4 ms·

This is likely one of the most important points IMHO in the modern discourse on having kids. A way to alleviate it could be to give insane tax deductions for h

This is likely one of the most important points IMHO in the modern discourse on having kids. A way to alleviate it could be to give insane tax deductions for having kids - we will likely reach a point where we have to.

decimalenough 1y ago
Many countries do in some form or another. But the subsidies are trivial compared to the huge expenses of raising a child well.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  Yes, saw that I had a typo - I meant insane deductions. You are right that many countries do - but they are simply not high enough to make it worthwhile and make the same economical sense at not having kids does.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    The problem with subsidies is society does not benefit from kids simply existing. Society benefits from well raised kids. Kids not raised well end up costing society. As “well raised” is not possible to measure, this is not a feasible solution. One work around has been to bet that those with earned incomes are likelier to raise their kids well, so the subsidies can be non refundable earned income tax credits. But I doubt sufficient people have sufficient tax liabilities that offset the costs of the minimum quality of life many people require for their kids and them to have.
    - tossandthrow 1y ago
      It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. One way to subsidize parents is to give free child care. As a bonus, the government get to decide exactly how these kids are being raised. But yeah, it is a material investment for the society to take - which is likely why we have seen the cost of kids being transferred to the parents (and lower birth rates).
      - antisthenes 1y ago
        > It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Having well-raised kids is fascist? Which part did you mean?
        tossandthrow 1y ago
        Imposing structures on who and how can raise kids. Almost all western countries have scars around this.
        baconbrand 1y ago
        Deciding who is going to raise children well implies deciding who can raise children implies deciding who can have children. It’s a pretty straightforward line.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - lostmsu 1y ago
      Well that's easy to fix: tie the tax deduction to kids meeting some minimal reasonable performance bar.
jltsiren 1y ago
I don't think any simple trick like that is enough. If people are allowed to choose their own paths, they will make different choices, and every aspect of the society has an impact on the choices they make. If we want a society where people have the right number of children on the average (not too few and not too many, as in the societies discussed in the blog), everything must be designed around that. For example, if having kids is optional, many people will choose to not have kids. Then those who do have need more than two kids on the average to sustain the population. But we have this cultural ideal of a family with two kids, which impacts the design of everything from homes to cars and from furniture to hotels. As well as the expectations on how much effort parents should devote to support each child.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  > If people are allowed to choose their own paths At a macro scale this idea is futile, as people make decisions in a context. Yes,people should have full agency - also to do things that does not make financial sense. But if we want something as a society, it needs to make financial sense. And yes this has consequences, that is why we have a market, so we can service each other under these consequences.

decimalenough 1y ago

Many countries do in some form or another. But the subsidies are trivial compared to the huge expenses of raising a child well.

tossandthrow 1y ago
Yes, saw that I had a typo - I meant insane deductions. You are right that many countries do - but they are simply not high enough to make it worthwhile and make the same economical sense at not having kids does.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  The problem with subsidies is society does not benefit from kids simply existing. Society benefits from well raised kids. Kids not raised well end up costing society. As “well raised” is not possible to measure, this is not a feasible solution. One work around has been to bet that those with earned incomes are likelier to raise their kids well, so the subsidies can be non refundable earned income tax credits. But I doubt sufficient people have sufficient tax liabilities that offset the costs of the minimum quality of life many people require for their kids and them to have.
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. One way to subsidize parents is to give free child care. As a bonus, the government get to decide exactly how these kids are being raised. But yeah, it is a material investment for the society to take - which is likely why we have seen the cost of kids being transferred to the parents (and lower birth rates).
    - antisthenes 1y ago
      > It always gets a bit fascist to go down this path - but it is at least intellectually interesting. Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Having well-raised kids is fascist? Which part did you mean?
      - tossandthrow 1y ago
        Imposing structures on who and how can raise kids. Almost all western countries have scars around this.
      - baconbrand 1y ago
        Deciding who is going to raise children well implies deciding who can raise children implies deciding who can have children. It’s a pretty straightforward line.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - lostmsu 1y ago
    Well that's easy to fix: tie the tax deduction to kids meeting some minimal reasonable performance bar.

jltsiren 1y ago

I don't think any simple trick like that is enough. If people are allowed to choose their own paths, they will make different choices, and every aspect of the society has an impact on the choices they make. If we want a society where people have the right number of children on the average (not too few and not too many, as in the societies discussed in the blog), everything must be designed around that. For example, if having kids is optional, many people will choose to not have kids. Then those who do have need more than two kids on the average to sustain the population. But we have this cultural ideal of a family with two kids, which impacts the design of everything from homes to cars and from furniture to hotels. As well as the expectations on how much effort parents should devote to support each child.

tossandthrow 1y ago
> If people are allowed to choose their own paths At a macro scale this idea is futile, as people make decisions in a context. Yes,people should have full agency - also to do things that does not make financial sense. But if we want something as a society, it needs to make financial sense. And yes this has consequences, that is why we have a market, so we can service each other under these consequences.