Germany repeals one breeder benefit

"BERLIN—Germany’s highest court struck down a controversial benefit for stay-at-home parents introduced by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s last government, saying it oversteps the federal legislature’s powers.

The contentious policy, dubbed the “stove bonus” for allegedly tying mothers to their kitchens, offered a monthly payment of €150 ($162) to parents who care for their one- to three-year olds at home rather than put them in a child care facility. "

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-highest-court-overrules-benefit-for-stay-at-home-parents-1437475101

Rest at the link above.

It's about time a baby benefit was repealed. Women, were getting paid $162/month on top of all the other child benefits Germany offers, to stay home with their kids. While it's not a lot of money, it's just another benefit given to parents at the expense of everybody else.

Childless and childfree people in Germany already pay an additional 0.25% of their income on nursing care insurance.
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/taxnewsflash/pages/ies-flash-alerts-2014/flash-alert-2015-022.aspx

The idea of taxing CF and CL people an additional 1% of their income is still festering in their government.
http://panteres.com/2015/06/20/family-young-union-calls-for-special-tax-childless/ <-----2015 article


So yes, I'm glad that this ONE breeder benefit was repealed. If having children is a choice, then shouldn't the people who made that choice bear the costs associated with it?

It's more complex than that.

I don't think that the "stove bonus" is an issue.
It's much more expensive to subsidize a kindergarten.
Municipalities (-> taxpaypers) pay on average 600 EUR per month per a place
in the kindergarten!!!
A kindergarten for 60 chyldren costs the municipality 360.000 EUR per year.

Childless and childfree people in Germany already pay an additional 0.25% of their income on nursing care insurance.
-> I have a problem with this. When you are old and unable to live on your own, you'll end up in a nursing home.
Everything what you have (property, savings, pension...) will be used to pay your expenses. This happens to CF and to breeders as well so why should CF people pay more?

Quote
mrs. chinaski
Everything what you have (property, savings, pension...) will be used to pay your expenses. This happens to CF and to breeders as well so why should CF people pay more?

Because breeders raised a new taxpayer. I hear it all the time. I even heard a moo referring to her kid as a "future taxpayer".

Well, Germany does have laws forcing people to support their parents if the parents are low income, so that is probably the justification for the extra tax. Of course that means a CF with breeder parents gets the worst of both worlds.

@ yurble:
"Germany has laws forcing people to support their parents when they are low income".

-> Yes, that's true.
These laws mostly come into effect when the parunts are unable to live on their own,
end up in a nursing home and their assets cannot cover the care costs.

There are income limits (retention) defined by law:
CF: 1.800 EUR
CF married: 3. 240 EUR
Married: retention + allowance for chyldren

"Residual income" (net adjusted income of a person minus retention defined by law)
is used to cover the care costs. Social welfare boards take mostly 30-50% of
the "residual income". In addition to this, the social welfare boards take into
consideration the assets of the biological chyld.

It looks like everybody is gonna pay, at least on paper. I don't know how it works in a real life.

Quote
mrs.Chinaski
These laws mostly come into effect when the parunts are unable to live on their own,
end up in a nursing home and their assets cannot cover the care costs.

Many of the people in USA end up paying for parents' care, regardless of laws. I remember back in the 90's there was a reference to a "sandwich generation" - people who pay high taxes and pay for all the expenses because they don't qualify for any help due to making too much money.

I wonder who they would tax in Germany under the filial responsibility law, if the kids have no cash, similar to how many young folks are now in the USA.

Quote
Techie

Quote
mrs.Chinaski
These laws mostly come into effect when the parunts are unable to live on their own,
end up in a nursing home and their assets cannot cover the care costs.

Many of the people in USA end up paying for parents' care, regardless of laws. I remember back in the 90's there was a reference to a "sandwich generation" - people who pay high taxes and pay for all the expenses because they don't qualify for any help due to making too much money.

I wonder who they would tax in Germany under the filial responsibility law, if the kids have no cash, similar to how many young folks are now in the USA.

I guess the state would garnish the adult child's wages by a certain percentage, to help defray the cost. Yurble would know better than me, because she is in the EU.

About 23 states in the USA have filial responsibility laws on the books. The state never used to enforce them, but because of budget issues, states are starting to look at them. I wonder how that works, if the parents live in one state with filial laws, and the adult child lives in a state without such laws. What would the first state do, try to garnish the child's wages? That would cause problems with the state that doesn't have such laws. If the adult child doesn't pay up, would the parent's state try to sue in court for collection, or try to extradite the adult child back to their state to force them to pay up?

It makes for some nasty situations.

Quote
Peace

Quote
Techie

Quote
mrs.Chinaski
These laws mostly come into effect when the parunts are unable to live on their own,
end up in a nursing home and their assets cannot cover the care costs.

Many of the people in USA end up paying for parents' care, regardless of laws. I remember back in the 90's there was a reference to a "sandwich generation" - people who pay high taxes and pay for all the expenses because they don't qualify for any help due to making too much money.

I wonder who they would tax in Germany under the filial responsibility law, if the kids have no cash, similar to how many young folks are now in the USA.

I guess the state would garnish the adult child's wages by a certain percentage, to help defray the cost. Yurble would know better than me, because she is in the EU.

About 23 states in the USA have filial responsibility laws on the books. The state never used to enforce them, but because of budget issues, states are starting to look at them. I wonder how that works, if the parents live in one state with filial laws, and the adult child lives in a state without such laws. What would the first state do, try to garnish the child's wages? That would cause problems with the state that doesn't have such laws. If the adult child doesn't pay up, would the parent's state try to sue in court for collection, or try to extradite the adult child back to their state to force them to pay up?

It makes for some nasty situations.

According to Forbes, the number of states is now up to 29.

www.forbes.com/sites/northwesternmutual/2014/02/03/who-will-pay-for-moms-or-dads-nursing-home-bill-filial-support-laws-and-long-term-care


I don't like where this is heading. It bad enough people support adult kids, now people might get sued for a support for parents. There are many outdated laws on the books and I am hoping this crap gets shut down. I feel that this is not about kids wanting to help parents. This is the nursing home racket and extortion of money.