To think France's plan to write to every 29 year old reminding them to breed is patronising nonsense??

But also it addresses the core issue which is that the current taxation model is built on a specific birth rate. This is what keeps the financial model sustainable. If the birth rate drops then taxes need to increase. Why should people that have had children have to share this tax burden equally? They already have all the childcare costs etc of raising children. They are being penalised twice.

They always look at taxing because it’s easy.

Also people like that ignore that measures like that can actually encourage irresponsible breeding.

This would be really upsetting for those who want children but are unable to conceive.

I find this perspective interesting. What do you think about paying extortionate taxes then?

Basically the way I see it is that society is still structured in a way where ultimately family takes the hit for their vulnerable dependents. It's an inbuilt assumption when it comes to our taxation models and future projections. If all of us can basically walk away from our elderly parents, disabled relatives or children then where does that leave us? Why should I sacrifice my money/time/energy when you don't have to? Can the state though afford to care for all our elderly relative or all of us when we get old without any family support at all? I don't think it can. Not in the way that most people would view as decent and humane.

Not just women and it appears to be a blog post:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reform-matt-goodwin-children-tax-gorton-denton-b2914817.html#

You are stripping people of their agency.

There is nothing wrong with going no contact with parents. I had great (albeit imperfect) parents but I have friends who have truly awful mothers and fathers where continued contact just seems to destroy their mental health.

The UK is not even at replacement. It does not have a high birth rate.

I think people should be able to do as they wish with their money and time. Not everybody has the time or money to provide care to elderly parents (and not all parents deserve said care).

Both those things are bonkers - and I am sure they still heavily restrict men’s ability to access DNA tests to establish paternity.

I can’t read The Times but if it’s simply informing people of IVF services that’s fine.

Egg freezing really is a waste of money though - the success rates are abysmally low.

Although offering it free to woman is better than them having to pay.

Thanks for the link.

God some people are stupid. Do they think those of us without children simply “forgot” to have them.

Do you have a link to this?

AI will do most jobs and many of the babies being born today will never work. Which is why we need highly skilled, highly educated people to have more babies because statistically the children of highly skilled, highly educated people are much more likely to go on to become highly skilled and highly educated themselves and they can go on to do highly skilled, highly paid jobs that contribute taxes that keep the country running.

I genuinely don’t understand what you think has changed so much for falling birth rates not to be a problem?

Well maybe we need to change how.men and society treat women. They are are the sex that carries children for 9 months gives birth to them and are generally the ones primarily responsible for keeping children alive in their infancy ( and beyond). This makes them very vulnerable physically and economically. All of this while being treated appalling with little support or even respect for the role, from the government, other members of society or even in many cases from the fathers.

Yes of course having children is rewarding for many many women, but it is clear that in the context of a human society across the world that treats vulnerable members appalling that reward is obviously not enough for most women to offset the vulnerability, when they have a choice. You just have to look at the birth rates in countries across the globe when birth control becomes widely available

I don't know the answer but I strongly fear that women are in for a tough time as countries face steeply falling birth rates at a time whwn more and more authoritarian governments are coming to power. To be fair this has pretty much always been the case for women in the countries that never donned the veneer of equal rights for women

Equal rights for women only works in a pragmatic sense if we accept that making a choice to be a mother is more than an individual choice, it has broader consequences. It should therefore confer real societal advantage interms of real respect for the importance of the work along with economic support.

That means accepting that individual women who are more fertile may end up having economically better liveon and having more respect on aversge than if they are not . I know many will dislike that idea but I see no difference beteen being advantaged for being female and fertile or being white, male and born into money. Both are accidents of birth.

The alternative is trying to directly control women's fertility by force and coercion, which many govwenmwnts will prefer to try as simpler.

Writing to women to remind them of thier fertility window will be the the least of it,I am afraid

He said it in a 2023 blog, he wants a "negative child benefit tax" it would affect men and women.

Having children would avoid the tax.

No doubt it will be ignored as "Historical, written when he was a young child"

This is what you vote for when you vote for extremes, like Reform.

This the issue with the 'right wing.... they do not realise (nor want too) that poor "uneducated" people can and very often do, produce children that become, so called "intelligent and educated" people?

How about having education systems that help bring people out of poverty and the associated problems?

All the 1000s of people mentioned in the Epstein files? ALL well educated and intelligent.... yeah brilliant people!

I can almost guarantee that 150 to 200years ago this pp ancestors, would have been poor and uneducated.

Anyone else think of the Mouse Paradise experiment? This is how constant population growth starts to slow in wealthy countries. The interesting side effect being the growth being all in poorer countries where women don’t have so many choices so the young people move to fill the gaps.

Can we have a source for that, please?

@Firefly1987 I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a shift towards not trying to extend life in the way we do today, I.e., people refusing treatments, in 50-75 years.

Life will be very hard in countries like Japan where the population is predicted to be 40% over-65’s by 2050 and even harder a few decades later.

We don't want an increasing population, but the world's population will start to drop in a few decades. Some drop isn't a bad thing, but a preciptious drop could be very problematic.

We can't do anything about the people already here so it's a moot point saying oh we're all living longer oh no old people are causing overpopulation. Old people are a result of humans having too many kids 70+ years ago-so it's their fault not the people that are inconsiderate enough to still be hanging around being alive 😆 And breeding more and more people to look after the next generations elderly would never end. So I think that poster is saying what do you think should happen instead?