← Back to context

Comment by Rinzler89

1 year ago

>They are non-solutions if they cannot pass voter approval.

Then why don't voters just vote themselves higher salaries and better pension plans and higher retirement ages? D'uh! Who cares about economics when you have votes? Worked well for Greece.

>But what are you talking about exactly?

Reducing public welfare according to realistic economic capacity and sustainability of the national budget, and encourage citizens to rely more on private systems and personal responsibility. See Switzerland.

8 comments

Rinzler89

Reply
ivan_gammel  1 year ago

So, non-solutions, as I said. You refer to a state that is 10 times smaller, has the same demographic problems and over 40% of population with immigration background as a model for Germany, why? Do you seriously believe it can scale to German size? What has it to do with the budget?

  • Rinzler89  1 year ago

    I proposed the Swiss system as the solution and welfare reductions according to the budget and you're calling it non-solutions. Why are you being dismissive in Bad faith without any arguments?

    The German welfare state will slowly collapse by itself on the long term anyway at this rate since the expenses are growing faster than the income and the only way to save it is to reduce it. Why isn't that a solution? Are you saying math is wrong and can be altered by votes?

    • ivan_gammel  1 year ago

      > Why isn't that a solution? Are you saying aritmetic is wrong?

      I’m saying that you just proposed random idea that has nothing to do with solving the workforce crisis. Reducing welfare state will not increase birth rate, if anything it will decrease it. Lower taxes will not lead to bigger families, with scarce housing the additional income will be simply redistributed to landlords thus increasing inequality. You propose to treat symptoms, but this treatment will only accelerate death.

      2 replies →