[rb2k_]

> without the government subsidizing child care costs

Why not though?

They'll be tax payers soon and I'm sure we'd get more of them if we made it easier to rear them.

There's probably a lot of subsidies that are currently in place that make less sense.

[Auracle]

Lower class (financially) people tend to have kids that grow in to more lower class people. The bottom ~50% don’t pay taxes.

[gregors]

Surely you don't mean yearly car registration, driver's license fees, gas taxes at the pump, liquor taxes on booze or any other daily sales taxes they pay. So are you referring to the lack of property taxes they pay? I'm assuming the landlords are paying those.

[toomuchtodo]

Federal income tax.

[spoonjim]

Brutal logic even if true. “This newborn is unlikely to become economically valuable enough to worth caring for now.”

[toomuchtodo]

~50% of children born into poverty remain in poverty for at least half their lives.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/childhood-poverty...

[rubyist5eva]

This is just the pro-choice position for having an abortion because having a child would be fiscally inconvenient.

[Ekaros]

Taxes are probably the wrong way to think about it. More important question is does lower class people produce net positive effect on economy in general. If they do then subsidising them producing enough lower class people to replace ones producing values will likely make sense.

Now if they are net negative, we get in much murkier waters...