4 ms·
I don't think it's that easy. To borrow a quote: "too simple, sometimes naive."
by rany_ 3y ago
I don't think it's that easy. To borrow a quote: "too simple, sometimes naive."
- huytersd 3y agoIt is that easy. Why wouldn’t it be? It would be as simple as extra taxation if you don’t have two kids.
- hotpotamus 3y agoAs a man, I'm not capable of having kids, so it seems a bit unfair to me.
- huytersd 3y agoSure, the law accounts for medical problems in both parties. That’s just pedantic though.
- hotpotamus 3y agoThere is no medical problem and there is no other party; as a man, I'm not capable of making children, no matter how much of a tax penalty you apply to me.
- huytersd 3y agoIt applies to families obviously. Like the tax code for the one child policy, there’s precedent for this.
- hotpotamus 3y agoWell, if you want less family formation, then taxing it seems like a good start, but I think contrary to the goal here being discussed here. I've kind of been down this thread a bit and I think heavy taxes on birth control might be the intervention that a pro-natalist authoritarian government might go for. Reading the article, it does sound like China is trying to tweak these levers. But at the end of the day, if you don't have a society that women are interested in raising children in, then I think it's just going to be very difficult.
- rany_ 3y agoThat's the obvious thing they'd want to do, but the thing is.. we're talking about human beings here. What are the unintended consequences of this policy? Could this cause discontent that could threaten the existence of the CCP? etc etc We can't forget that the only reason we're in this mess is because of the success of the one child policy, but could the CCP replicate this success when it comes to nudging families to have even more burdens? I don't think so.