Charge pension and health insurance premiums on all income, including stock dividends and rent, not just wages
In short
- The government charges pension and health insurance premiums on income from dividends, interest, and rent, not only on wages.
- The cap on the income that premiums apply to is removed, so people with high incomes pay at the same rate.
- The premium rate on workers' wages is lowered by the amount the new income raises.
- The pension and medical benefits people receive stay the same as they are now.
If this comes true
A 23-year-old woman starting her first job sees that the insurance premium taken from her pay slip is smaller than her parents paid when they were young, and she uses the extra money to rent her own room near work.
Perhaps
A man who lives in his old age on the rent from a small room he lets out might turn down his heating on winter nights to cover the newly deducted premium.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The proposal covers the funding of protections run as social insurance, such as pensions, health care, and long-term care. In many societies today, premiums are charged mainly on wages from work, up to a fixed cap. This would change so that every kind of income counts toward premiums: stock dividends, interest on savings and bonds, rent on homes and land, business profits, and gains from selling stocks or real estate. The cap on wages is abolished, and people with high incomes pay at the same rate. By the amount of new funding this raises, the premium rate on wages is lowered, easing the burden on workers and employers. Dividends and interest are withheld and paid in by the party that pays them, and rent and sale gains are collected along with the tax return. The right to receive benefits is still decided by things like years of enrollment, as before, so income that newly bears premiums does not greatly increase the amount a person receives. For people who receive a pension and live on their savings, those whose total income is low get an exemption or a reduction, and small gains from stocks and the like are free of charge up to a set amount. The change is phased in over several years, and an independent body estimates and publishes the funding outlook each year.
BenefitsYoung workers' burden gets lighter, and funding fits the times
If premiums are charged on a wider range of income, the same amount of money can be raised with a lower rate on wages. Young workers with no home and no savings take home more, and hiring costs less for employers, so there is one less reason to hesitate to hire. Even as society's wealth moves from wages to income from stocks and land, the funding follows it, so the base of protection is less likely to thin out in an age when automation shrinks the number of workers. Removing the cap also ends the unfairness of people with very high incomes bearing a lighter share. Older people who earn income from assets also join in raising the funds, so the picture of only the young supporting the old softens, and conflict between generations eases too. Because the benefits people receive do not change, the peace of mind of those who already live on pensions and medical care is not harmed. By moving from funding that relies on wages to funding supported by the income of society as a whole, there is a prospect of keeping protection going for a long time, even through the two big waves of a falling birth rate with an aging population and technological change.
DrawbacksA new burden falls on older people living on savings, and on investment
For people who live on savings or rent instead of wages, this proposal is a new burden. Someone who lived frugally and saved from a young age, planning to spend old age on interest, dividends, and the rent from a small room, will have to pay more partway through that plan. Even if reductions are set for people with low incomes, those just above them will pay premiums without receiving a larger pension, and will feel they have lost out. Also, if the burden on dividends and sale gains grows, investing in stocks and businesses becomes less attractive, and there is a risk that money will move out of the country or that less will go to new businesses. The more assets people have, the harder they look for ways to move income overseas or keep it inside their companies, so less money than expected may be collected. Furthermore, premiums have rested on a promise that those who pay receive protection. If premiums are taken from income that brings no added protection, they are in effect a tax, and the reason to pay becomes harder to see. If trust in social insurance wavers, the political strength that supports the system may weaken too. In exchange for lightening the young generation's burden, the security of people living on savings and some of the energy of investment are given up.
Learn the background
For a long time, pension and health protection has worked like this: working people pay premiums out of their wages, and that money supports the elderly and the sick. This system worked well in an age when there were many young workers and most of a society's wealth was handed out as wages. Now, in many societies, the share of older people is growing and the number of people supporting them is shrinking. On top of that, machines and information technology have taken over part of what people do, so the share of society's wealth paid out as wages has become smaller, while the share of income that comes from stocks and land has grown. Even so, premiums are charged only on wages, and because there is a cap, people with very high incomes pay a smaller share of what they earn. As a result, young workers with no home and no savings take on the full rise in premiums, while people who own assets barely take part in raising the funds. When premiums on wages rise, employers hesitate to hire and tend to cut regular jobs. This has not changed because many of those who own assets are older people who vote eagerly, and the long habit of thinking that premiums are paid out of wages resists change.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes