I've kind of felt this way for a while, but I wonder if everyone else realizes it too? Countries around the world say they 'want to increase the number of children!', but the amount of money they're actually putting into child-rearing support seems way too small to me 💭
For example, in the United States, I heard the one-time payment per child is only about $2,500 (roughly ¥300,000?). Honestly, considering the burden of childcare and living costs, that's not very impressive...😳 If someone thinks 'Maybe I'll have a child' because of that amount, that would be pretty amazing 💦
So, what should we do instead...
Why not tax the rich more and give that money directly to families raising children? ✨
This seems especially true for countries with significantly declining birth rates, like Italy and Japan.
For instance, if a substantial sum like $50,000 (about ¥6 million) were provided all at once per child, wouldn't a lot more people feel like 'Let's have a child!'? 🥺
Why isn't this happening now?
- Tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations mean the government doesn't have sufficient funds 💸
- Budgets prioritize other policies and the economy over child-rearing support 🤔
- There's also the view that the decision to have children isn't just about money 💭
But honestly, I think there are quite a few people who would have children if they could afford it, but feel they can't, so it seems like a waste that the support amounts in this area are so low 🌸
What if we tried something like this?
- Increase tax rates for the ultra-wealthy and high-income earners 📈
- Return that money to families raising children as a substantial lump-sum cash payment 💰
- Since it would be used for support that directly benefits having children, the effects would be more visible 👶
I feel like this alone would significantly lower the 'hurdle to having children' ✨
If they truly 'want to increase the number of children!', wouldn't the simplest and most effective method be to provide more realistic financial support and deliver it directly to those who need it? That's what I was thinking about while taking a walk 🌸
It's not that people would have children just because of money, but the current support amounts don't lighten the burden of 'having children' at all. However, if there were a substantial sum of money, it should make things a bit easier emotionally, that's what I think 🥺
Hatena
Comments
ハンナ
It's not just about money; the breakdown of large families and local communities is a big factor.
クリス
The U.S. fertility rate is 1.62, but some Nordic countries have even lower rates.
ロバート
The U.S. fertility rate has been declining since the 50s, and money isn't the only reason.
ハンナ
Canada has seen a sharp decline in its birth rate even with parental leave and childcare subsidies, so lump-sum payments might be counterproductive.
グレース
The problem isn't money, but the loss of freedom, choices, and community support like a 'village'.
キンバリー
It's complicated, but poorer countries tend to have higher birth rates, and nowadays women are prioritizing their careers.
ベン
Trying to force childbirth by banning abortion is counterproductive.
ロバート
The problem isn't money but time; the key is how to balance childcare with personal time.
クリス
It's true that there's a tendency for birth rates to decrease as income increases.
グレース
Tax incentives and lump-sum payments have been tried, but in the end, money alone doesn't solve it.
レオ
Money alone isn't enough; the burden of childcare can't be reduced without robots.
サム
Having children just for the money is absolutely wrong.
ハンナ
The government doesn't really want to increase the birth rate; they just want to shift the blame for the problem elsewhere.
サラ
These days, it's hard to buy a house so people rent, prices are rising but salaries are stagnant—it's tough.
ジャック
Life is so hard I don't feel like having more children, and I don't want to bring a child into this world.
リリー
If you want people to have children, first make housing more affordable, provide stable jobs and income, and make healthcare and education free.
