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/

Fundamentally the issue is that so many (presumably) women here don't see the problem that this is targeted at women. The only way we'll achieve true gender equality is by shifting the focus from motherhood to parenthood. As long as we don't collectively put the onus on men equally to become parents, with all the emotional & financial commitments it entails, we'll be in the shit. How many people have interviewed a man between 25-45 for a job and thought 'here is a potential parental leave to deal with'?... Be really honest- it only occurs to managers interviewing women of childbearing age...
This policy would be backwards as it completely reinforces such biais.
On top of that, how unrealistic and tone deaf is it to expect any incentive to be found in having FOUR kids in this economic context? It's just headline grabbing populist bs.

Pretty shocking that so many are relaxed about this kind of idea. Ooh, tax break!! If anything like this was to be implemented, what happens when my young niece gets to the stage she wants to marry and have children? Will her husband and society in general judge that she should pop out 4 kids before she can even start earning her own money? Cos you know, gotta get that tax break built in first. Why not? It's what everyone is doing now. No point girls getting a full education, tied to the kitchen sink until age 30 at least. Be careful what you wish for.

And for those unaware of how this can get extreme, it wasn't just the Nazis who did it. From the article below, well within my life time:

"When he came to power in 1966, Ceaușescu had grand plans for Romania. The country had industrialised late, after the second world war, and its birthrate was low. Ceaușescu borrowed the 1930s Stalinist dogma that population growth would fuel economic growth and fused this idea with the conservatism of his rural childhood. In the first year of his rule, his government issued Decree 770, which outlawed abortion for women under 40 with fewer than four children. “The foetus is the property of the entire society,” Ceaușescu announced. “Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.”
The birth rate soon doubled, but then the rate of increase slowed as Romanian women resorted to homemade illegal abortions, often with catastrophic results. In 1977 all childless persons, regardless of sex or martial status, were made to pay an additional monthly tax. In the 1980s condoms and the pill, although prohibitively expensive, began to become available in Romania – so they were banned altogether. Motherhood became a state duty. The system was ruthlessly enforced by the secret police, the securitate. Doctors who performed abortions were imprisoned, women were examined every three months in their workplaces for signs of pregnancy. If they were found to be pregnant and didn’t subsequently give birth, they could face prosecution. Fertility had become an instrument of state control.

www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/10/-sp-ceausescus-children

Yes, reproductive rights are always the target of authoritarians.

Absolutely. I swear people are getting stupider

How does it work for men who have a baby with a surrogate? Who gets the tax cut then? Especially if she’s been a surrogate a few times. Also, what if you give away a baby for adoption? Does that baby count in one of your 4 plus babies? Sounds totally ludicrous.

Pretty shocking that so many are relaxed about this kind of idea.

They have tried to incentivise having dc in lots of countries, it's not worked though so personally I don't believe even if a policy like this was introduced that it would have much impact.

I said upthread a tax break would be nice but I was obviously being facetious. A tax break is not going to offset the costs of childcare, damage to my career, potentially my health & make me have more dc.

Population growth is only good economically, not geographically/climate-wise.

No one is saying otherwise, however people are missing the point, it's about a balance. It's not balanced or affordable to have such a discrepancy between ages. I read earlier that there's a shortage of nearly 1/2 m of suitable retirement homes for older people. Do people want growth or a stagnant economy, if it's growth we need immigrants but lots don't want that 🤷🏻‍♀️

If elderly vote to reduce immigration and won’t support measures such as subsidised childcare to produce carers and tax payers to finance pensions, then they need to be more willing to take one for the team when the time comes

Do we get presented with a questionnaire to determine if we're allowed to live or die first? 'oh well done citizen X, your answers show that you voted for a party that encouraged immigration and subsidised childcare, you can live. Sorry, citizen y, that's what comes of voting Tory. Any last wishes?'

Irregardless of your stance on the tax, surely the drop in birth rate is a symptom of much much bigger issues.

No affordable housing, wage stagnation, most people having little to no savings. I thinn that for many women it doesn't feel safe or responsible to have children.

People are generally much less fulfilled in life, mental health issues are rampant, lots of people have just enough to survive, both financially and time wise.

Kids are becoming like exotic pets, you have to be a bit bonkers or rich to have them.

@HesterAndPearlInBrightSunshine thanks for articulating what I was thinking about this so effectively. Completely agree.

I reckon fewer women are having children because they have cottoned on to what a fucking thankless grind it can be - particularly without a supportive partner, which happens all too often.

There’s also the issue of moving away from wider family to study and gain employment, so raising them without support or a break unless you have money to outsource that to professionals.

Maybe it’s just that more women are realising they do have a choice, that there are good reasons not to have children if they are not 100% sold on the idea and realising it”s not their destiny just because they are women, and are getting wise to pronatalist bs like “you’ll regret it if you don’t” “who’s going to look after you when you’re old” “nothing will fulfil you like having children”.

I don't see what's wrong with incentivising having more children. Lots of women (most women) want to have kids anyway. Most women would prefer to be at home with their babies for at least the first 6 months - 1 year of their lives. Governments should absolutely be supporting women to do that. It shouldn't only be wealthy women who can afford to have lots of babies and stay at home to raise them.

I think people aren't seeing this in the context of total population collapse in the western economies.

This is a global problem where significant economic hardship will be caused simply because there are not enough people. China alone is facing a loss of a 1/3 of its population in the next 30 years and a significant proportion of its workforce will be retired and nonproductive.

While Europe/UK/USA etc can mitigate population loss through immigration, can you really hope to retain cultural cohesion in a society where a 1/4 or even a 1/3 of the population are first generation immigrants with very few ties to their host country and little in cultural similarities. And I'm not talking about race, but culture.

I've always been of the view that "if you can't afford em, don't have em" to an extent. Although I also don't like the thought of people working hard in low paid but vital jobs being destined to never have their own family - these are the people that should get tax breaks.

I suppose its those with bazillions of kids who rely solely on the hard work of others that bug me, more so if they couldn't afford the two they had before they had the next two. As somebody who doesn't want kids it would piss me off immensely to pay tax while rich MC families with 4+ kids get a tax break.

My sister is a high earner with three kids and her husband is a very high earner - his bonus almost matches her salary. It's ridiculous to think she could save tens of thousands in tax by having another kid when their joint income is already extremely high, whilst a carer on minimum wage would have to fork out.

How can you say childless people will be no worse off? There will be an increase in medical services required and a drop in government funds due to many women no longer paying tax. Can you categorically say they won't raise taxes for the rest of us?

Having a family who love you and give you happiness in life is wonderful. This idea that 'we aren't breeding stock' okay sure we are not, but it's something that only we can do and it's a wonderful way to live and you can't do it if you're constantly putting it off until you're 40s because you don't want to "waste my degree/training/career progress"

Having a family who love you and give you happiness in life is wonderful.

Family life can be very far from wonderful. There is ample evidence of this on MN every day.

One person’s “wonderful way to live” is another person’s hell.

I think people aren't seeing this in the context of total population collapse in the western economies.

yep

If elderly vote to reduce immigration and won’t support measures such as subsidised childcare to produce carers and tax payers to finance pensions, then they need to be more willing to take one for the team when the time comes

well they are certainly going to have contribute more financially.

The one good aspect of the new h&s levy was that people above pension age would have to pay it.

Yep. All of this, too.

Great, because what the planet and the environment needs is yet more people draining those finite resources 🙄

There's plenty of women who don't pay tax, and never will, work minimum hours and claim top up benefits. Does that bother you too?