These people are over 100, and have been paying tax to the Japanese state since before world war 2. They lived through world war 2, and they rebuilt japan afterwards.
You're proposing to tell them they haven't "done enough", saved enough, paid enough tax, worked enough, sacrificed enough. You're assuming they all have kids to care for them.
20-something billion dollars can pay for a lot of medicine and care that F-35s can't deliver.
Defence is necessary to protect the people. But so is everything else. Medicine, food, affordable housing, education...
If the state wants tons of money and sacrifice, then what is the point of protecting it if it provides nothing in return?
This extends to everyone else in the developed world: if we're fucked anyway, why bother doing all this stuff the government wants? To protect the assets and incomes of the rich? So we can give all our life and labor to the lords and landlords?
I'm not buying it, and I doubt the centenarians are either.
The people who are over 100 probably had enough kids but in a few decades the generation that will start getting close to that age will only have themselves to blame since they didn’t have enough children (tax contributions can’t really compensate for that).
That's one anecdote, here's another:
I live in Australia. My wife and I have both used Medicare multiple times - in fact, we've never used our private health insurance (despite the government requiring us to have it). Medicare delivered my child safely via C-section, and saw them through all their important health checkups after. Our total out of pocket was a couple of hundred dollars for some early extra ultrasounds.
As for disability, my cousin is on NDIS. She is severely mentally handicapped - despite being 22 years old, she has the mental age of a 4 year old, and she will never improve upon this. Her NDIS plan makes sure that she is cared for and looked after while her parents go to work. In fact, NDIS even found her a "job" to give her purpose, she is able to sweep a local mall daily.
Now, are there flaws with both Medicare and NDIS? Of course! NDIS is filled with corrupt providers and a hopeless bureaucracy. It would save a lot of money if the state just managed it directly and had the providers on the books instead of enriching pointless middleman businesses. Medicare, meanwhile, would probably do better if I didn't have to waste a portion of each paycheck on a private provider there's no point in using. I'd rather just pay that portion as extra taxes to better fund the hospitals that the private insurances send you to anyway if your job is too complex.
If you aren't convinced of Australia as an example of actually a relatively good system, I'd encourage you to live in the US for a while, and try it out there. I lived in NYC for nearly four years and had a few health scares. Nothing was ever scarier than the bill :-)
The good news is that you're likely paying a fraction of a cent on your taxes for my particular cousin alone. The good news is that fraction of a cent allows her family, including me, to be productive members of society. If your family, or even you yourself, become handicapped - perhaps through a sickness or an accident - we will be happy to return the favor with the fractions of a cent of our taxes that would go to you. A rising tide lifts all boats, and we all benefit when the least amongst us are well looked after.
>Why do people think The Government™ is able to, should, or can, solve everyone’s problems?
Where do you see them demanding the government solve $ALL their problems?
>The Government™ probably can solve defence.
Agree.
>It probably can’t solve your lack of desire to do the right thing and look after your aging parents.
Is there a lack of desire? Or a lack of resources resulting as a consequence of how the modern developed economy works, where youth need to move away from the family to get a college education and skilled jobs, and in return the government taxes you to take care of your parents and your kids so that you can focus on maximizing your skilled productivity at work? Isn't this the modern (faulty) social contract?
Sure, I can move back with my parents to take care of them, but then I won't have a job to earn money because all the industry in that town was hollowed out and moved abroad (also thanks to government actions of maximizing shareholder value).
Now , if the government admits it can't solve elderly care and wants us to take care of our parents on our own dime, the it should also stop taxing us for a welfare state it can't provide and just focus on what it can, like defense. IIRC Switzerland works like that.
Unfortunately, in our modern post-industrial economy we can't all go back to tribal/village lifestyles of our ancestors where we all lived on farms in multi generational households and we all took care of each other and lived only off the land. That would sound nice in theory, but it's not feasible anymore the way nations and economies are set up to work and compete against each other, unless we can somehow agree to fight wars from now on only with bows and arrows like our ancestors, instead of AI drones and cruise missiles needing cutting edge chips and SW made by singles with phds and no kids. We built this faulty societal system and now we're forced to live by it whether we want to or not.
> Where do you see them demanding the government solve $ALL their problems?
Look around you.
Every weekend there is one group or another on the steps of parliament here demanding, essentially, the government be given more money and power.
I tend to agree that governments should do more, or less dependening how you look at it, to encourage stronger families with more kids and better opportunities for them to live locally.
By less I mean something like: ban abortion, and stop financially rewarding women for having children, and then more children, out of wedlock.
By more I mean something like: the obvious thing: reduce income taxes on a per child basis, and stop all land taxes, for everyone, but especially families.
You should only be comparing the working age population or maybe even the ratio between that and retirees since absolute population is a deceitful metric.
This. You CAN recover from an economic decline, you can recover from a demographic decline like what Japan is experiencing, but you CAN'T recover from demographic replacement, which is what the EU is experiencing.
Yes, and? What will those "missing" children do in a stagnant economy except contribute to watering down already low wages and increasing pressure on housing?
>The country will either have to change or it will disappear soon.
Massive doomerist over-exaggeration. Japan will be fine. Not an imperialist world super-power, but the Japanese people will be OK, better than 80% of the world's population.
>Most European countries have the same issue, but it is less visible due to immigration, which Japan does not have.
Yes and long term European countries will be worse off than Japan, due to the ethnic and cultural replacement and racial clashes and crime caused by their immigration policies. Japanese travel to Europe on vacation a lot, saw what imigration looks like, and don't want that. They'd rather stay a stagnant/shrinking but homogenous, safe and peaceful nation, rather than have a growing population of foreigners that replaces them and causes crime.
What Americans/westerners fail to understand is that a nation's success, stability and long term future is more than its GDP and population number that must grow to the moon at all cost just to enrich the top 10% of asset holders while everyone else fights for the scraps, but it's the people and culture that made it great to begin with, not a faceless, borderless economic zone of corporations and workers. Nations that decline economically/demographically can always rebounce back(see post-WW2), but economic zones not so much, as when they fail, the corporations and migrants that came purely for economic reason, just move to the next economic zone, like locusts, since they have no ancestral ethnic and cultural roots tying them to that land incentivizing them to stick around through thick and thin and rebuild it.
If the community isn't proactive with safety nets for elders, let's say the childless ones, those elders will become everyone's acute problems. Better to plan for it and better to share the cost to everyone. Some might call that a government.
>Better to plan for it and better to share the cost to everyone.
And what do you do when your geopolitical rival is not doing that and using that money instead for their economy and military to maybe one day destroy you as they grow big and you grow small?
Investments in humanity work when everyone is on the same page in good faith, not when you're rivals have imperialistic wishes and no democratic process or care for human rights to stop them.
The other domestic issue is that if you make care for old people a guarantee for the elderly financed by a mandatory burden over the working population, then people have little incentive to be responsible for the future with their finances during their working age, making sure to not have kids and to spend everything because "why bother, when the government will take care of me?".
>Some might call that a government.
Some might call this wreckless planning of an unsustainable welfare state that can bankrupt a country.
Minimizing shareholder value will flatten the economy.
Do you really want to live in a pre-industrial agrarian society? Not me. I like central heating, flush toilets, hot & cold running water, and Led Zeppelin music.
> Minimizing shareholder value will flatten the economy.
Will it though? I'm curious what the empirical basis is for this causal claim, especially given that it ignores the wealth of gray area in between these two extremes. (That goes notwithstanding that I have zero idea what is meant by either "minimizing shareholder value" or how a flattened economy could look as an operationalized outcome. Neither of these are accepted terms of art with precise definitions.)
There are some obvious counterexamples to look at, wherein a hypothetical firm doesn't intentionally maximize shareholder value or chooses explicitly not to:
- A firm can choose to pursue long-term productivity gains;
- A firm can pay higher wages or provide better working conditions and still generate substantial shareholder gains;
- A firm can keep its earnings rather than pay dividends to have cash on hand for capital improvements; or
- A firm can accept a haircut on its margins to expand along some axis, like manufacturing capacity or market share.
Shareholder value is usually taken to be a function of the firm's expected future cash on hand (or, more precisely, the equity claims on that expected future cash on hand) and its exposures to various risks to that cash on hand (optionally quantified by people like me!), and the idea of maximizing shareholder value needs to be understood as having some kind of time horizon. Commonly, in the post-Jack Welch era, this time horizon is three months.
On a much longer time horizon, however, sacrificing short-term shareholder gains for long-term productive capacity can very well be analyzed as shareholder value maximization.
> Do you really want to live in a pre-industrial agrarian society?
This seems to treat the grandparent post's social insurance and institutional design argument that shareholder primacy has contributed to the institutional arrangement that makes intergenerational care difficult as though it means, what, capitalism is bad, so we should return to farming.
I'm unsure that I can draw a comparison between these two arguments. They're very different, and the parent post's reply doesn't establish the premise it needs. Industrialization and shareholder primacy aren't binary choices, and the mere existence of modern industrial prosperity doesn't establish the fact that our particular institutional arrangement producing it is in fact necessary for that prosperity.
A 100-year-old's children are 70-80 years old themselves, if they are still alive. They very well might be not be capable of taking care of a 100-year-old person. And not everyone has children. Rather than throw up our hands and say "too bad", perhaps we collectively have some responsibility to take care of those who aren't able to take care of themselves?
and those 70-80 year olds may have children old enough to be going through menopause and any number of health issues themselves, along with their own adult children who may not have viable prospects for leaving home yet (if the dynamic is at all similar to other G7 countries). In Canada, I would be plenty old enough by now to have my own kids, and my grandparents, lucky though I am to still have them around, are old enough to be needing some help in their 80s. Thankfully they all have their own homes and can take care of themselves financially, but even if I was interested in having kids, there isn't really a viable financial strategy for creating a support structure viable for even myself long-term. Adding one other person to the mix isn't feasible and won't be in foreseeable future unless I made some dramatic changes solely for that purpose. Thankfully the Gen Xers in my family got in early to the whole "social contract" thing and seem to be handling what they can, and I contribute when I'm visiting by putting in the physical labor where it's useful. I can barely reliably pay for a basement apartment, and the way things are looking, that's about as far as it's ever going to get.
> perhaps we collectively have some responsibility to take care of those who aren't able to take care of themselves
This is the cornerstone that all society rests upon. If a person argues that there is no such obligation, they do not understand the social dynamics of a civilization and you can be sure you're dealing with a sociopath.
We're not making these problems up. Reality exists. These problems exist. The government is doing it because the population is failing to do it on their own. It's very obvious and not up for debate. If it wasn't a problem, the government wouldn't have to do it.
Well, government money IS people's money. Maybe people don't want the government to take of their parents, but would enjoy paying less taxes so they could have money to do it themselves.
Or people can't take care of their parents and grand-parents, because government expenditures transfered wealth from them to the rich via the Cantillon Effect.
Nobody fucks complain about government fiscal profilgacy having enabled the golden age of Venture Capital based Unicorns through an unprecedent period of extreme liquidity in the markets. Nobody fucking ever complains that we went through an era of incredible levels of market concentration because of the fucking State fiscal habits.
But, creating some remedy for woes of a working class that can't even bet some money on some Oracle CDSs, because this is not for NPC retail investors tastes. Yeah, that would be communism! Let them eat croissants!
It's quite amusing how The Government™ is able to use the tax money to buy an overpriced useless military toys which solve nothing and cost trillions, but at the same time The Government™ can't spend that tax money on the care of their citizens.
