Comment by jk2323 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jk2323 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"What's the alternative? Restricting basic needs like education and healthcare to well earning citizens?"

No. Especially health care is solved much better in most of Europe then in the US, where it is approaching 20% of GDP.

1. Higher wages but this is a tricky thing. Germany exports too much, both, goods AND capital https://thewisemansfear.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/dland_ku...

2. Lower taxes, especially income taxes.

3. Much lower spending on "social" which is approaching a staggering and unsustainable 1 Trillion Euro in Germany. http://www.preussische-allgemeine.de/nachrichten/artikel/soz...

As the first steps I would do:

1. Invest money into infrastructure which is crumbling

2. Invest in military. If you invest 1.2% of GDP in your military, as Germany does, you don't have a military, you have a museum. Actually, an argument that Trump got right in regards to Germany. (Hey, let the Americans pay)

3. European border defense. Germany has taken millions of illegal immigrants (illegals since none of them would have the right to be an immigrant based on Dublin III regulations). Most of them can't even read. They immigrate into the welfare state. I don't judge this, I would to the same in their position. Immigration should be strictly handled like in Canada or Australia.

Infrastructure spending is not the best way of propping up the economy. You get more for your buck by giving the money to the people who will immediately spend it. Germany doesn't need to increase the military. It's not running an empire like US. And doesn't need to find that kind of employment for the uneducated lower class. And Germany is what it is because of migrants. Do believe. And Japan is fucked because it's not accepting any.

"Infrastructure spending is not the best way of propping up the economy."

We were not talking about "propping up the economy", we were talking about sustaining it.

"You get more for your buck by giving the money to the people who will immediately spend it."

This is true. But by "importing all of India we don't make Calcutta rich, we make Germany a Calcutta" as somebody said.

"Germany doesn't need to increase the military."

Indeed it does not. Germany is in violation of her NATO contractual obligations. As long as she can "outsource" her defense and make the US defend her, maybe. In fact, Germany has no military anymore, Germany has a military museum.

"It's not running an empire like US."

She is unable to defend herself. Even Switzerland would be a formidable opponent in the current state. How many working tanks are left? 200 Tanks? How many helicopter pilots? http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-fehlen-Hubschrauber-Pi... There is nothing anymore. And if you are German you will likely be able to understand the Latin saying: "Si vis pacem, para bellum"

"And doesn't need to find that kind of employment for the uneducated lower class."

What other options do you see for the millions of uneducated, low IQ (please refer to Wikipedia) immigrants do you have in mind? Most of them (75%) are supposed to be illiterate. Just social welfare and mosques?

"And Germany is what it is because of migrants."

Because of immigrants with a cultural similar background. Not because of a massive invasion of uneducated people from violent and tribal societies with a very different religion (I am agnostic). Why did the population of Christians in Turkey fall from 23% to below 1% in the last 100 years? Some things don't match and mix well.

"Do believe. And Japan is fucked because it's not accepting any."

Japan is a highly educated, highly industrialized, non violent, non tribal, quite egalitarian society with a tolerant religion. Yes, they are over-aging. But all industrialized countries are over-aging. So far it seems to me that the Japanese are doing the best for a soft landing. By the way, they are extremely restrictive to Muslim immigration. http://allfourestates.com/why-japan-has-no-islamic-terrorism...

You may also want to read this: http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/monsters-ii/

>Why did the population of Christians in Turkey fall from 23% to below 1% in the last 100 years?

Perhaps because 100 years ago it was still the Ottoman Empire, which was a far larger state incorporating many Christian-majority regions?

No. Because the same thing happened in all Muslims states.

I don't know about other states - haven't looked at those numbers. But your statistics about Turkey are deliberately misleading by an extremely large margin, because you are in fact comparing the demographics of the Ottoman Empire to the demographics of the modern day Republic of Turkey.

Well, the Armenians were Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

> Germany has taken millions of illegal immigrants [...] Most of them can't even read.

[citation needed] Unless you meant "can't read German when they arrive"? What group/period are you even taking about?

This major [left wing] magazine says 2/3 can hardly read or write (in their own language). http://www.zeit.de/2015/47/integration-fluechtlinge-schule-b...

They also quote, 70% of refugees that started a "trainee" quit.

Not German. Many can't read or write at all, they are illiterate. So thinking they will master German in any reasonable timeframe and become employable is risky bet. They will need extensive training.

I'd say restricting fully government paid healthcare to citizens is a good step. For non-citizens (full time residents etc) the government would give basic healthcare, but anything elective or above the baseline should be funded by that individual.

In general I would say that most of social safety net benefits should be applied to citizens, and then be scaled down for the other groups of people living there.

Why should I get less than full health care if I pay the same income taxes and health insurance (15% of my wage on it's own)?

If you restrict services to permanent residents than restrict the taxes we pay as well (btw I'm 100% certain I pay more in taxes than I consume in benefits, and Germany didn't even have to pay for my education or early life).

I'm not saying restrict services to non-citizens, I'm saying do not have the government pay for those services for non-citizens. If you pay a private company for health insurance then you should be covered by that insurance for the things that the government won't cover.

This is one easy way that the government could cut health related costs.

But I am paying for these services, with 15% of my salary. Why should I have to additionally also pay for private insurance?

No, the Government of the place you are living is taking 15% of money out from your salary to pay for the services that it provides to both citizens and residents. It does not have to divide equally between the two groups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com