Do you have a shred of evidence to back this up?
In reality, the situation is the opposite: places with higher taxes that pay for better government services see a declining birth rate.
Taxes pay for a social safety net and birth control. Both of those things cause birth rates to go down, not up. By contrast, large families are the safety net in places with riskier economies and poorer public health.
Someone making 2.5 million and paying 1.25 million in taxes supports the others with less benefits.
This is the first example that came to my mind. What are your thoughts on this?
I hear your emotional plea, but I can’t find logic or rationality behind it.
Data shows that lowering the cost of education doesn't increase birth rate. Otherwise Germany, which has 100% free education through college, would have a high (and increasing) birth rate.
The same is true for every country that has developed economically. Stability/security reduce birth rate.
It makes sense, doesn't it? Having a child is a huge emotional, physical, and financial burden, regardless of the cost of education. The government would have to give people an astronomical amount of money to make it feel like people were "getting paid" to have kids, and even then, I still doubt they would.
Children take an enormous toll on people's lives and bodies. As an example, the Japanese government is trying to get people to have them, and they just won't.
We need much higher taxes on millionaires.
Could declining birth rate be a sign of a better society that values quality of life over quantity of offspring genes? Of course, causation isn’t correlation and all that.
Perhaps if incentivizing smaller families with UBI for life will be a better policy than incentivizing large families?
Most people in developed, Western countries get free birth control (and all other medical necessities) from the government. This is funded by their taxes.
This is also true of US citizens using Medicare.
Further, taxes pay for sex education at public schools, CDC awareness campaigns, and other
> Could declining birth rate be a sign of a better society that values quality of life over quantity of offspring genes?
Yes. What I'm saying is that the "better society" part is funded by governments (especially in Western Europe and Canada): public health programs and social safety nets decrease economic reliance on children, which reduces economic motivations to produce them. Fewer children also die, reducing the need to already have "extra" children to replace them.
> Perhaps if incentivizing smaller families with UBI for life will be a better policy than incentivizing large families?
UBI may make sense. I don't know. It depends on the specifics and hasn't been extensively studied.
However, I'm still trying to understand why you think anyone is "incentivizing" large families. Who is doing it and why? What part of the government is trying to increase the birth rate?
There is no family cap for welfare. What are you going to do? Let the others starve? It’s an impossible situation.
Currently smaller families don’t get incentives. This isn’t to say larger families should be let to be destitute. I am just saying that those who dont should be rewarded.
But if smaller families are heavily incentivized and with everyone getting UBI, then the scales will tip for quality over quantity.
Your theory that changing welfare payments based on number of children will increase children is wrong.
