4 ms·

I entirely agree. And when you lather on the tidal wave of endless "entertainment" and options available to most people they end up framing everything in their

I entirely agree. And when you lather on the tidal wave of endless "entertainment" and options available to most people they end up framing everything in their minds as "having fun" vs "having kids". I also know many women who say they don't want to "do that to their bodies" so ... where is this all going. And honestly I agree with the "if you are single you should pay more taxes" as a motivator to either get you to have your own kids or to simply ease the burden of those who are actually making humanity move forward but as a parent I am a bit biased here. It should be a significant amount.

talldayo 2y ago
There are already taxes subsidies for couples and children - that's plenty enough incentive for wealthy families that can support kids. Families that cannot afford to feed or house children should in no way be penalized for refusing to start a family in their present situation.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  The reality is the public pensions and healthcare implode without much higher taxes or much higher birth rates. Like the Italian president told his people a few years, if we want things to stay the same, things are going to have to change.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Things aren't going to change. America just let private wealth run rampant over everything that matters and now wants to usher in an administration that (supposedly) wouldn't touch your civil liberties with a 50 foot pole. Trump says he won't even commit to banning abortion (sounds about right for a guy that's probably paid for dozens of 'em). So... how are things going to "have to change" if you can't threaten childless couples and you can't redistribute the wealth to people that do want kids? Continually fearmonger mandatory birthing policies without actually implementing them just to get a rise out of your citizens? It's nonsense, and if America is given a choice between "fucking over wealthy people" and "having tons of kids to staff McDonalds at minimum wage" I can tell you offhand which one 99% of citizens will pick. We're already halfway there given how far China has surpassed the US in places - today's Americans hate capitalism so much they're content watching their country suffer until businesses get the message.
  - Ray20 2y ago
    The reality are that half of the planet already pays more then 50 percent in taxes, and with much higher taxation the whole country will implodes. More then this - public pensions are one of the main reasons for low birth rate. You can't have both, if children's role as social insurance passes to public pensions - children became useless.
carlosjobim 2y ago
[flagged]
- talldayo 2y ago
  > It's vanity only. What a profoundly ignorant statement. How much would I have to pay you to put on 30 pounds and deal with morning sickness for the next 9 months? Does $0 sound about right? Oh, so now it's not about vanity and has everything to do with your comfort as an individual. Crazy what a tiny bit of empathy can do - and we haven't even gotten to the messy part yet. Fucking ingrate. What's next, men don't want to pass kidney stones because it makes them feel emasculate?

talldayo 2y ago

There are already taxes subsidies for couples and children - that's plenty enough incentive for wealthy families that can support kids. Families that cannot afford to feed or house children should in no way be penalized for refusing to start a family in their present situation.

missedthecue 2y ago
The reality is the public pensions and healthcare implode without much higher taxes or much higher birth rates. Like the Italian president told his people a few years, if we want things to stay the same, things are going to have to change.
- talldayo 2y ago
  Things aren't going to change. America just let private wealth run rampant over everything that matters and now wants to usher in an administration that (supposedly) wouldn't touch your civil liberties with a 50 foot pole. Trump says he won't even commit to banning abortion (sounds about right for a guy that's probably paid for dozens of 'em). So... how are things going to "have to change" if you can't threaten childless couples and you can't redistribute the wealth to people that do want kids? Continually fearmonger mandatory birthing policies without actually implementing them just to get a rise out of your citizens? It's nonsense, and if America is given a choice between "fucking over wealthy people" and "having tons of kids to staff McDonalds at minimum wage" I can tell you offhand which one 99% of citizens will pick. We're already halfway there given how far China has surpassed the US in places - today's Americans hate capitalism so much they're content watching their country suffer until businesses get the message.
- Ray20 2y ago
  The reality are that half of the planet already pays more then 50 percent in taxes, and with much higher taxation the whole country will implodes. More then this - public pensions are one of the main reasons for low birth rate. You can't have both, if children's role as social insurance passes to public pensions - children became useless.

carlosjobim 2y ago

[flagged]

talldayo 2y ago
> It's vanity only. What a profoundly ignorant statement. How much would I have to pay you to put on 30 pounds and deal with morning sickness for the next 9 months? Does $0 sound about right? Oh, so now it's not about vanity and has everything to do with your comfort as an individual. Crazy what a tiny bit of empathy can do - and we haven't even gotten to the messy part yet. Fucking ingrate. What's next, men don't want to pass kidney stones because it makes them feel emasculate?