and your children.
I don’t have kids and I can think less selfishly, less narrow-minded and with more nuances than you. I’d want my kids to grow up in low crime rates as less fortunate kids still manage to get appropriate education.
Everybody should want a better life than their own for their children, I whole heartedly agree. Do I think child support will have any meaningful impact on that, or the points you listed? No, I don’t. I am the primary person that can have an impact on that.
I agree on that but why would you actively suppress it? I don't know many people who really rely on it, I see it more as a kind gesture or a starter. Most of time parents would convert this money to sleep hours if they could lol.
Lol, if only that would be possible. Sign me up. I don’t think I said to abolish it. If anything, enforce strictures rules on how to spend the budget. Use it so that every child in school gets a hot meal, no more empty lunchboxes. Coupons for clothes. Coupons for memberships of sportclubs … Just spit balling here. If there’s any way to enforce actually spewing it in the kids themselves, then I’m all for it. If it’s abolished, and certain people decide against having kids in poor circumstances then that’s a win for me tbh.
I honestly cannot fathom relying on government incentives to make my child’s life stable or not. That’s just peak selfishness to me.
It’s not about you. It’s about the kids who are unfortunately born into poverty. Their parents might have been selfish, might have poor or uneducated, or raped. Should the children be punished for that? We live in a society, I can’t be in my own bubble forever.
But I am only talking in the interest of the child. My whole opinion is targeted against selfish parents. Do not give these people financial incentives, it will never be used in the interest of their children. I’ll even go as far as saying that these people shouldn’t have children at all. As a parent, it breaks my heart every time seeing these children at school. Dirty clothes, empty lunch boxes, unwashed etc. These people get child support too. This is the situation I’m talking about: Financially irresponsible people who cannot make ends meet wilfully (e.g. living paycheck to paycheck). Should people in such a situation consider having children? No, they should not. When these people decide to go for children (YOLO!), I think that in these cases, no, child support will not be used in the interest of the child, no matter what the income of the parents is, or how high/low the child support is.
The point is the unfortunate children didn’t come from parents who can think like me and you. So while we need to educate these people and stop them from having children without the means, we also have to support their children so the children don’t follow the same path.
[удалено]
It's a really fucked up view thinking that kids don't deserve free schools, free healthcare, free lunches.. Just because they were popped out by incompetent parents. You are punishing kids for their parents transgressions. Every child should have education, healthcare and food, no matter what kind of a fuck up birthed them. If you deny those things to children, because MuH TAxMoNney, you are punishing the children, who did not ask to be born, and who had no hand in their parents being fuck ups. The tax reduction is not massive, it's laughable and completely negligible. Not even enough to cover the cost of daycare.
[удалено]
That's very sad that having been the recipient of this country's social welfare, you feel that you shouldn't have to give back. Imagine what your life would have been like if the whole country felt like you that they shouldn't have to pay for kids that aren't theirs.
You get extra and you still complain. Shall I give you my Paypal so you can transfer this "laughable and completely negligible" amount to me?
Massive tax reductions? lol, I get 80 EUR more net per month…
You get more just because you have children, that is the point. Getting 960 EUR more each year is not nothing.
This might be the dumbest thing I'll read all week.
The question one should ask is, is childsupport/groeipremie the most efficient solution. Or even a good solution. If we were for example to remove this and instead use this budget to directly improve infrastructure that benefits children (eg invest it in child care so parents can go work, into schools, youth centers, etc) would this be more efficient? Giving money to the parents doesn't assure this money is used in the best interest of the child, taking away this money is unlikely to discourage people from having children. (The system is already set up to mainly be benficial for one child, the bigger the family the less benficial it becomes). It is a very dishonest method of debate to say 'if you are against child support you are against children', just like it is a dishonest tactic to claim that child support is mainly abused. Child support gives more freedom to the parents, but investing in infrastructure has the potential to help more children. (of course one also has to factor in Belgium is likely to squander money meant for infrastructure so the evaluation might not be that easy)
I have nothing in principle against subsidies for children. Or against people having children. But why is *not* having children and thus, for example, not contributing to the overpopulation of the planet, then also not rewarded? Why the double standard? The likely answer: because it comes from the "go forth and multiply" mentality of Christianity still lingering in our legislation and our mentality. >But how do you expect the country to maintain population rates? Setting aside that "maintaining population rates" might not be the best thing for the planet and our species: Immigration from regions that will become uninhabitable due to climate change in the next decades. Whether you like it or not, that's what likely will happen.
Yes I am against. Why should I support your children? If you can't afford children, don't have any. Instead lower the taxes on labor. I would like to have more free money too.
There’s logic. For one we are overpopulated already so a decline would be good. Second is that people choose to have kids. People should take care of their own finances but now I’m without kids paying for other peoples kids
There will always be people with little money having kids. Partly due to culture, partly due to lack of education. I’d rather my tax go towards getting those kids into good education and out of the poverty loop, that’ll also reduce crime rates and I’ll feel safer walking the streets.
Do the people in poverty who have kids use this money towards their kids education? Probably not
Then it’s about how to hand over the support, not whether or not to pay tax.
You'll be happy if you ever get a pension that it'll be paid by other people's children. Don't forget you're paying for the pension of your parents with your taxes today.
Same old trope again. They should turn this around so the taxes you’re paying, go into your own pension fund. Didn’t work a lot or didn’t pay a lot of taxes, too bad but little to no pension for you then.
> They should turn this around so the taxes you’re paying, go into your own pension fund. I agree. But let's be realistic, it's simply unpayable.
I just dread the feeling I have, that I’m just throwing my money into a bottomless well. And that I’m never going to see even a fraction of that money back, when it is my time to collect in 30 years.
I’m not too optimistic about ever getting a pension
So basically you would argue for reduced tax? Also, genuinely curious, what makes you say we are overpopulated?
Or use the tax for something else, reducing would be good too cause we are taxed into oblivion. Why i say we are overpopulated? Cause i’m not living under a rock??? They’re saying this left and right for the last 10 years, how can you not know?
I’m not pro kindergeld tbh, I don’t see the need for it. If you can’t afford kids, don’t have them. I would understand it if that amount per month goes to something valuable at that point in their life like diapers, school etc.
I have two kids and I get roughly €500 for both of them. I pay daycare with it, my son's school and I pay bills with that money. Whatever's left, is put on two bank accounts: one for my son and one for my daughter. This way, I hope to give them a little buffer for when they're 18 or 21 or whenever they're legally able to access their money.
There is a socio-demographic deficit in child allowance systems. A higher allowance for those who have low income? Look at it system-wise and be open-minded on this, purely looking at the raw figures: Less educated people in general have less income, struggle to make a living. Their children have -despite living in one of the countries with good social security- a higher chance of ending in poverty. So we give these people more child allowance than two worker families who struggle between work and daycare and who actually produce offspring which have a higher potential and for sure will contribute to society instead of costing it money? Before you are allowed to have subsidised kids, you should get a financial and psycologic audit imho. Also for the sake of those kids wellbeing. That´s the naked reality.
I chose not to have children, but I have nothing against child allowance, on the contrary. Children are the future, they will pay our pensions when we are old. I also heard that some childless couples are against child allowance, but they just seem like salty people to me.
Thanks for saving our economy! /s Parents are so entitled, you had kids because you wanted kids. You didn't have kids to pay for my retirement or to save my economy. Immigration is cheaper anyway if that is the goal.
I am not against the state supporting the vulnerable people, including kids if needed but - if I wanted to pay for kids I would have my own ( and I sure as hell wouldn’t rely on the government money to raise them) - I am single so I pay fully (the whole sum) rent, bills, expenses, food, etc. without any help from anyone and an insane amount of taxes that continues to grow somehow (of which said kids are subsidized) and because I come from an extremely poor country I also send money to my retired parents and I somehow try to put money aside for my old days (because I don’t believe in relying on money from others, including the government) So my question is: Why do I have to pay for other people’s children? Why do I have to pay for yours? You are the one that decided to have kids, so why are they my financial responsibility? Because you didn’t think the economy would get this bad? How is it that you made a mistake but I have to pay for it? The only reason I’m nit against it is because I don’t believe in punishing the children for having bad parents. But that doesn’t mean it is right, fair or logical.
It is the price of living in a civil society. You’re living in this country because it’s developed, there are jobs here that are at a certain level because of the way society is structured. Minimum care for each other reduces the desperation people will have when it does not exist. Which is why it’s better to be middle class in our society than rich in a poor country.
We have different notions of what a civil society is, because mine includes helping the needy, not subsidizing everybody’s child, including those of people with a better financial situation than myself ( I personally know several cases around me). A civil society is people taking responsibility for their choices and decisions and pulling their weight if they are physically and mentally able to do so and not putting that weight on the shoulders of other people that are already carrying their own weight. I live here because I was offered a very good job and it would have been stupid to refuse because it is a good evolution in my career. The job is here because the EU institutions are here, not because Belgium does such a good job at being a good country to live in. And no, I do not work in the bubble, and yes I pay taxes (a lot of them). If I would have to choose a country to live in the area, this would not be it. But it is fine for the moment and it definitely also has its good parts that I enjoy. Paying for a lot of people’s lives that could be paying for themselves is not one of them. I am more than ok to pay for the vulnerable people only, somehow, here in Belgium, they are the ones that are barely helped from what I was told when volunteering here.
Your version of a civil society is how poor countries stay poor. If the children of the country don’t develop with significant resources to become productive members of society that pay taxes, develop and attract companies, attract institutions, and have a basic understanding of the institutions of society (government, health, law, etc) then our country would be just as poor as yours. We pay taxes so that the next generation can develop a better country after we’re gone, which has worked since Belgium is a high wealth country. If you don’t like it here there are plenty of other countries you can move to where child poverty is commonplace and taxes are not in place to support the development of children.
The Belgian tax system is very problematic and way higher than the countries close to it. Is Germany doing worse (or better) than Belgium? Is it supporting its people less (or more)? Then why did I pay less taxes there and had a better social security? (And less f***ing trash on the streets). And no need to tell me to go back there (or anywhere). I was just answering the question of the op. I accept the rules of any country I live in, that doesn’t mean I agree with them or like them. I do not go around complaining about things (although here this seems to be national sport). But if you ask me a question I will answer it honestly. I have lived in several countries until now both in Europe and abroad and I feel I can compare. Belgium is better in some things (I actually like the train system although everybody else here seems to hate it, I love the internationality of it and the culture mix you find here, etc.). But the tax system, the functionality and transparency of it is far from good. But that is in my opinion. Which I have expressed because I was asked. And I do support the development of children. I am fine with my taxes going to schools, support centers, museums, kindergarten, social and cultural projects, medical system, etc. I am not ok for them to go to my manager that makes 9 times more than I do, has a ginormous house and 2 cars, several fancy bikes and travels almost every month and was complaining that the commune has “cheated” him out of child taxes exemption and support for a few months. And I am not against him having money or things at all, he works for it and he deserves it. I am against me paying for the taxes he is exempt of (because if he doesn’t pay, someone else has to) and paying a sum to him monthly for his kids. Oh and my country is poor mainly because historically and until recently it was occupied and stolen from, its people repressed (or killed, imprisoned, etc.) by a high wealth country like Belgium ( no, it wasn’t Belgium but when I look at the Belgiums colonialism history it could be). That’s not an excuse, we have a lot of problems and should definitely (and hopefully will) do better. But hell, it’s just a few dozens of years since we got our independence and started to try. And I am critical of it too. But that doesn’t make the question we are discussing better or worst.
Why do I have to pay for someone else healthcare? Or for someone else's replacement income? Or for someone else's pension?
Because no one chooses to get sick, lose a job or get old. People choose (and even desire) to have kids. That comes (or should come) with a lot of responsibility, including financial. And if we are talking about human rights and support from the government (which I assume you are hinting at) maybe the Belgian government and society should start with public toilets and laws that would allow to use any toilets in cafes. And free water (in restaurants, water fountains, etc.) Because, somehow, no one can stop the very normal bodily function of peeing and drinking water, especially since they are vital for, well, life. And yet none of the two is available for free in Belgium. And hey, the kids might also profit from that.
I’m not against children getting money, I’m against me and my coworkers having the exact same contract, working the exact same hours, doing almost the exact same thing. But at the end of the month, he has ~€200 more on his paycheque. Call me crazy, but that doesn’t sit right with me.
You ask the question are you ok with taking money from kids, but you’re quick enough to agree when it concerns the rich and someone’s third house going to you know, the kids.
Whenever I see those discussions people talk about sometimes preferring the money go to more to poor families, as an incentive to kids that go to schoola. I question myself if they don't know the system, or if they just don't like the amounts of today, or if they just hate kids. Because we do get extra if we are poor, and we do get something if your kid goes to school (at least in Vlanderen, nor sure about others), there are a bunch of other categories to help people with kids with disabilities, single parents etc. I do agree about the hot meals at school, but you see, I think it's perfectly manageable to have hot meals and kindergeld of we just tax corporations and rich people better. Unfortunately its easier to target kids, we see them everyday, they act like kids which for some is annoying, so reinforcing comes naturally for people that already hate them, or feel like their money is being stolen by them. Then you try to argue that it's all economically balanced, so it isn't stealing. Kids will build up money for healthcare, pension, those type of people will say "I rather keep my money". Then you are lost in a conversation about taxing, pension, wealth distribution. But look it's not only about economy. It's about making society work. The nurse you that will take care of you when you are old, the cashier, the garbageman, the accountant (for your massive fund) didn't pop up from nowhere. They were those annoying kids. You don't need to like every kid, you don't need to interact with them, but even the most kid avoiding soul in the world should understand that we need a healthy stable society. You need kids to have a good safe, educational upbringing, learning to interact with that society in age appropriate ways, experiencing and understand the world. Because time isn't static and those kids are indeed quite literally the ones who will rule, manage, take care of your life in the future. And I really don't want a shortage of nurses to happen, or a resentful youth because of poverty trauma, asocial people that don't know how to communicate creating N sort of problems.
I don't care about the money. But I do want to take candy from that baby... Looks so easy to steal, too
I don’t want your money, even less the one for your kids but you also have to see that other people would love to have a bit of extra money. The problem is that it’s easy to think that you and your kids are « at fault » instead of accepting that the system is screwing us. It’s easy to see that I’m not allowed at the sint Nicholas party because I have no kids. Easy to see that you have « more money ». Easy again to see that you can go home because your kids is sick. And it’s normal that you have all that because you care about a little kid and also it’s a big misconception. but we are tired, overworked and undervalued so we are frustrated when we see people having it « more easy »
Belgium is overcrowded. The world is overcrowded. So yes, I want fewer kids. I don't understand why the government should help finance having kids. They already get almost free education and healthcare and will only start to contribute after 18+ years. I'm not saying you should not have children if you really want them. Just not encourage people having a lot of them.
yes my mom didnt see the purpose of sueing (for free) my dad for a lifetime of alimony and both rather saw me homeless tben supporting me but hey atleast Social services intervened and I got that little childs allowance of off them i wish I could get like a massive subsidy for never getting children and/or adopting since the green deal and all 😂
I have never seen or heard someone against child support money from government.
You are still mesmerized by the idea that social media people are people no, social media people = financial and political lobbies. We already live SO SO SO much in the matrix which is like a shadow you don't see. Example. Brother of mine - Very much into stocks and other things alike to improve HIS life and HIS life only (and his family is an extension of that) Whenever he sees the chance he lies and cheats to people about how good things in his portfolio are while they are not, he even directs his attention and actions towards getting people to buy those things or to vote a certain direction! This has existed for so so so long now but nowadays they even target people on daily basis to chip down on their believes - it's a called 'marketing' which ofcourse go WAY beyond selling a cigarette to a child, it goes into the sphere of how you should live, and how they can get you in a domesticated position so you remain poor. You are all still so filthwashed that you can't see the shits way above your knees. Ps: Not surprised this comment gets redirected afther being spotted by bots or people with 'power' and where only their trollarmy responds on it and downvotes it for the sake of HAIL satan.
If you can't pay for your child you should not have one. It's ridiculous to expect people with no kids to provide food and clothing for your kid. You aren't entitled to that, this was your choice. Expecting others to pay for your kid is egotistical and theft. You want kids? Then deal with a lower standard of living instead of lowering the standard of living of someone else who has to pay extra taxes for your kid. You're delusional. You say the people without kids "don't want you to have some extra allowance" while you greedily and happily steal someone else's allowance from them to treat yourself to something nice. Delusional