birth rates continue stunning decline worldwide (2025 estimates)

Membrane* wrote:

SiedgeHammer wrote:

That's why I advocate "childless" tax. Those without children above 30 should pay 20% of their monthly salary. It's just not fair right now and very frustrating to think about it when we have three daughters (and planning to go after a son again), have to wipe their asses, tug them into bed every single night, losing a lot of free times, while the lazy ones, usually single just reap the benefit of having more manpower without any contribution whatsoever

I’m inclined to assume you are joking, but if not good God. A tax on not having children? 20% of their income? That might be the most draconian economic plan I’ve ever heard in my life. You should contact Suzanne Collins and ask her to include your idea in her next Hunger Games novel.

So for starters does this tax apply to all childless adults, or just those choosing to not have children? If it’s all of them then that includes infertile men and women and those who can’t attract partners for reproduction. So a tax for people for no fault or choice of their own?

Okay, so the case of the singles or yuppie couples you refer to who can capably and anatomically have children but choose not to. Let’s say the tax is just for them. How does the government prove this is a choice? All these people would have to do is lie. No, but the government can mandate fertility tests and just tax the fertile who are refusing to have children. So the government is going to pay for an invasive kidnapping of lazy singles and yuppie bourgeoisie couples to check their fertility status and increase deficit spending while the whole purpose of the tax would be to collect tax revenue? It’s totally illogical and anyway let’s get serious. Either the choice or no choice scenarios would never happen.

I can’t get over the idea of a 20% jealousy tax over your jealously of individuals who don’t have to spend time on childcare because according to you they are free-riding on the manpower of your family, which you chose to have and nobody forced you to have.

Hardloper wrote:

Membrane* wrote:

I’m inclined to assume you are joking, but if not good God. A tax on not having children? 20% of their income? That might be the most draconian economic plan I’ve ever heard in my life. You should contact Suzanne Collins and ask her to include your idea in her next Hunger Games novel.

So for starters does this tax apply to all childless adults, or just those choosing to not have children? If it’s all of them then that includes infertile men and women and those who can’t attract partners for reproduction. So a tax for people for no fault or choice of their own?

Okay, so the case of the singles or yuppie couples you refer to who can capably and anatomically have children but choose not to. Let’s say the tax is just for them. How does the government prove this is a choice? All these people would have to do is lie. No, but the government can mandate fertility tests and just tax the fertile who are refusing to have children. So the government is going to pay for an invasive kidnapping of lazy singles and yuppie bourgeoisie couples to check their fertility status and increase deficit spending while the whole purpose of the tax would be to collect tax revenue? It’s totally illogical and anyway let’s get serious. Either the choice or no choice scenarios would never happen.

I can’t get over the idea of a 20% jealousy tax over your jealously of individuals who don’t have to spend time on childcare because according to you they are free-riding on the manpower of your family, which you chose to have and nobody forced you to have.

You know this already exists, right? You pay a higher effective tax rate because you don't get the child tax credit.

4 Percent in 3 Generations wrote:

I don’t think most people understand how catastrophic low birth rates are and how they can decimate a population and put enormous burden on youth in just a few generations.

Let’s take South Korea’s 0.7 per woman and use it as an example for a population of 1,000 people.

Of these 1,000 people, 500 will be women which will produce 350 children. In the next generation there will be 175 women who will bear approximately 122 children. Of this 122, 61 will be women, who will bear about 43 children.

1000

350

122

43

Each generation loses 65% and in just three generations ~96% of the population is gone.

Furthermore, there is tremendous burden on each generation to take care of the elderly. There are nearly 3 times the amount of parents as there are children. Yes, there will be deaths but still imagine a world where there are more 80 year olds than 50 year olds.

This decline is sometimes referred to as an inversion of the population pyramid. If you’ve ever seen those stratified population pyramids where each level represents an age group, you’ll know what I mean.

The “no big deal, we got 8+ billion” is insanely uninformed. This 8 billion can shrink to less than 500 million in 3 generations and quite possibly be the largest crisis we have now.

backdoor_bettyy wrote:

I can only speak to the U.S.

If you are a professional woman, there is a lack of worthy men to marry.

Married men live 10 years longer than their single counterparts, while married women only live 3 years longer than their single counterparts. Why? Bc marriage benefits men way more than women. (Dave Ramsey stat - mind you, this is a guy who wants everyone to get married and have kids.)

Another thought - if someone has the choice to not have children (via birth control), then they don’t. If you’ve grown up in a large family, you understand how much it sucks - especially if you’re struggling for money.

Many more therapists are telling adults to be estranged from their parents due to bad or imperfect relationships. WSJ story)

In America, kids are not expected to take care of their elderly parents.

People are having less sex overall (many sources)

Society (esp US) as it should be has declined.

still bothered wrote:

even Mexico and a good chunk of Latin America, once stereotyped as a region that popped out babies like hotcakes, is now below the population replacement rate. Chile is abysmal at 1.10 babies per woman. Colombia is below the replacement rate and still falling.

Then we come to Europe. Oh, Europe. Every country in Europe is below the replacement rate, most countries are well below. There are actually quite a few countries below 1.3 (Italy, Poland, the Baltic countries, Austria, Romania, Greece, Spain, Portugal and more).

And finally Asia where the two most developed countries - Japan and Korea - have now less than 1 baby per woman on average.

The decline doesn't seem to have bottomed out yet, except in Korea where they slightly increased births last year. But when you're starting out as the lowest in the world, a slight improvement isn't much.

Long term, whites (Europeans), Asians and Latinos will start to rapidly decline in their total population. Actually, maybe not so long term.

50 mpw at age 50 wrote:

still bothered wrote:

even Mexico and a good chunk of Latin America, once stereotyped as a region that popped out babies like hotcakes, is now below the population replacement rate. Chile is abysmal at 1.10 babies per woman. Colombia is below the replacement rate and still falling.

Then we come to Europe. Oh, Europe. Every country in Europe is below the replacement rate, most countries are well below. There are actually quite a few countries below 1.3 (Italy, Poland, the Baltic countries, Austria, Romania, Greece, Spain, Portugal and more).

And finally Asia where the two most developed countries - Japan and Korea - have now less than 1 baby per woman on average.

The decline doesn't seem to have bottomed out yet, except in Korea where they slightly increased births last year. But when you're starting out as the lowest in the world, a slight improvement isn't much.

Long term, whites (Europeans), Asians and Latinos will start to rapidly decline in their total population. Actually, maybe not so long term.

That is a good thing. Population decline means reduced traffic, less overcrowding, more affordable housing, more natural resources, less crime, and more anti-aging research.