[rdm_blackhole]

> Simply put, if we want people to raise families it needs to make economical sense to do so. What exactly that looks like can be debated, but it’s likely something along the lines of one of the parents receiving a midrange part time or full time paycheck (depending on if they decide to stay at home or not) on top of the other parent being able to work an hour or two less each day without taking a hit to their paycheck.

I agree with your general comment but this type of incentive for parenthood basically turns into a tax for single/childless/infertile people.

The money has to come from somewhere at the end of the day. So you need to raise more tax revenue but how?

The big corps will exploit the tax loopholes, the 1% will emigrate to more tax friendly countries and you'll be left with a lots of single/childless/infertile people paying a hefty bill to subsidize other families so that the country can have a bigger working population 25 years after the fact.

I just don't see how this is feasible politically in any way.

[bryanlarsen]

> a tax for single/childless/infertile people.

Taxes on other people's kids pay for childless people's retirement, so isn't it fair that childless people help pay for other people's kids?

[cosmic_cheese]

I don’t have any answers, but it’s a fact that society is going to have to confront sooner or later.

Perhaps the main thing that needs to occur is a reframing of the issue. The only reason why a tax on the single/childless/infertile to support families is untenable is due to individualist thinking, but we’re all heavily dependent on society, and if children are required for society to continue to function that makes the tax a no-brainer except for the most staunch of doomers and anti-natalists. It’s functionally not that different from all the other ways people indirectly benefit from spending tax dollars.