I think the OP's point is one I actually agree with more broadly - although not in that particular implementation.
If society, collectively, wants more children it needs to make it more attractive (or less unattractive) to have them, and make it less attractive (or more unattractive) not to have them - and the more children, the more.
I think the OP's point is one I actually agree with more broadly - although not in that particular implementation.
If society, collectively, wants more children it needs to make it more attractive (or less unattractive) to have them, and make it less attractive (or more unattractive) not to have them - and the more children, the more.
Today, society wants children but imposes the vast majority of the cost on their parents, who receive emotional benefits (maybe) and perhaps (but not necessarily) some financial support. Yes, there are some tax benefits for single-income couples (but penalties for dual-income couples), and other tweaks here and there but they're not nearly enough. I've raised the issue of family law elsewhere: it actively and severely and often very excessively punishes breadwinners, mostly but not only men, for having formed families or having had children; but it's worth remembering that it does this because of a concern that, without it, women (specifically) would not want to form families or have children - and that points to the underlying issue, which is that having children simply costs more than it's worth for many people, men and women, IF THEY HAVE TO COVER THE BULK OF THE COSTS.
That approach is almost certainly going to need to change. And if society is going to make it more attractive to have kids, someone is going to have to pay for that. In practice, that means money (taxes and also spending) will have to shift and that will mean that taxes will fall more heavily, on average, and there will be reduced spending, on average, on people who don't have kids. Which is, I think, what the OP was getting at.
The way to do that isn't to cut people off from Social Security: they played by the rules they were given, and it's too late for them to have kids now. It also undermines the viability of Social Security: if you're going to renege over this, you may renege over other issues, and that will undermine support for the whole program pretty strongly. And it probably needs to be steered toward those who raise kids; not everyone has the biological ability to do that. But I digress.
It could very well - may have to - have implications for tax rates and benefits in the future, which can influence decisions to form families and raise children. Watch governments get serious about this, because the old approaches aren't going to work.
I think the OP's point is one I actually agree with more broadly - although not in that particular implementation.
If society, collectively, wants more children it needs to make it more attractive (or less unattractive) to have them, and make it less attractive (or more unattractive) not to have them - and the more children, the more.
Today, society wants children but imposes the vast majority of the cost on their parents, who receive emotional benefits (maybe) and perhaps (but not necessarily) some financial support. Yes, there are some tax benefits for single-income couples (but penalties for dual-income couples), and other tweaks here and there but they're not nearly enough. I've raised the issue of family law elsewhere: it actively and severely and often very excessively punishes breadwinners, mostly but not only men, for having formed families or having had children; but it's worth remembering that it does this because of a concern that, without it, women (specifically) would not want to form families or have children - and that points to the underlying issue, which is that having children simply costs more than it's worth for many people, men and women, IF THEY HAVE TO COVER THE BULK OF THE COSTS.
That approach is almost certainly going to need to change. And if society is going to make it more attractive to have kids, someone is going to have to pay for that. In practice, that means money (taxes and also spending) will have to shift and that will mean that taxes will fall more heavily, on average, and there will be reduced spending, on average, on people who don't have kids. Which is, I think, what the OP was getting at.
The way to do that isn't to cut people off from Social Security: they played by the rules they were given, and it's too late for them to have kids now. It also undermines the viability of Social Security: if you're going to renege over this, you may renege over other issues, and that will undermine support for the whole program pretty strongly. And it probably needs to be steered toward those who raise kids; not everyone has the biological ability to do that. But I digress.
It could very well - may have to - have implications for tax rates and benefits in the future, which can influence decisions to form families and raise children. Watch governments get serious about this, because the old approaches aren't going to work.
*not everyone has the biological ability to produce children, I meant, in the second-last para.