To think WTAF at ‘Bonk for Britain?’

[Upthebracket22]

Anyone seen this? It’s apparently based on a policy from (far right) Hungary where the media were saying that too many women were going to university and thus wouldn’t be having kids!

www.thesun.co.uk/news/20048496/women-tax-cuts-have-children/amp/

Massively missing the forest for the trees!

There won't be any societies in a few hundred years if we make this planet inhospitable. But long before that (over next few generations) we could easily see a massive decrease in quality of life as infrastructure can't cope - people dying in ambulances, in waiting rooms, healthcare being severely rationed, etc.

Loads more people doesn't necessarily equal loads more nurses, truck drivers, etc, although it defo means more old people and competition for services further down the line.

And that would be another issue. The tax breaks afforded to women with multiple children wouldn’t, for the vast majority, be enough to raise said children on. It wouldn’t be enough to educate them on, provide their healthcare, or even feed them on. So you’ve got infrastructure that is, as it stands, underfunded and overburdened, and you’re proposing to underfund and overburden it even more.

solid plan, that.

Don't be silly there is no need to wipe anyone out. We just allow the birth rate to drop as it is doing naturally.

Why do people always leap to such extremes whenever over population is raised 🙄

Handmaid tales is the opposite propaganda. To scaremonger and brainwash the youngest and to have the liberals in ammunition hysteria. Rationality will always be seen by the majority. However, not in social media.

Indeed.

So you're happy to subsidise those people who deliberately stay under the threshold, claim benefits so that they can work part time and spend time with their kids. But you're not happy if higher earning women, (who are equally doing important jobs, would also like to have bigger families, but don't, because they can't afford big families) get a tax break, because they're not then paying into the system of those who could work more, but don't.

So really what you're saying is lower earners can have big families and the tax payer can pay for it, but higher earners can't have big families and get tax breaks to enable them to do that, because they need to pay for poorer people to have that instead.

Got it.

@JesusMaryAndJosephAndTheWeeDon can I ask how you fund a population that has a shrinking number of working age?

Well it will require changes in society and taxation. For too long we have relied upon the young funding the old, but we can't continue to expand the world population indefinitely.

I expect that increasing use of AI and automation will be a huge part of the answer.

France gives tax breaks for larger families - it was a deliberate attempt to increase the birth rate
thegoodlifefrance.com/how-tax-for-families-in-france-plays-a-big-part-in-life/
"A third child would not only reduce our tax liability by 25% but would transform us into a card-carrying famille nombreuse. Entire websites are given over to the privileges enjoyed by such families, which include state-subsidised reductions of up to 75% in the cost of train tickets, reduced entries to museums, cinemas and leisure centres, and even, in some resorts, free ski passes for the fifth family member"

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4856992.stm

First off, taxes fund many other things aside from just benefits.

A family with a stupidly high income can afford nannies/housesitters/cleaners in a way that a working single mum can't.

It's amazing how the vast majority on here are against the Tories.... until there's a monetary incentive (which is why many rich people vote Tory in the first place). 🤦‍♀️😂

No more income tax? I’d go for it. My only concern would be that the deal wouldn’t be honoured by successive governments or they’d introduce a new tax

Also a reflection on states that have incentivized childbearing and prescribed the role of women in society. Countries that have banned abortion and pushed high numbers of children haven’t been societies that are looked upon particularly fondly. For examples from recent European history you have three war machines and Ceaușescu‘s Romania. All authoritarian dictatorships.

furthermore, and tangentially related to the last example, an increase in children is not the same thing as an increase in wanted children. Welcome to a whole host of other problems, social as well as economic.

I strongly suspect there'd be an outrage on here if this scheme was only offered to men, although it would probably actually result in many families having more money as men earn more and are more often the breadwinner.

The need to have babies is the same for every species, not just humans! The whole point of life is to reproduce and survive.

So do you think women who can’t have children are pointless drains on society?

Yep.

EVERYTHING is misogynistic on MN. It feels like the posters are just angry at the fact women and women only can produce babies. In which case take it up with nature.

If the scheme was cheaper nursery places etc childfree posters would be all ‘why should my taxes fund nursery, why are only families valued, this is misogynistic’

Yes that’s exactly what they said 🙄 ffs

It wouldn't just benefit women with stupidly high incomes. It would benefit middle earners who deliberately have less children because of cost.

if there was criticism, it would be for different reasons.

there is quite the big difference between supporting women that want to have children, and telling women that their purpose in life is to reproduce/reproduce for the good of the state. One is supportive of individual freedom, the other is fascism.

No one is telling women to do this. It's an option. It's not even an option in the UK anyway. Although if it was an option I would seriously consider it.

Well it will require changes in society and taxation. For too long we have relied upon the young funding the old, but we can't continue to expand the world population indefinitely.

The worlds population isn't expanding indefinitely though. Lots of the west are near peak population & will see populations shrink. It's about balancing old & young.

I expect that increasing use of AI and automation will be a huge part of the answer.

Well it's needed now & nothing seems to be on the horizon...

Maybe that’s your point of life, but it’s never been one that appealed to me. That’s what is problematic imo - deciding for others what their point in life is, like that isn’t determined by the individual. It’s not for anyone to decide for a woman that her point in life is to mindlessly breed.

I'm not saying it's the individual 'meaning of life' - I mean it's the entire reason for the existence of all living things. That we reproduce. Every species has this drive to reproduce and survive. That's why we're here at all. And it's the underlying reason behind almost everything we do and have ever done as a species.

I'm obviously not saying you as an individual have to have babies if you don't want to!

It’s not for anyone to decide for a woman that her point in life is to mindlessly breed.

Also, this is really insulting. Mothers are not "mindlessly breeding". How fucking rude.

So do you think women who can’t have children are pointless drains on society?

No, of course not.

If we need more people to be born how come we are also a small overcrowded island with no room for immigrants or refugees??