Is it time to embrace uber-natalism?
Paul Tuns seems to think so, however, I would be lying if I said that punishing taxpayers for not having children and proposing massive structural changes (in the tax system) as a means to alter declining demographics (birth rates) is the way to go. What we truly need is broader tax cuts right across the board as this will stimulate the type of economic growth necessary to sustain an increase in the fertility rate, not simultaneous tax increases and tax cuts.
11 Comments:
Right now we have many women in the country who are holding off or refraining from having children because they want to further their career, own a nicer house, a better car, a boat, don't want to give up their shopping/partying habits, etc.
Yes, more money might make a difference in whether or not these women can afford to have children and continue with their lifestyle, but at the same time people need to consider that these women are choosing their career, partying or a new car over having children, and if these things are more important than having children to them then we need to seriously consider whether or not we should be encouraging women to start a family at this point in their lives.
The best mothers are the ones who are ready and willing to make massive changes to their lifestyles in order to raise their children.
There are plenty of reasons for broad based tax relief, but I don't think this is one of them... and it's certainly an argument against subsidizing families, in my humble opinion.
I agree partly with janet, in that, the situation with women is much different than it was 30 years ago. Unlike other cultures, educated North American women are getting married in the latter part of their 30s and 40s. Therefore, the birth rates are affected by this choice as sometimes they chose to not have children at all.
Although, I'm not certain that "baby bonuses" will work? It was tried in Quebec without much longterm success.
You're right, janet. Moreover, I think that many women view having children as a career breaker.
In other words, if you're a female who has worked your guts out to get to the top of a company as an executive, then you're not going to relinquish that position of authority and monetary right away. At least not until you have become climatized with your position. (which sometimes takes years)
Can this trend (to holdout on having a family) be changed by any type of policy? Herein lies the rub.
I agree with all comments. The decision to have children is one of the most important, for both the woman and the man. In our house it was a decision we both made and it has cost us, in particular my wife, economically. But what we lost in money and toys, we have made up and surpassed a thousandfold in the joy (and agony) of helping and watching our kids grow up.
Best decision we ever made!
Government subsidy or not.
Excellent, kit.
The "us" or "them" tone of this article is more than a little scary.
When the overriding criteria defining Canada comes down to the colour of the people in the room I suggest that we as a people and as a nation have already lost what made Canada in the first place.
As for women in Canada having fewer children, or not having children at all, I'd bet my last dime that a second generation Canadian from Gunea Bisau has the same point of view on this as the 5th Generation WASP from Victoria BC.
Just as a free hand operates in the market, biologically there is a similar force. Many children are a requirement when infant mortality is high, less when there is better chance of survival.
The balance will be reached, sooner or later.
Let's hope so, zip.
Some family friendly tax policies are frankly a welcome change. If we don't have healthy families we have a whole host of serious problems in society. I can appreciate those without families thinking a family friendly tax policy has no benefit to them however we all benefit from a strong family structure. Frankly such thinking is long overdue.
Maybe. However, I would much rather see a flat tax adopted as opposed to targeted benefits to a certain segment of society.
NB, good article on Flat Tax.
Spinks, every time I hear someone talk about an "something or other friendly tax policy" all I hear is "increase in government bureaucracy and continued waste of my tax dollars".
Zip
Zip...now that's true.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home