hi. I live in Germany, too and while I agree that these systems makes it easier and more accessible than in the US, it's not true to say "even the least priviledged have a chance to have a family". The rates for Hartz4 for example are way too low, they have been proven NOT to be enough for a life in dignity. We have children starving and adults who starve so there is more left over for their children. There are sick, disabled and underpayed people who - having that reality in mind - do not dare have children even though they might want to. We have not really fixed this yet and the injustice is still there.

@@traumgewitter7324 That is sad. Thinking that there are kids going hungry is very sad. I would have hoped that at least with social housing, unemployment benefit and kindergeld at least everybody gets a full belly. I haven’t witnessed this kind of poverty but I only know some area not the whole country. I hope this gets address and the government ensures that nobody goes hungry at the very minimum.

I am German with Turkish roots and I can tell that I totally agree. Of course we have people who get support from the government and I agree it’s not much but most of these people choose to live this lifestyle. It turned into a legacy because of work ethic. Children of these people refuse to work and you have the next generation of a life long Hartz 4 (financial support by the government). You have plenty of opportunities in Germany weather to work in service jobs or do an apprenticeship of 3 years. Companies are searching for staff like crazy in almost every industry. So if a child has to sleep with an empty stomach it’s really the direct consequence of the poor decision of the parents. The government and the society is offering enough opportunities and I say that as someone who fought her way from the bottom of the society all the way up. I used the opportunities and of course I had to struggle and fought harder then most people around me but that was the legacy of my parents and not the fault of the government

@@JDxZ7 sorry, that's just BS. It's such a myth that people "choose" to live like that. Poverty is not a lifestyle choice and it's not a work ethic problem. Most of the poor are working poor, meaning they simply and systematically are underpaid. Others are not able to work because of things like disabilities which are not their fault. Stop blaming people for not having money.

@@traumgewitter7324 now you are spreading propaganda. I highly recommend you to get educated about our system. People with disabilities don’t get Hartz 4 and that’s it, 3 seconds of google will show you the opportunities. It’s actually people like you who don’t want people to work their way up in society by telling them it’s not in their power. People who live their lives in poverty in Germany are affected by domestic violence in their households or have been neglected or drug abuse. They lack of perspective that’s why I’m happy we have great social workers and many many opportunities to help these people out but they have to decide to take the chance and that’s the problem. Other people in other countries dream of the opportunities which our country is providing. But again we have the mentality of support but you have to do your part as well.

Exactly. So well said.

Lol. This is why you got immigrants- they work almost for free and have many children. Conservatives:......but but then we need invest in these kids, because parents are broke. We don't want that either. Solution- all millennials should become doctors and have plenty of kids, preferably white and not fat.

The only person who ever told me not to have kids was a liberal. (Well, I got to have two kids only, "replacement rate" for the environment.)

My experience: Conservatives: have children! I mean we won't support that at all in reality. So good luck loser. Unlivable wages, unsustainable housing costs and declining public education aren't our fault. The government isn't here to take care of you! Also shine my shoes for min wage. Liberals: it's morally wrong to have kids! The problem is you and not this unsupportive society which is shooting itself in the foot long term. The government is here to make my life easier while I preach at others about how they're causing climate change. I support social programs, but not that your kids are alive. Millennial breeder (me): Here I am, confidently dancing through the meadow, raising 6 awesome humans while living under or slightly above poverty and doing pretty damn well due to some mad financial skills, not giving a single fuck what you guys say! Suck it! I do what I want! All the while knowing my kids are the best chance for any future social support in others' old age, the best hope for changing food waste and sharing resources internationally, the best hope for trading comfort and convenience for the health of our planet. And living a life full of love and joy every day, through every struggle.

I'm not conservative, but I've never heard a conservative try to gatekeep who should have children based on income (unless its an absurd number of children i suppose). The only people I've heard actually discouraging having children based on money are liberals.

it's called neoliberalism, it is a race to the bottom

Right on. And one thing about the condemnation and moralizing about the systemic problems is that you create divisions and hostility that do not help build consensus to FIX the problem. Unprepared parents need preparation and support; landlords need alternatives to landlording that keep people housed. We don't get them, their friends, and their potential future group members on board with fixes when we treat the problems they're involved in as unforgivable moral failures.

I went to one of those types of schools growing up. Man was that a mind f--. Still in therapy to this day because of it.

Same/ extreme dislike. 4th generation Floridian, I am getting priced out by Air BnB’s because of people who live in CA, NY or any other HCL area family ”wintered here once in the 70’s- loved it and bought a home” and when they die the price increase is the rent 3x. Im 2011 you could get a decent home for 600.00 per month, now it’s 2,100 for an apartment. 😡

That's a great way to handle it. People can lease out a second home, or part of their primary home, but not become a slum lord holding 10+ flipped houses. I've tried to stay in Air BNBs that were done under the spirit of the original idea, and have stayed some amazing places with great hosts as a result. I hate that I've stayed in apartments that should have been leased out to locals a few times, and going forward I am going to try to do my homework better to ensure it's part of an owner occupied property.

All of Texas needs to adopt this fast. Go ATL!

I hadn't heard of this, that's a great idea!

That's a pretty good approach. In Australia they're looking to increase council rates by 50% for anyone who leaves their house empty for extended periods of time, which include holiday homes, airbnbs and also people who choose to invest only for capital gains

We have the same here in Canada. Unless something has changed there are no capital gains taxes on your primary residence, but there are on all others.

Similar in Minnesota, USA. For your primary residence, there is a "homestead" tax refund (subject to an income cap) but not for additional/other properties. I belive a number of other states in the US have something like this.

Conservative: "in my day, families looked out for each other" Hillary Clinton: "It takes a village to raise a child." Conservative: "No, not like that!"

@@cathyl3526 what that reveals about conservatives is they essentially want to pick and choose who gets support. They'd be fine with social programs if they were allowed to discriminate with them. It's why they fetishize Hungary so much. So long as they get to put their money ONLY towards white straight Christians, they're fine with socialism.

Individuals need to plan for children as well. I'm very tired of seeing families barely making ends meet and having multiple children who are all struggling and suffering. I don't mind paying property taxes to fund schools, but after a certain point it does feel like subsidizing other people's poor choices. Calling this viewpoint eugenics like Chelsea did is insane to me. Eugenics is a government-run programs involving sterilization and deciding who can and can't their children. Telling individuals "hey maybe you don't have kids if you can't support them in their basic needs" is not that.

@@saltycrunch no it is actually, especially when aspects like race and disability come into play. Deciding who can and cannot have children is eugenics full stop. Yes people need to be prepared to have kids, no there is not a financial requirement.

Definitely agree and also for the aging population! My parents are starting to need more intensive care and services and they don't come cheap!

I've always rented as well. I think what I've come to realize though, is that no one rents a place out to house ppl, it's only for money. This has really come through to me after years of dealing with management companies or listening to people talk about investing in rentals and housing. Only in my current place does it feel a little better, but it's much more expensive.

I realize I’m an outlier rather than a rule but I bought my home while in graduate school and rented out to roommates to pay for my education. In later years, I moved in with my significant other and we have been renting out my property. I have gone back and forth about the ethical question regarding renting vs. selling it however when I see how many corporations are buying property in the area I don’t feel as bad. I’m a good landlord-update things/maintenance, check in frequently, etc. After having rented in my community for years prior to buying, I know I’d rather rent from one individual I can communicate with rather than a giant poorly run management company. I don’t have an issue with individuals owning a second home they rent out but am also happy to pay taxes on the property (as long as it is used to fund something-like maybe affordable housing vouchers for those who can’t afford increasing rent…).

@@achromatic03 I don’t know. When I put my first place on the market, reasonably priced, it made me realize how few, nice and affordable rental options exist in my city. It made me wish I had more rentals because there are so few options.

@@achromatic03 but yes, the numbers still have to make sense.

@@Nikyv786 oh, totally agree we need rentals and it's really a scary thing when there aren't enough. I just wish it was thought of more personally instead of transactionally. Like I've mostly found it's actually a nicer experience when your landlord is a person instead of a management company because it's less transactional.

But still, what happens if you try to plan for a child but still can't afford it? Should you then refrain from having kids? In your example, what would've happened if she knew from the start that daycare would be so expensive? Would she then have had to refrain from having children? It's still the same idea but phrased differently. The solution to the problem is not people who don't make enough money shouldn't have children (or as you put it, figure out if you make enough money before having children), but how do we equip society to help parents raise children.

@@mybittersweetme you're actually making the same point I was aiming at! Yes, there absolutely needs to be more resources for parents, especially low income ones. But how does one even know what resources are available to them or what they want to utilize if there isn't a plan to begin with? Taking the avoidance strategy because you might be screwed either way doesn't make it go away. Same as not looking at a bank account because you're afraid of what it will say. I think people do need to face ahead of time what the reality of adding a child is going to look like (emotionaly, financially, and beyond) . And do it BEFORE the baby arrives. I think there is way, WAY too much "we'll just figure it out" for a decision that is going to create and nurture a whole human being. There are plenty of people who might go to plan, realize it is beyond their means, and for their own personal reasons chose to have a child anyways. Even then best to go in with eyes wide open.

@@mybittersweetme "Would she then have had to refrain from having children?" children aren't an entitlment that every person deserves so yeah, she should

@@aelurine I sort of agree because I see where you're coming from, but I also disagree because i think it's too radical of a POV to have. What I'm saying is that it's basically a very complex and nuanced topic to just be no, children aren't entitlements or yes everyone under every circumstance has the right to have a child because ultimately it involves deciding over other people's lives (whether they are the potential parent's or the unborn kid's lives).

This is really tricky because the desire to have a kid is in most cases something different than an economic choice, whether to invest in some expensive appliances or buy a house. Having children (although not too many per couple) is also considered important socially in the country and there should be well-designed system of affordable support around it. Having a child is not a whim, it is a deeply ingrained, personal, but also culturally established norm you would say, it is really hard to boil it down to whether one can afford it. It is not fair to make it about money. But unfortunately one do need to plan for a child financially. It is just tough for people to have to say “I won't have a kid because I don't have X on my account”.

Although everything you say here is right, some people still get accidentally pregnant even with proper sex ed and access to contraception and some people still don't want to get an abortion. All of the things you talk about are necessary, but it still boils down to making the world (or country) more friendly to people wanting to start families or that started a family without planning for it. Paid maternity and paternity leave are necessary, free quality education and healthcare, access to proper nutrition, it's all part of the solution.

Don't feel bad! My budget sheet was more of a wishlist because I never knew how many hours I would be able to work. That's with both jobs.

Same! Hate budgeting but we are quite frugal and never have problems (although we were low income for a long time).

Airbnb's make residential areas business area and makes it so you no longer have neighbors but a bunch of transients if you are in a location that is very attractive. Our whole state is basically a tourist magnet so investors are buying up homes in residential areas pushing natives and locals. median prices every month for this is now over 1.2 million from 600,000 2 years ago. Majority of people own these illegal airbnb's don't live in our state. if they are illegal than they are avoiding local taxes which the hotels do pay. also most out hotel workers are union so they have good pay and some benefits and all of them fall under federal and state labor laws/protections. the airbnb's tend to attract bargin tourists who don't contribute much to local economy but use a lot of local resources and when they do spend money it tends to go to owners/investors in other states.

@@TomMoore-ny5qn I'm curious if you live in the Rockies, the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, New England, or perhaps not in the Estados Unidos? What kind of spending do bargain tourists do and what tabs aren't they covering?

@@TomMoore-ny5qn I cannot understand : 1) how are these airbnbs illegal? 2) how aren't tourists contributing to the local economy? Don't they eat and visit local activities and attractions? 3) why does no one talk about gentrification, that's way more damaging to local communities that some sporadic airbnb?

@@MRCKify Hawaii where land is a premium and main reason people want to visit is the environment and native culture. It is a very culturally sensitive place where the natives had their land stolen at gunpoint and at pushed in to lowest socio-economic group. On our island, we are already double the capacity of tourists of what our planning commission planned as our ability to support via environment and infastructure. It was not great before but okay because the resort areas are separated from the residential areas. So people didn't have to be ON all the time. They could go home to neighborhoods, that is one of the reasons people don't like the illegal one in residentials areas because constant strangers. Alot of local kids here still walk home from school and roam around neighborhood pretty freely. Because tourism here also relies heavily on what many locals and natives feel is the commodification of their culture. Outsiders took their natural culture of hospitality and commercialized it to point where it loses meaning. (nothing will piss off a local or native hawaiian more than a tourist stating where is the Aloha?) But they are doing it to a cultural that is fighting hard to remain alive. As majority of the airbnnb's in our are bought by outsiders or recent arrivals who again sell hawaii like it is any other place - it reducing the inventory of houses for actual local or pricing them out of range. So there is a lot resentment. Also the shut-down showcase to locals how much damage that industry does to environment - like people think waters in hawaii a pretty clear but it was nothing compared to mid-2020 when we barely had any flights coming to state. Never seen clearer air and water in over 30 years. Bargin tourists will never pay our current average hotel room rates of daily visitor spending amount. Hotels tourists tend to visitor who love to spend freely while airbnb ones are always to get free or low priced stuff.

@@ThelPic No because they are one gentrify local neighborhoods and pushing out locals and natives. Almost 14,000 individual units on an island with 150,000 people is actual not a small amount. People complain about homelessness but many units sit vacant for long period of time as owned by people not in state.

This is indeed it for me. I think landlords are parasites (no shade, I mean in a marxist term) but that is the trajectory that I am on, likely will be renting out one house by the end of next year. And the alternative is to have a predatory landlord renting the place, not even fixing it up properly before they rent it for more than I will. Within this current system, having landlords that keep rent manageable, don't look for increases every year, care for the place and therefore maintain it are all things most renters (which I am still) do not get to experience. There is a place for renting (there should be less of it in my country but still) and it should be done ethically/in a renter-friendly way.

The reality that people are fighting for is one where being a landlord (or a property management firm) is not financially viable and is discouraged by the systems and laws in place. If you imagine every person renting a property is paying for the mortgage and all the bills, and even if you charge them the bare minimum, so little that you only break even, that person could still be paying that into a place that they personally own. The existence of landlording is something that society for a long time has just accepted but in reality it has very little functional purpose. People who defend landlording will typically say something like "well you HAVE to rent until you can afford a down payment!", But the people renting can't afford a down payment because of their rent, which could all be going directly into a property they owned if the system was designed in that way.

@@contentity lol rental has a huge functional purpose. People rent when they are in temporary situations, such as moving to a new city, moving for college,as their relationship situation. If every time we had to move it required selling and buying a new property, it would be a nightmare. We do need the flexibility of renting during certain periods of our lives.

@@rallyrally very little ≠ zero Most people are not constantly in a state of temporary housing, or at least are trying not to be

You should sell these properties to a developer who can build a 25-40 unit apartment building. We need more housing units.

Yes. I'm so offended by that knee-jerk reaction to a basic statement that addresses the current reality of the situation. Even if we say"Let's build a ton more social programs" that doesn't help the kids that are born into poverty right now. It's not a question of "deserving" no one deserves a dog or a kid if they can't currently take care of them. For rich people the barrier is lower sure, they just have to have their emotional shit together. But that unfairness won't put food on the table, pay a kid's medical bills or give a poor parent more time off to help the kid with homework. The real problem is society as a whole regards having children as an unassailable good, no matter the circumstances but after the birth the parents and the kids are just left to fend for themselves. Also I'm all for having better social programs but this idea that "it takes a village" and that a new parent can expect to be able to offload their child rearing responsibility on friends, relatives and neighbors is toxic and dangerous.

I aagree with both your point and the person below you, I think children should stop being seen as this "thing" that parents can own and that everyone deserves to have. parenthood is inherently selfish and the fact that kids are seen as somehting that eveyrone gets to have, instead of being seen as young humans who deserve to be born to a comfortable world since theyre literlly not consenting to be here, doesnt actually help anyone in this situation. sure some children deliberately concienved in pvoerty grow up fine but a LOT dont. I personally would rather have not been born at all than to be born with literally zero upward mobility and childhood trauma from being poor.

I was looking for a comment like yours. I've noticed that many of the people who viciously attack and politicize statements like "you should be financially prepared for children before you have them" are also people who never grew up poor, ironically. As someone who grew up without inherited wealth and whose parents who were not emotionally prepared for children, I strongly believe not everyone "deserves" to be a parent. It is a tall order to raise another human being, and the first thing responsible parents do is to consider if they are fit to be parents.

Amen 😘😘😘

AMEN, all of you here!

Yup. As someone who came from the same circumstances outside of the first world, I absolutely hate it how every damn time this is brought up, it gets waved off as eugenics. I think, someone really has to suffer it on their own skin to understand at this point and not immediately get their panties in a twist over the perceived unfairness.

I don't know if I agree with that. I know a few stay at home moms and I wouldn't trust them at all to supervise anybody. Half of them can't even control their own kids. I don't think being a parent makes you any better at mgmt than anybody else. I'm a parent but I have 0 patients with adults so a good Mgr I would not be.

Hard disagree. Kind of reminds me of overbearing antivaxx moms saying they're a nurse, lifeguard, etc all in one because they have to look after their toddlers 24/7, questioning every professional's knowledge when it comes to their kids.

Chelsea's point of "not everyone would be a good parent" is crucial, too. I opted out of the gene pool because I know I'm not selfless enough to give up my life for another (and I've got a bunch of familial health problems that make me a less than ideal gene donor.) Thankfully the other half was on board with this, and we're happy to have nieces and a nephew that we can assist instead.

Some opinions are unpopular for good reason

It was good, but how do we ween ourselves off needing people to support society (people)? Seems like a pyramid scheme at a certain point.

@@big_fishhh Wow that's a very insightful response. Thanks!

Exactly, I don't care for how that part was overlooked in this. However, in a capitalist society there will always be a relatively poorer group of people. I think it comes down to why would you want to deliberately have a child who is going to suffer in poverty especially since social mobility is limited.

I get what you're saying but it's fucked up the other way around too, it's like saying only rich people can be good parents. People should not have to be top 1% in order to not be judged for having a family, the problem is that it's ridiculously expensive to even survive. It shouldn't be like that.

@@morphinpink It's really not like saying that only rich people can be good parents. It's acknowledging that even providing the bare minimum for a child costs money - deliberately bringing a child into a situation where they will suffer is questionable. I agree that family life shouldn't be that expensive but it is. Deliberately, having kids when you don't have stable accommodation, income or food supply and waiting for the government to fix inequity is only going to guarantee suffering for the child.

King philosophy. Happy life to you and your wife :)

This is such an important perspective.

Ofc tragedies happen and I'm sorry that happened to your family but is your situation really the same as deliberately bringing children into poverty in a country that has limited support for poor families and limited social mobility. What about a poor family that goes through further tragedy or becomes disabled? The lives of child carers to poor parents are extremely difficult.

@@dlc2479 "Deliberately"? As Chelsea said, sometimes people have surprise pregnancies (yes, even w/ birth control). And the way America is, it isn't always easy to get an abortion. It's a felony to abort in some states right now, but even before Roe was struck down, there were hoops to jump through that made it difficult in many areas. Instead of blaming poor people, how about blaming society? Why not fix our culture/government instead of trying to shame people who often don't have as much control over their circumstances as they wish they did?

@@dlc2479 First, it's ignorant to say that poor people can't possibly give a good life to children. I grew up in a poor community full of loving households that did their best to give their kids the best life possible. Way better childhoods than some of the spoiled, neglected, ignorant children I've met from more wealthy families. Like OP said, kids happen! Life happens! Of course not everyone should be a parent. I've seen plenty of teen moms, drug-addicted dads in and out of prison, etc. and I agree that they should absolutely not bring a child into the world if they cannot care for that child. But for the most part, being poor does not automatically mean you'll be a bad parent. The reality is, an "easy" life is inaccessible by millions people. The only productive thing we can do is provide education and social services to alleviate poverty, not shame poor people for living their life.

@@Double0pi You've answered the question you wanted me to ask instead of the one I actually asked. I know there are surprises pregnancies etc, what I asked was should we really be encouraging people to DELIBERATELY (I.e. exclusive of any surprises scenario etc) bring children into a life poverty when we know that the child will suffer. I asked that specific question because by arguing against financial planning for children, you are encouraging the scenario I just described. I completely agree with you about society but guess what, we are not there yet. Why have children under the premise that the government will act right and help out when zero efforts have been made towards that reality. It makes zero sense. We might as well tell ppl, don't plan for your retirement because you might lose it all on health care bills or die tomorrow and the government should be helping out anyway knowing full well there's no help for that demographic.

And if you think the expense goes away when they hit 18 you are smoking some serious crack🤣

I'm in the UK but I agree completely! I am childfree and all the time I get told I'm selfish and should have children because it's SO rewarding. The reason I'm childfree is because I'd be a terrible parent. Becoming a parent would not change that and magically make me into mother of the year. I struggle with my mental health and whilst I can manage my high stress long hours job, it takes every ounce of energy I have outside of work to keep myself going day to day (sleep 8 hours, work out 5 times a week, read books etc). Having a child would break me and I have no issue in admitting that, I wish parents who have judged me would realise I'm actually complimenting them because they are doing it and I've admitted I cannot!

@@hannahb6471 I wish you all the best in the struggles you are contending with. Your response was very introspective and you have obviously given it significant thought. I certainly commend you on that. Lastly, don't fret over how others might judge you as you are living your own life. Stay well.

Agreed! So refreshing

I really loved that part too

Me too, especially as she is an employer of women and parents!

🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝 Thanks for your feedback. Send a msg to my financial advisor. Tell him i recommended you.

My take is that everyone who buys an airline ticket is in some way financing the “free” loyalty flights. Any large company does absolutely nothing for free. Everyone is paying a dollar or two more on each flight to pay the giveaways. It’s like shop-lifting (new term “shrinkage”) in retail stores. The amount of loss is in the cost of all the goods in the store. The companies don’t lose anything. The shoppers do.

Not entirely true. Visa charges vendors a fee on every transaction. Rewards programs are a cut of that fee.

Also, perhaps due to being a teacher? I never qualified for those new cards, even though I was never late on my payments. Really fed into a sense of rejection and a lack of control. Thanks to therapy I know now that I *CAN* handle my money and be triumphant over debt, but it sure sucked to read in every debt paydown book in my twenties "Just get a 0% payment transfer!" Not to mention I now know many of my issues came from undiagnosed ADHD, soooo even if I had qualified, I would have been one of those people who forgot to pay. TL, DR: It was good I didn't qualify for those zero-percent balance transfers, AND, as you said, they are not as great as they seem.

I mean... "NEVER the parents" is a bit too extreme, don't you think? Because as you very rightly stated in the beginning of your comment, having/ taking care of children takes an emotional, mental and I'd add physical toll on you, and if you don't take care of the parents or the parents aren't able to take care of themselves, they won't be able to take care of the kids. I would argue that we should think of not ONLY the parents but ALSO and perhaps SPECIALLY the kids, but I wouldn't make it an either or kind of situation because without one you couldn't have the other.

"Don't have children if you can't afford to care for them emotionally and mentally is way more important" This! Financial is obviously important up to an extent (food, clothing, housing, medical care). Beyond that, it's more about what kind of environment they grow up in. And money doesn't guarantee a home that isn't dysfunctional.

Completely agree with you!

Well, then mybe you should tell them to stop voting for Democrats!

That is shockingly bad :(

No. We’re comfortable.

@@katemiller7874 No. YOU're comfortable.

Yup. I live in Asia with housing paid for and never plan to live in the US again. I've worked and studied in several countries abroad, and it's hilarious every time we get to the health insurance presentation. We always get luxe local insurance and great insurance abroad EVERYWHERE BUT THE US 😂...I got appendicitis in July 2020 and would have paid $5-10K in the US. Here it was $1400 and insurance paid all but $4. I miss the US but just can't see ever moving back. I also don't regret living it up in my 20's and getting some debt. I LIVED, and now at 37, just had to slow down for a couple of years to pay off what I've accrued. And that's as a "lowly" teacher!

The hypocrisy of this take is that if children aren't things that people should get to have, why are only rich people allowed to have them? Equating them with money is inherently objectifying them. Its also a disingenuous criticism of what people mean when they day that poor people deserve to have children, they're not talking about kids as if they were objects, we're talking about the desire to have a family which is absolutely normal and everyone should be entitled to have if they're emotionally and psychologically prepared for it. Governments should provide the financial assistance for it, that's their whole point. We live in a capitalist dystopia, that's it really.

Isn’t a committed platonic relationship just friendship?

@@NiaDeBose if a marriage is aslo just friendship? We are a marriage in all ways - we have joint bank accounts, have raised children together, own a home together. Literally everything a married couple might do, except we are not a romantic couple. To be honest, your question proves my point of why it is important to recognize "other" family types.

Sometimes the effort just isn’t worth it when you already know and have confirmation they aren’t open to discussion, much less change. If the choice is between not having the discussion and maintaining a relationship and having the discussion knowing it will ruin the relationship, I get why people stay silent. Personally, that’s not my way of going about it but confrontation even without conflict isn’t something people are particularly good at or comfortable with doing.

Ugh I agree. I'm only 25 and I'm paying close to 25% of my income in taxes. I know age isn't a factor, but it's shocking to be so young and paying so much in taxes before my adult life has even really begun

Does your system guarantee an income in retirement? In the UK we have an auto enrolment scheme at 22 where people can opt out or can voluntarily join their company's pension scheme earlier. The problem I've seen (aside from 22 year olds opting out) is that the minimum auto enrolment is 1% employee and 1% employer matched with some employers only offering 5% employee and 3% employer matched which is the legal minimum. I know people thinking paying in 8% is going to mean they can retire in their 60s with a large monthly income but the reality is that's not going to be the case. I've been paying 15% into my pension for most of my 20s and know I need to increase that when my student loan is paid off but I've got many friends who think I'm putting too much in!

@@hannahb6471 to be perfectly honest, I am not sure of the finer details but my understanding is all permanent employees in Australia (whether full or part time) must have super paid into an account, regardless of company or employment sector. It’s a government requirement, we don’t opt in or out, it just happens. I’d have to look at the minimum but mine is 12% I believe and forms part of my overall salary package. It used to be that the employer picked the fund and so people had lots of super funds but now you pick the fund and it goes with you from job to job. You can also switch providers if you want but your employer must always pay super. Essentially, I’m Australia, if you’re a permanent employee, you have some kind of retirement savings. Like I said, it’s certainly not perfect, particularly around the gender pay gap and things like that, as women tend to retire with less super than men, but it’s better that it’s something every business has to do for all permanent employees. I know there are government jobs in Queensland which offer super contribution as high at 18%, probably to entice people to it. We also have schemes where you can make voluntary payments into your super for the expressed purpose of saving a house deposit (or did, not sure since the government change). I believe your super becomes available at 67, but there are ways to get it before then.

Hello, also Australian. ANY paid worker gets superannuation paid by their employer at a minimum rate of now 10% of their income. So does not matter if only a casual worker. For e.g if I worked a casual job as a waiter and made $500 that fortnight, my employer would legally have to put $50 into my retirement fund. This is for any person of any age working any job. We can also choose to put extra money into our own funds but most people rely on the mandated contributions :) Some jobs offer higher rates of contributions but the legal minimum is 10 per cent.

@@crle1944 thank you! I haven’t had to actively think about super for years, besides my own fund so the finer points are lost to the annals of my history!

I agree with what they meant. I also know rich people who are awful parents. I plan to not have kids if we can't financially and mentally plan for them. Def the government is making it impossible too. Having a kid on accident is fine, but after the 4th kid and someone who is working a min wage role is really bad. Obviously the we need better access to birth control and better pay in jobs ext. I don't see that getting better so why put yourself through that when you can't as a person take care of yourself?

@@allysaber949 I wholeheartedly agree! I also know plenty of people who have a bad dynamic with wealthy parents. Unless I feel like I’m 100% in possession of everything I need/maybe want before anything, a kid would not factor in well at all right now. I’m selfish because I’m still fighting to have a better life. Why have a little human around? To take it out them? When they didn’t even ask to be here?

This is the salient point

they understand. they just don’t care. You can tell they understand because all their campaign promises talk about it. You can tell they don’t care because despite decades of talking about it, nothing has happened.

🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝🔝 Thanks for your feedback. Send a msg to my financial advisor. Tell him i recommended you.