Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Procreation is currently subsidized in the United States, and to a much greater extent in some European countries. In the U.S., this is primarily by tax credits for dependents, who are usually children, but also in some lesser-known ways, e.g. the WIC (Womens, Infants, and Children) program, which, as of last count, nearly half of newborns in the U.S. were on. Some European countries - whose fertility rates have fallen far below that of the U.S. - promote it even more, to the point of monthly government payments to all (or most) parents (not just those on welfare!).
I think it should continue to be subsidized, perhaps even more so, due to our below-replacement (2.06) fertility rate. This is because children are a social good of paramount importance: they provide labor, which supports the retired elderly, they are our future inventors, scientists, and artists, and they stimulate the economy. Educated people tend to have smaller families (which they start later) than the uneducated, and I think special incentives should be set up to promote childbearing among them, such as student loan forgiveness, etc.
Generally not. Though I disagree it's subsidized more here than in Europe. In Europe the government enforces paid vacations for new mothers & even new fathers in some cases, and pays for day care.
However, they have demographic problems that we do not have.
Procreation is currently subsidized in the United States, and to a much greater extent in some European countries. In the U.S., this is primarily by tax credits for dependents, who are usually children, but also in some lesser-known ways, e.g. the WIC (Womens, Infants, and Children) program, which, as of last count, nearly half of newborns in the U.S. were on. Some European countries - whose fertility rates have fallen far below that of the U.S. - promote it even more, to the point of monthly government payments to all (or most) parents (not just those on welfare!).
I think it should continue to be subsidized, perhaps even more so, due to our below-replacement (2.06) fertility rate. This is because children are a social good of paramount importance: they provide labor, which supports the retired elderly, they are our future inventors, scientists, and artists, and they stimulate the economy. Educated people tend to have smaller families (which they start later) than the uneducated, and I think special incentives should be set up to promote childbearing among them, such as student loan forgiveness, etc.
Your thoughts on the matter?
Wait the US population in '06 was 300 million and now it is 309. How did you get our declining birth rate? I think you don't include in-migration which may cause the pop increase rather than it coming from those already here.
Australia subsidises procreation, with the "baby bonus". Originally it was $3000 per birth, regardless of income - at the moment I believe it is $5000 and paid in installments.
The fertility rates at 2004 were 1.76. Today: around 1.97
it seems to have worked here - where it was getting quite low..
Generally not. Though I disagree it's subsidized more here than in Europe. In Europe the government enforces paid vacations for new mothers & even new fathers in some cases, and pays for day care.
However, they have demographic problems that we do not have.
You didn't read right. I said (some countries in) Europe have more subsidies for childbearing than the United States.
Procreation is currently subsidized in the United States, and to a much greater extent in some European countries.
...and those countries are showing a negative birth rate, except for the Muslim immigrants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
In the U.S., this is primarily by tax credits for dependents, who are usually children, but also in some lesser-known ways, e.g. the WIC (Womens, Infants, and Children) program, which, as of last count, nearly half of newborns in the U.S. were on. Some European countries - whose fertility rates have fallen far below that of the U.S. - promote it even more, to the point of monthly government payments to all (or most) parents (not just those on welfare!).
I think it should continue to be subsidized, perhaps even more so, due to our below-replacement (2.06) fertility rate. This is because children are a social good of paramount importance: they provide labor, which supports the retired elderly, they are our future inventors, scientists, and artists, and they stimulate the economy. Educated people tend to have smaller families (which they start later) than the uneducated, and I think special incentives should be set up to promote childbearing among them, such as student loan forgiveness, etc.
Your thoughts on the matter?
Any good society realizes that its very future depends upon the education, morals, ethics and ingenuity of the next generation of children born to their citizens. So they promote, endorse and encourage their children to marry and raise intelligent, well educated and well adjusted, caring and industrious children. Government is only a reflection of that same society, so it should not be a surprise when a society wants their government to be a reflection of themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
