3 ms·

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 ma

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.

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.