Military Review

Pension as one of the causes of family destruction

53
Man is an extremely selfish being. Our thoughts and aspirations are usually aimed at satisfying our own needs. There are very few real altruists, there are almost none, and I sincerely admire each of them individually and with all of them at once.


Even such social institutions as the family and the collective arose during the social evolution of Homo sapiens and are primarily due to selfish reasons. A man and a woman, surrounded by their own kind, are commonplace, together it is easier to build a home, feed themselves, fight off predatory animals, and of course, give birth to and raise offspring. The more children and the more health and skills they have, the easier it will be for parents in the future, the more satisfying their old age will be. It has always been this way until such a thing as a pension has appeared.

The idea itself is a good one: a person works all his life, and then when he becomes old, depending on his former earnings and other merits, he will receive a guaranteed monetary allowance. You can and should not be distracted especially by numerous offspring, since for objective reasons, it is not conducive to the presence of all-consuming work, career growth and promotion (especially for women).

And then the children? And they have nothing to do with it - a person will eventually receive his money, regardless of how many children he has - zero or ten. It turns out that for a decent old age there is no longer any need to create large families and simply classical families also do not need, you can live alone, or with a face of your gender. The main thing is to work hard and hard, and then, decades later, let the young people born from other deductions from their contributions provide you with a decent old age. Only, as I have already said, a man is an unusually selfish being and without the need to overstretch his reproductive organs, besides receiving pleasure, he does not intend. I can imagine how many people will be outraged in the comments on my reasoning, but before writing something angry, please remember and compare how many children your grandfathers and great-grandfathers had and how many you have now (or in real plans), and at the same time compare standard of living, taking into account coffee grinders and general sewers, now and then.

Another proof of the selfishness of people, even in the most holy - the family, is the number of adopted children before the adoption of various incentive programs and after. Now, even by eye it can be seen that they are adopting a lot more often than 10 - 20 years ago, and all because it is profitable. I do not want to offend anyone and declare that all adoptive parents have mercantile interests in the first place, but the statistics are interesting science.

For the first time in stories the equation “a lot of intelligent, educated children = comfortable old age” is not always true, and only in our hypocritical time such hypocritical excuses appear, such as “I do not want to produce poverty”, “in the beginning it is necessary to achieve everything in life (yeah, by 40 years), and then start a child (one, for yourself!). I have good acquaintances who kind of wanted to start a second, but suddenly they took an expensive car on credit. All at once changed their minds. I ask: "And in old age, who will help." "So the pension will be," they answer. Those. they will ride a good car, and someone else will pay for their old age, who has never driven such a machine.

Damn, but for centuries people lived much worse, poorer, half-starved, they didn’t even have the Internet and mobile phones, not to mention the gas stove and washing machine, medical care, cars and other things, but somehow multiplied and multiplied and filled the earth. They probably just did not have pensions.

The first thesis of the article: the pension system is vicious and is aimed at reducing the birth rate by the mere fact of its existence. Second: it must be changed.

It is to change, not to cancel, and even more so, not to leave everything as it is. But what if the pension is not calculated on the basis of the former earnings of the pensioner, but depending on the pay of his children? Under the supervision of the state, each person gives 25% of his honestly earned money EXACTLY to his parents, or, in the event of their death, to other elderly persons on his own (remember the fairy tale where a woodcutter receives 4 coins a day, he eats one himself - money for living, one goes to pay off the debt — to the father for food, one gives to the debt — feeds the children, and one throws out — gives taxes). The more children the pensioner has and the more he has put “good, eternal” in them, the thicker the sausage is in the sandwich of their parent. And “Child-free”, when the sand is poured out, let the bottles be collected for the edification.

Honestly, from a moral point of view, I will not take any action deserving public censure, in the event of non-payment of contributions to the pension fund, to some unknown retiree, or to pay some uninteresting aunt from the fund, and if I am my father or I leave the mother without money, it will be a grave sin and public censure. Therefore, I think that the collection of contributions to the pension fund will increase dramatically. Of course, provided that at least 90% of the money listed by people reaches their parents.

I think that in case of adopting such a pension reform, the majority of emancipated women will change their guidelines and will be much more likely to be in maternity homes.

I can imagine what tantrums many will cause such a pension system, or at least its wide discussion in the media. Of course, to make a career all my life, having given birth “for myself” to one child, and then legally demanding a high pension - this is never selfishness. Tell me, do you know other ways to increase fertility?

When you want to achieve something from a person, you need a “stick” and “gingerbread”. Nothing fundamentally new has yet been invented. "Whip" and "gingerbread" can be different, sometimes, they are not immediately visible. So, such revolutionary measures are the “demographic whip”. There should be a “carrot”, i.e. real help to families with small children.

It should be easily accessible, and in some cases, things like diapers, baby food, strollers, children's medications, KINDER GARDENS AND SCHOOLS (and please do not irritate future parents. I know at least one unborn child because of only rumors on the introduction of paid secondary education. The couple decided not to have a third child because of uncertainty about the future, and the information about the additional fees finally determined their opinion). Mandatory free help for those who wish, but for medical reasons it is difficult to have a child, for many it is simply not affordable.

In general, these "gingerbread" measures are very, very expensive. But they can be seen as a long-term investment in the future. The more people, the more they build roads, factories, space ships, etc., the more they will produce goods and services, the more they will later acquire new things for themselves and as a result of all these actions, the cost of new people will easily be repulsed. if you provide the younger generation with quality education and medicine, then repeatedly. This will only make Russia richer, because the most important wealth of any country is not its enterprises and resources, but people.
Author:
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. domokl
    domokl 10 May 2013 06: 09 New
    +6
    Linking pensions and the number of children is possible in principle, but there are so many pitfalls in such linking that the game is not worth the candle. One Muscovite child will provide retirement benefits to parents many times more than five Siberians from a village somewhere in the Khabarovsk Territory ...
    And most importantly, with a modern approach to sports, education, creative development on the part of society and the state, a large family has no chance of even approaching one-two-family families.
    The author himself sees a mine on which such a pension system will be undermined - having many children, a person will not be able to achieve heights in his career, because forced to just work for food, it means choosing a salary job. And not being able to pay for a decent education and development of children, he will get a maximum of workers, and not particularly earning. Capitalism is competitive. The most educated will win.
    So the idea is beautiful, but stillborn
    1. Nick
      Nick 10 May 2013 09: 01 New
      +9
      Quote: domokl
      So the idea is beautiful, but stillborn

      I do not agree. I once spoke in my comments about the negative impact of the current pension system on fertility. Scythian is right. Look at China. It is developing quite dynamically, and the birth rate has to be artificially limited, and note that the pension system is practically absent, for ordinary workers it simply does not exist. Of course, I do not urge to cut the current, and so small, pension for childless old people, but a premium for large pensioners, and a substantial one, must be introduced. Raising children is no less important work for the country than caring for their own careers. As for the possibility of getting an education by young parents and children from large families, the state should also show its concern. In the end, the quality of human resources, including the level of education and health, is a matter of national security and the country's competitiveness.
      1. Civil
        Civil 10 May 2013 09: 16 New
        +1
        So I understand another achievement of the Soviet regime they want to cancel? Before that, education was ruined, now they are finishing up medicine, is it the turn of pension provision? Now I will seriously think about moving to a country where they are not going to cancel it! Yes, by the way, there are pensions in China, for civil servants and the police, part of the military .. so there’s no need to lie .. and the rest is an icicle ...
        1. Nick
          Nick 10 May 2013 10: 37 New
          +4
          Quote: Civil
          Now I will seriously think about moving to a country where they are not going to cancel it!

          Well it is whatever. For many, the motherland is where it is warmer and more satisfying. The psychology of cattle.
          Quote: Civil
          Yes, by the way, in China there are pensions for civil servants and the police, part of the military .. so there’s no need to lie.

          No need to lie! Read my post carefully. I did not say that in China there is no pension provision at all, I wrote that it is practically NOT available for most ordinary workers, i.e. pension system not universal. And for ordinary civil servants, of course it is, for the police there, for the military. But something tells me that they are scanty from the total mass of working people in China ...
          Quote: Civil
          So I understand another achievement of the Soviet regime they want to cancel?

          Shitty understand, in my post I propose to introduce allowances for large families to existing pensions. No need to juggle ...
          1. Civil
            Civil 10 May 2013 10: 51 New
            +5
            Well, let's focus on Bangaladesh or Sudan, there is no one there who does not have a pension and will not ...

            Well it is whatever. For many, the motherland is where it is warmer and more satisfying. The psychology of cattle.

            In youth, it seems that life is eternal, and when systematically sick, disabled, ineffective, they are squeezed out of life, this is not right!
            Who does not have money for normal medical care, who does not have money for a good school, who does not have the opportunity to save for retirement, or for the health of their children to rivet it where ?!
            At any moment, each of us can be in their place! And when YOU, being old and sick, do not have enough money for an operation, I will look at YOU!
            1. Nick
              Nick 10 May 2013 11: 25 New
              +2
              Quote: Civil
              Well, let's focus on Bangaladesh or Sudan, there is no one there who does not have a pension and will not ...

              Let's not ...
            2. Nick
              Nick 10 May 2013 11: 29 New
              +1
              Quote: Civil
              Who does not have money for normal medical care, who does not have money for a good school, who does not have the opportunity to save for retirement, or for the health of their children to rivet it where ?!
              At any moment, each of us can be in their place! And when YOU, being old and sick, do not have enough money for an operation, I will look at YOU!

              Twenty five again! Nobody calls to reduce the level of social security of Russians! On the contrary! It is proposed to increase it for parents with many children.
              You about Thomas, and you about Yeryoma.
              1. elmi
                elmi 10 May 2013 14: 19 New
                +5
                I heard that in China there is a tradition of helping parents in old age and it is adhered to unquestioningly: millions of Chinese people working around the world send money to their parents in China. There are pros and cons: plus - stimulates to give birth to more children for a comfortable old age, cons - most families try to give birth to boys, and when they find out that the girl has an abortion. Hence the great shortage of women in China.
              2. Civil
                Civil 10 May 2013 21: 04 New
                +1
                A large pension for large Russians? And what others are worse than anything or are they not Russians?
      2. zart_arn
        zart_arn 10 May 2013 11: 05 New
        0
        Quote: domokl
        Capitalism is a competitive environment. The most educated will win.

        Quote: Nick
        allowance for large retirees, and a substantial one, must be introduced. Parenting is no less important work for the country than taking care of your own career

        ++++++ Wisely and fairly. The author of the article advocates for large patriarchal families of the past, but judging sensibly, in the industrial world, as the author noted, large families even become an obstacle. Environmental resources (planets, countries) are limited and cannot provide everyone with a full material wealth. Let us honestly admit to ourselves - we do not want to give up the material benefits of civilization, a comfortable apartment or house, a car, a garage, various household appliances, trips around the planet, old-age pensions for everyone. Therefore, wise mother nature also limits the birth rate of industrial populations, and in these populations the most educated who come from small families lead and receive more benefits. Natural selection and no getting away from it. In this situation, it is necessary to maintain the optimal balance of birth rate-mortality-labor resources and this is the direct responsibility of the state.
        1. Nick
          Nick 10 May 2013 11: 48 New
          0
          Quote: zart_arn
          Environmental resources (planets, countries) are limited and cannot provide everyone with a full material wealth. Let's honestly admit to ourselves - we do not want to give up the material benefits of civilization, a comfortable apartment or house, a car, a garage, various household appliances, trips around the planet, old-age pensions for everyone

          The resources of our country belong to us, Russians, and not to the whole world. The resources of Russia are so huge, thanks to our ancestors, that Russians (in the broad sense of this definition) must be given birth and give birth in order to fully master them. The resources of the IMHO country, if used rationally and wisely, can ensure the comfortable existence of hundreds of millions of Russians in reasonably comfortable conditions. Think about it, in Russia about 55% of the arable land of the planet is concentrated, inexhaustible reserves of fresh water, forest resources, biological resources of the seas. In Russia, there are currently not enough human resources in order to rationally use and use all this wealth. Notice, I have listed only renewable resources.
          1. zart_arn
            zart_arn 10 May 2013 13: 22 New
            +1
            The resources are huge, but as of the current world price market, they are either unprofitable or generally unprofitable. For example, for oil, even according to official optimistic forecasts, 2030 is the limit, i.e. oil, of course, will remain, but everyone will have to throw off its production, and not fatten, as it is now. I am generally silent about production resources, because everyone knows what condition they are in throughout the country. At the moment, and for some not so distant future, it is worth thinking about maintaining the workforce at the required level of quantity and quality. The task, of course, is not an easy one, but if you don’t do it now, then after 5 years it will be too late.
          2. Rrv
            Rrv 10 May 2013 13: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Nick

            The resources of our country belong to us, Russians, and not to the whole world.
        2. FC SKIF
          10 May 2013 18: 19 New
          +1
          Quote: zart_arn
          Therefore, wise mother nature also limits the birth rate of industrial populations, and in these populations the most educated who come from small families lead and receive more benefits.

          Yeah, and then those from the patriarchal ones come and surpass the quality in quantity.
      3. grig1969
        grig1969 10 May 2013 13: 14 New
        +2
        another important point - if you familiarize yourself with the source - it’s clear that already parents at the age of 40 (quite able-bodied) will be able to receive pensions from children such that they will allow them to sharply increase their standard of living and, in general, “retire”
        1. FC SKIF
          10 May 2013 18: 30 New
          0
          Quote: FC Skiff
          Now I find out where I all "stibril". The accusation of plagiarism is serious.

          Yes, I agree, intelligently written, more reasonably than mine. So I’m an amateur, and the whole team worked there.
    2. grig1969
      grig1969 10 May 2013 13: 04 New
      +1
      Everything that is discussed in the article is taken from this resource - http://akparov.ru/node/106 - everything is much more detailed here. In my opinion - before discussing, you need to familiarize yourself with the original source - and understand all the arguments of the idea. I personally fully support the author’s ideas.
      1. FC SKIF
        10 May 2013 18: 20 New
        0
        Now I find out where I all "stibril". The accusation of plagiarism is serious.
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev 10 May 2013 13: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: domokl
      Capitalism is a competitive environment. The most educated will win.

      Something that is now won by us is often far from the most educated and experienced professionals.
      MoE appointed a boar without special education, the same with the former Minister of Agriculture, etc.
      If there is support, then you can not study at all, but hire for a penny "engineering", "literary" and other slaves.
      No education will benefit society, and, by and large, the most modern person, if he does not have a solid spiritual foundation. Including family values.
      And of course, the state should certainly help raise children financially. And pensions, perhaps for large families, should be higher.
      At the expense of egoists, "citizens of the world", homosexuals, etc.
  2. Egoza
    Egoza 10 May 2013 06: 30 New
    +2
    I understand that the author stands for an increase in the birth rate, but what does the pension have to do with it? Especially in our time !? How many cases do we know when young people die or simply die? And then what do their old parents do? Another thing is that the entire pension system is imperfect, and the state is not even able to provide people with a decent old age, although these people have already devoted all their strength and health to providing the same state. Maybe it would be worth making deductions from our rich citizens to a pension fund more? Especially in favor of those people who work in private enterprises? And it turns out that the owner of the mine has millions and has already raked on his children and grandchildren with great-grandchildren, and the miner who plowed at him has a minimum salary!
    1. Nick
      Nick 10 May 2013 10: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Egoza
      I understand that the author stands for an increase in the birth rate, but what does the pension have to do with it?

      Everything is very simple, dear Elena, The author says that in the absence of a universal pension system, people were motivated to create a big strong family. Otherwise, people doomed themselves to a miserable hungry existence in old age. Not for nothing in Russia they say: "One is grieving, but the family is fighting". Moreover, the author of the article did not talk about this, but I will add that parents were vitally interested in raising their children in respect for their elders, and this respectful attitude to their opinion, their experience, their traditions, made it possible to preserve folk wisdom, morality, continuity of generations, transfer of useful skills and knowledge accumulated by the people over the millennium.
      The author proposes to strengthen the motivation of current generations of parents to create large families with many children through the pension system. The methods may be different, not with all the methods proposed by the author, I agree, but in conceptual terms, I believe that the author is right ...
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 10 May 2013 21: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: Nick
        but conceptually, I think that the author is right ...

        You see, dear Nick, I just had to deal with SUCH large families at one time .... children are hungry, ragged, and dirty ... although the neighbors are trying to help. And to "mommy", if she is called to the official bodies, she will spit it out. moreover, she says so: "You’ll play a lot here, I’ll give birth, and you won’t go anywhere." What helps at the birth of a child is right. But what about those who give birth only to receive child allowance? And then drink and skip it. And will such children grow up to be hard workers? Although if they grow up, then such a "mommy" will certainly come to them and will demand a pension from them! And everything will be according to the law (as proposed in the article). Did she deserve her? Unfortunately, there are many such examples. I'm here, sorry, more offended for the children.
        1. Nick
          Nick 10 May 2013 23: 36 New
          +1
          Quote: Egoza
          But what about those who give birth only to receive child allowance? And then drink and skip it.

          You are considering a special case, but I know other examples. A simple peasant Russian family in the Yaroslavl region. Both work in agriculture, salaries are low, eight people are children, all are dressed, dressed, and are in school. Parents are not drinkers. Built a cottage with the help of the state. They have enough time for everything, and for work, and for raising children, and for personal farming. friendly responsible children, helpers to parents It is a sin not to support such parents a retirement pension, they should receive much higher for their hard parental work.
    2. knn54
      knn54 10 May 2013 11: 31 New
      +2
      Fidget: the entire pension system is imperfect.
      Like the Labor Code (at least ours). Those in power are cunning, they advocate for "transparency", and at their enterprises they pay the "gray" minimum, and the rest is in envelopes. You will not envy future pensioners. It is unclear when the Captain of the First Rank , who spent more than 20 years on the nuclear submarine, receives an equivalent of 350 cu, and the colonel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who served most of the time in his office, receives more than 600 cu. I will not say anything about the pensions of deputies.
      And yet. The reason for poverty allows officials to take away children often from those families where people work, they have a large family, and this is not a reason for them ...
    3. grig1969
      grig1969 10 May 2013 13: 11 New
      +1
      If parents have 5-7 children, then even with the death of several of them, the pension will be quite decent. An example of my grandmother - of 5 born children, two died - one at the age of 12, the second child - at 4 ... the rest grew up and became worthy people. And what would happen if she had one or two children ??
      1. Rrv
        Rrv 10 May 2013 13: 50 New
        0
        Quote: grig1969
        If parents have 5-7 children, then even with the death of several of them, the pension will be quite decent.


        Will you raise 5-7 children in the city? Set up tents with cots in the park?
  3. fenix57
    fenix57 10 May 2013 06: 33 New
    +4
    Hello! Oh, these reforms, and especially the PENSION ... So far, these same "reforms" allow DIGITAL LIVE (read, ENRICH!) Only their creators! hi
  4. makano
    makano 10 May 2013 06: 33 New
    +1
    The word unknown is written in place.
  5. makano
    makano 10 May 2013 06: 35 New
    +1
    Why does the article have no author? Disorder
    1. FC SKIF
      10 May 2013 18: 33 New
      +2
      Why not? I am FC Skiff. Why don't readers have a name?
  6. waisson
    waisson 10 May 2013 06: 42 New
    +1
    the main wealth is people, if literate and smart are and useless
  7. makano
    makano 10 May 2013 06: 46 New
    +2
    Since the article does not have an author, I express disagreement with the article. The article states that the pension is paid out of employee contributions. But it should not be so. These deductions from my salary should be the total amount of my future pension. Children and family have nothing to do with it.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 10 May 2013 14: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: makano
      Since the article does not have an author, I express disagreement with the article. The article states that the pension is paid out of employee contributions. But it should not be so. These deductions from my salary should be the total amount of my future pension. Children and family have nothing to do with it.

      Well, of course, why spend YOUR money on children if they can be spent on loved ones. Your old age will be provided by the children of those who gave birth to children. In fact, in old age you will live at someone else's expense, a parasite.
    2. FC SKIF
      10 May 2013 18: 35 New
      +1
      Since the comment has no author, am I not interested in this comment? Some kind of kindergarten principle, do not find.
  8. djon3volta
    djon3volta 10 May 2013 07: 04 New
    0
    the author probably hints at the Chinese experience, so that there would be more than 1 billion we should stop paying pensions to certain categories of people laughing
  9. makano
    makano 10 May 2013 07: 16 New
    +2
    The article requires deducting from the earnings of children 25% for the provision of parents. And if you add this to 50% of the alimony, then with what means then build a house and buy a car? And what vodka with kebab to take? No, the capitalists don’t have enough money to provide the worker with a carrot. Such an opportunity was only under communism in the USSR. And now the bourgeoisie are confiscating schools, hospitals, kindergartens and institutes for their offices and warehouses. So the article is extremely selfish and far-fetched
    1. Rrv
      Rrv 10 May 2013 13: 54 New
      -1
      This topic first surfaced about a year ago, and the initiator was - who would you think? One of edrosov.
  10. Borat
    Borat 10 May 2013 07: 24 New
    +5
    The author is apparently young in body and soul, and in terms of mental development - super young.
  11. uzer 13
    uzer 13 10 May 2013 07: 39 New
    +4
    You can earn money for retirement yourself and there is no need to transfer it to children or anyone else. The problem is that this money somewhere disappears from the pension fund. Moreover, it happens so regularly that it is time to make a schedule for losing money.
  12. treskoed
    treskoed 10 May 2013 08: 12 New
    +1
    When they make children, they still don’t think about retirement, and when they retire, they only make grandchildren !!! The logic of the article is largely far-fetched! Indeed, according to statistics, children are more in poor families, and millionaires are not the most large !!!
  13. 123tank
    123tank 10 May 2013 08: 19 New
    +4
    An original view of the birth rate. It would be better to eliminate “salaries in envelopes”, same-sex marriage, create 25 million jobs, an excess of housing .....
    1. andrejwz
      andrejwz 10 May 2013 10: 01 New
      +2
      Quote: 123tank
      An original view of the birth rate. It would be better to eliminate “salaries in envelopes”, same-sex marriage, create 25 million jobs, an excess of housing .....

      Why do we need 25 million jobs? In the next article, in order to get rid of social troubles, the imperfection of labor and pension legislation, the author, apparently, will propose a return to the updated version of the communal-clan system, motivating this by returning respect for elders, reducing corruption, and, further, according to the list.
  14. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 10 May 2013 08: 39 New
    +4
    So, in many countries of Africa and Asia (including China, with the exception of state employees, workers of state enterprises) in general, there are no pensions and children contain elderly parents - this is their duty, but there is also a tribal structure of society . In our society, which is oriented toward Western gay models, personal success is gradually being destroyed, even the very concept of marriage and family and, therefore, this is impossible.
  15. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 10 May 2013 08: 48 New
    +5
    If we turn to where the author, the community, the community began to unite in order to survive, I agree, but the old people in the community were not only supported by their own children. The community for that and the community that there was everything in common. Both children and the elderly were fed not only by their own children, but also by the whole community. Indeed, for example, in a war with neighbors, a son or even sons perished, who took care of the elderly? So, retirement is not only the concern of children, it is the attitude of the whole society, to those who built it, everyone will certainly become old and old, everyone should be provided for old age. According to the author’s ideology, after the war, all old people whose children died do not have the right to exist. Another thing is that today many young people do not see anything for money, they only need everything here and now. Moral: from life we ​​must take everything to the maximum, it eats through our society. Everything that hinders should be eliminated, now the old people are hindering, who is next in line? sick? what next. where is such morality going?
  16. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 10 May 2013 08: 55 New
    +3
    I.A. Efremov "Bull Hour" - the world of Tormans, well, why not an "ideal" model of the future without old people, pensions, etc.?
  17. zevs379
    zevs379 10 May 2013 09: 12 New
    0
    To the author + 100500 for courage! Well done! At first they will be indignant then realize.
    As for the pension, I absolutely agree. There are no pensions in China, and there were many children.
    In Russian families there should be at least 3 boys and girls how much God will give. For this, the pension must be a multiple of the number of children. Just declare that Russian citizens born in 2010 will receive a pension according to the number of children (1 share for a guy, 0.7 for a girl) and after 200 years it will be necessary to introduce a restriction, as in China.
  18. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 10 May 2013 09: 27 New
    +1
    Nonsense! Firstly, the young people who have entered into marriage or have not entered into it are not led by a “calculation” for future old age, but by a rush of feelings! At the age of 19-30 people, as a rule, don’t think about it (old age)! Secondly, where is the confidence that the Grateful children will grow up in the conditions of modern immorality, brought up by our liberals and democrats and will feed you in old age? And most importantly: if in those times to which the author refers
    social evolution of homo sapiens
    , man, the fact that he’s “gained” is 100% all of it, and now, excuse me, the man FEES the state throughout his entire working life, and if you look at the “rulers” of this state, he feeds IT hundreds of thousands of times better, than yourself. So sorry, the state is NOTHING DO NOT NEED OWN The BURNER ?!
  19. Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 10 May 2013 10: 32 New
    +4
    in some cases, things like diapers, baby food are free,
    Already ONLY there should be a minus for this phrase. Parents of the author and their parents managed WITHOUT of this and much more, and the children ate the same as their parents. And nothing fatal happened. Those children are alive, healthy and they write articles.
    And it’s very competent and clever, and for this all the same a final plus.
  20. iulai
    iulai 10 May 2013 10: 41 New
    -3
    To give birth to children so that mediocre generals sent to death in batches? At the Seeltsky heights, when there were only a few days left until the war ended, Zhukov laid down 300 thousand young soldiers !!! That at the end of the war there was no aviation ??? there was no artillery ?? Yes, the Germans could be destroyed with the help of aviation and artillery !! It is necessary to give birth less so that every human life is valued, and our thick-faced generals have learned to fight with the help of brains (if they have them) and with the help of technology!
    1. zevs379
      zevs379 10 May 2013 11: 00 New
      +3
      Quote: iulai
      It is necessary to give birth less so that every human life is valued, and our thick-faced generals have learned to fight with the help of brains (if they have them) and with the help of technology!





      You speak without thinking! Scroll through your words in terms of the survival of the nation - this is destructive. The more people, the more talented commanders. And an attack on a large ethnic group is less likely than on a small one. And following your ideology, we will soon quantitatively and qualitatively turn into Finns or some other Chukhons.
    2. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 10 May 2013 14: 27 New
      +2
      Quote: iulai
      To give birth to children so that mediocre generals sent to death in batches?

      You, dear, it turns out you do not know one physiological trifle! It is well known that they are not born as generals, as ministers, directors, heads of shops and sections. They were all children! And your children have the opportunity to become one of these. Based on your words, there is reason to believe that the children you brought up will be bad leaders. If they manage to become them.
  21. optimist
    optimist 10 May 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    The article smacks of the usual graphomania and Manilism. Comrade Skif, apparently, has nothing to occupy himself during the holidays ... tongue
  22. Jarilo
    Jarilo 10 May 2013 10: 53 New
    +6
    I support the author, in terms of introducing a substantial pension supplement for the number of children (own or adopted).
    I also support the idea that people are the main wealth of the country!
    A minimum guaranteed pension should be received by all pensioners, and then, the cumulative allowances in terms of average earnings, number of children and other merits.
    It is necessary to encourage children to raise children with hard but very important work for the country. and through retirement.
    The pension system needs to be changed, what is now - a feeding trough for officials, absolutely not suitable for normal pension provision of citizens.
  23. aviamed90
    aviamed90 10 May 2013 11: 57 New
    +1
    The article is a minus. The main idea of ​​the author: you, citizens thoughtlessly breed like animals for the glory of the state, and we refuse to make decisions (whether to give birth or not) because you are not able to accept them. And in general, you exist to ensure that the state is good, and not vice versa.
    Everything is turned upside down!
    In fact, the state was invented for this purpose so that citizens feel good. So let the state think how to do this (improve the welfare of citizens, organize normal medical care, give a decent education, etc.). Those. create conditions for their citizens. And as for the citizens, excuse me, they will decide for themselves whether it will be fruitful or not. All people are adults, I hope.
    Not citizens exist for the state (although they pay taxes), but the state for citizens. So let the state provide for all these taxes, and then ask questions about the birth rate.

    Now, unfortunately, this is not visible.
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 10 May 2013 14: 38 New
      +2
      Yes, make your decisions as you like. Nobody forces you to give birth, as in some nations. But if you respect the country in which you grew up, then you simply must know that in order for the population to increase (!), And with it the pension fund, provided that it is not stolen, each family needs to give birth and raise at least 2, and specifically 3 children. Otherwise, you, youth, will not see good luck. The time will come when there is no one to protect you old people!
    2. FC SKIF
      10 May 2013 18: 43 New
      0
      Are you definitely born in the USSR? The text of the comment seems to be from some campaign for the US President.
  24. AlexMH
    AlexMH 10 May 2013 13: 58 New
    +1
    The author is somewhat similar to our prime minister (and no, this is not a compliment). I saw a problem - and let's cast it into granite, without going into the essence of the matter. If we continue the thought of the author of the article (and the thought - that people should multiply in a multitude, and they must be forced to do this, including fear of impoverished old age), then there are very simple recipes. First, everyone should live in a village. In the city it is difficult to imagine a family of 15 people in one apartment. Further, women should be prohibited from getting an education and work - they should give birth to a child a year and sit them continuously to nurse at home. True, from this the country will lose half of the workers, well, God bless them - we will double the salary of the peasants. To prohibit contraceptives and arithmetic - otherwise you’ll get the hang of calculating cycles, and you won’t make you pregnant. Prohibit abortion - it’s better that women die from clandestine abortions, but the birth rate will jump. Infant mortality must be raised - because if you give birth to a baby a year, some of the children will inevitably be weak, sick, premature - they must die in childhood, otherwise the whole family will only work on their feed. Do not forget the patriarchal relations in the family - otherwise the children will not want to feed their parents, and they will flog them to the village gathering. And so we came to the ideal model of society - for Russia, it’s about the 18th century or the beginning of 19. Looked out the window - and there are 21. And these pogans not only do not want to give birth, they also do not believe in the state’s meager pension, and strive for old age set aside. Or to give your apartment not to children, but in exchange for decent maintenance. Yes, little else will these people come up with, if only for 10 children not to give birth. Somehow it is necessary with them differently, somehow thinner. So far no one has come up with how. All of Europe thinks - it can’t come up with, and the bastards live richer than us like.
    1. FC SKIF
      10 May 2013 18: 47 New
      0
      Here you are nagging, but in fact, many logical ideas in your commentary have been reduced to absurdity and they no longer look like that. Stop trolling, comrade.
  25. Backfire
    Backfire 11 May 2013 01: 14 New
    +3
    The article is very correct and raises one of the most hushed up topics of our time. And it looks quite appropriate on this site. Why? Because the most important, irresistible and invincible weapon is demography.

    Absolutely all pension systems, of all countries of the world, exist only because old people are given money when they climb into the pocket of those who are currently working. Even that idyll that we had in the USA, with private pension funds, is covered with a copper basin.

    Although the current crisis has shown that they have already managed to surpass this bar - judging by the debts that cannot be repaid, purely physically, because the money that needs to be repaid does not exist in nature, it does not exist in the entire real economy on the whole Earth. So judging by these debts, we have already reached into the pocket of even unborn generations.

    Those. grandparents give money to the still working children and grandchildren. The logical question is - why should they give it to someone else who "lived for himself", did not have children or a maximum of one, and now he is counting on "penalties"?

    3-5 children per family is quite normal. A woman from 20 to 30-32 calmly gives birth once every 2-3 years. But grandparents who have gone to retirement age can help raise and educate children. The money allocated for "education" in most countries is larger than the budgets of the ministries of defense. Even parts of this money addressed to grandparents for raising their children and future citizens would be more than enough for them not to depend on the handouts of the state (i.e. officials). And the experience and wisdom that they can give children is the most valuable. Plus, children will grow up having a model of the behavior of a mature person in front of them, and not just peers in development and a caregiver / teacher who, in a pedine, learned how many times she quickly fucked and was herself a child about 7-8 years ago.

    It’s just a matter of politics - to pay one working husband and father the money that two now earn — husband and wife, plus some that go to kindergartens and schools.

    And those who claim that at the same time a woman will turn into a "hen-hen", a "uterus-producer" are utter fools. With such a system, women may be entrusted with perhaps the most important thing - shaping the worldview of the future generation.
    The future will depend on them, on mothers (and not on current "secrets", "business people, etc.). The world will be like what they put into the heads, hearts and souls of their children.
    Is there anything more valuable?
    1. FC SKIF
      11 May 2013 05: 12 New
      +1
      Better not tell.
  26. AlexMH
    AlexMH 11 May 2013 23: 51 New
    +1
    Understand one simple thing - when people start to live well (urbanization, medicine, high income), the birth rate automatically decreases, because they have many other concerns and needs, in addition to having children. This happens absolutely in all countries of the world. Yes, it is possible that there is a certain cycle - a nation that is changing its fertility model is starting to shrink, other nations are taking its place, which, in turn, are raising their standard of living, lowering the birth rate and so on. However, it is impossible to interrupt this cycle by simple means, and not the fact that it is possible at all. This has been proven experimentally over the past few hundred years. Name at least one nation with a high standard of living and with an average number of children 3-4 pieces per family, which is necessary for growth (to go to zero, you need 2,2 children). There are none in Europe, nor in America, nor in Asia. Moreover, large countries grow at the expense of their poorest and least developed sub-ethnic groups (the USA - blacks and Latinos, Europe - migrants, Russia - the Caucasus). And the author’s proposal is to take a pension and not pay people without children, because it’s unfair, they say, to feed other people's old people — it is impossible in a developed social state with any kind of democracy. Moreover, a person may not have children for a variety of reasons, starting from infertility, and for this, forcing him to die in poverty in old age is somehow not human. Imagine yourself walking past an old man begging for alms, and imposingly say to him, "Well, why didn’t you have children? Now I would get a pension." In Soviet times, there was a tax on childlessness (small), and what, do you think, did it stimulate someone? By the way, this tax was only for married / married. Thus, the author’s proposal is inhuman, impracticable from a technical point of view in a democratic (or pretending to be) country, does not solve the birth rate problem and cannot be accepted.
  27. Backfire
    Backfire 12 May 2013 02: 13 New
    +1
    Quote: AlexMH
    Name at least one nation with a high standard of living and with an average number of children 3-4 pieces per family,

    I call: USA of the end of the 50s - beginning of the 60s. The average number of children is 3,8 per family. One working husband kept such a family.
    By the way, then the residents of the United States did not live on credit as they do now.

    Quote: AlexMH
    to go to zero, you need 2,2 children

    Classical fallacy. You are mistaken in 1,5-2 times!
    A minimum of 3-4 children per family is needed to simply maintain the population.
    I explain: not all children will survive, not all will have a family, not all will be able to have children, and not every woman will be able to give birth to those same 3-4 children.

    Quote: AlexMH
    Moreover, a person may not have children for a variety of reasons, starting from infertility, and for this, forcing him to die in poverty in old age is somehow not human.

    Nobody talks about this, they just can accumulate savings in the same pension fund - they did not have to spend money on children, so they will have money.
    But children are by far the most reliable investment.


    Quote: AlexMH
    Understand one simple thing - when people start to live well (urbanization, medicine, high income), the birth rate automatically decreases, because they have many other concerns and needs, except for having children

    All reasonings like yours come from total misinformation, and even at the training stage. Just those who rule us decided to kill the family as such. It’s easier for them to control the hamsters. This is called the "atomization" of society.

    Each new generation is grown in a coordinate system when they receive knowledge about the world not from their ancestors, but from government officials - educators, teachers. Such a system allows us to grow "Ivanov’s relatives who don’t remember," although in this case it will be more accurate: "they don’t know their history."

    The situation that we have had since the second half of the 20th century, and which seems to be the norm for a couple of recent generations, is an exception in the history of mankind. There has never been such a pension system. Moreover, never before has there been such a life expectancy of older people.

    This system is already dead - whether we want it or not.
    Even in our USA, pension funds are almost empty.
    Money is taken not from the current generation, but from the future! This cannot go on for long.

    For those who are not yet 40 years old, there will be no pensions for anyone! Perhaps some money will be paid, but it will not be possible to live on it even theoretically! The system has exhausted itself.
    If you are a fairly young person, then you will see the collapse of this system.
  28. Setrac
    Setrac 12 May 2013 12: 53 New
    0
    Phrase
    Quote: Backfire
    Money is taken not from the current generation, but from the future!

    not true. A man does not need money, he needs food, clothing, housing, etc. Material values ​​that are produced. If they are not created, then no one can take advantage of them, and it is impossible to borrow from the descendants material values ​​that are not produced. This is the meaning of caring for parents - children create material values ​​for parents. The system of accumulating money for the future - from the evil one - the fraud of bankers, money is just a medium of exchange, are not a value in themselves.