Because ultimately you have to steal more people's money and inflate it to pay for the incentives, which makes them less likely to have kids because they have to work harder.
I'm not sure if I follow the logic. So if couple A starts a family and receives a tax credit, the state gets less money, which causes it to raise taxes on everyone. Now, couple B is taxed more with no kids, so they don't start a family? But you're saying they would’ve otherwise if there were no subsidies because taxes would be lower? But hypothetically, if they did start a family and receive the subsidy, wouldn't they be in the same position as if there were no subsidy with lower taxes?
It seems to me if everyone has a family, the outcome will be the same, so I don't see the disincentive. Obviously, there can be a big difference between people who choose to have a family and those who don't, but isn't that the point?
I'm not arguing from a position that the government can create an effective tax policy. However, I think people generally underestimate how dire the birth rate situation is. Even if we had the perfect policy to turn it around, I'm not sure if we have enough time, so anything is better than nothing, it seems—just my 2 sats.
It seems to me if everyone has a family, the outcome will be the same, so I don't see the disincentive. Obviously, there can be a big difference between people who choose to have a family and those who don't, but isn't that the point?
I'm not arguing from a position that the government can create an effective tax policy. However, I think people generally underestimate how dire the birth rate situation is. Even if we had the perfect policy to turn it around, I'm not sure if we have enough time, so anything is better than nothing, it seems—just my 2 sats.
1
