Remix.run Logo
rightnutwingjob a day ago

[flagged]

PostOnce a day ago | parent | next [-]

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.

klrefg 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> haven't "done enough",

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).

totetsu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Their kids are in the 70s and 80s too

rightnutwingjob 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

kiwih 14 hours ago | parent [-]

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 :-)

PorciiVorbesc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>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.

jll29 a day ago | parent | next [-]

The Japanese fail to produce enough children.

The country will either have to change or it will disappear soon.

Most European countries have the same issue, but it is less visible due to immigration, which Japan does not have.

shoobiedoo a day ago | parent [-]

The population of Japan is projected to be 64 million in 2100. In 1930, the population of Japan was 64 million. Did it not exist back then?

mango7283 a day ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair you'd need to consider how the percentage of young people looked in 1930 for that to be a meaningful comparison to today

Danox a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Japan can easily operate with 60-80 million people in a country slightly smaller than California. And expand again in the future why not?

klrefg 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

imglorp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

WalterBright a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> maximizing shareholder value

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.

10 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
saulpw a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

brailsafe a day ago | parent | next [-]

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.

antisthenes a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> 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.

spacechild1 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You certainly live up to your name.

apsurd a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you’re on HN and it’s as if you’ve never even heard of “thinking in systems”

rexpop a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well, you see, when people invest their resources in any venture, they incur an "opportunity" cost.

thinkingtoilet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

andy99 a day ago | parent [-]

> If it wasn't a problem, the government wouldn't have to do it.

This is certainly very different from my experience with what governments think they have to do.

elzbardico a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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!

justsomehnguy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

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.