The future of population growth.

[Giugiaro]

Must admit I find it very hard to upset someone that way too. Not casting aspersions at yourself, but isn't hyperempathy one of the effects you sometimes get with autism, which might be one reason why a higher number of autistic people are single?

I haven't done tests with a mental health professional recently. I can't say if there's any level of autism that is preventing me from taking more risks with my social life.

Anyway, I believe everyone here would agree that seeing a deeply loved person cry is extremely painful for anyone to bear witness.
My former fiancée took the decision way before I was ready to make it, but it didn't make the break-up any less painful for her when the time came to come to terms with our futures.

When I finally find my soul mate, I hope I won't have anything keeping me from saying YES when she asks me if I want to stay alongside her forever.

It's not. I don't agree that people these days are any more inclined to dysfunction than they were in, say, 1950, when marriage and birth rates were higher.

Maybe I took out too many words from the sentence. I meant to couple people randomly together just to bear children.
Some level of chemistry is necessary for couples to cooperate. Especially when the care of children is involved.

If anyone here doesn't mind Japanese animation, there's an anime series around a future Japan with "a complex system (...) to encourage successful marriages and combat increasingly low birthrates".
Spoiler alert: There's a couple that was already in love before the government decided who they would marry. They were matched with someone else.

 

[nw1]

That’s not much different to how we have to manage climate change.

I think there's a difference between using public transport where practicable rather than driving everywhere, and having children when you don't really want to. One is a relatively small bind, one is a really major difference in lifestyle involving huge responsibility and financial demands.

You can encourage family creation by having stable employment, affordable housing, and making it cheaper to raise children. This will involve making having a child less of a burden, like having easier to access childcare or simply making it more affordable.

That is a fair point.

Do you agree the state shouldn’t do anything about climate change except maybe “defend the vulnerable”? Climate change is a big a problem as incipient population collapse. It involves governments giving heavy incentives to people to change their behaviour. This includes taxing some activities, or making it literally more do some things (like drive a car in cities!), or leaning heavily on industry to make better choices. The management of climate change is all about encouraging and even enforcing lifestyle choices. Try making a “lifestyle choice” to run a car on Four Star petrol for example, or avoid Air Passenger Duty leaving Heathrow, or it not costing you £15 to drive down Piccadilly Circus.

See above; lifestyle changes to deal with climate change are less radical.

So what is your solution then? Why are you so alarmed that governments might prioritise families, the units which generally ensure the continuation of our species?

Because families are not for everyone. Maybe I am in an unusual social group but a clear majority of my friends are either childless or have just one child.

Having children is a huge responsibility, as I've said already. It's clear to me that only people who wish to accept that responsibility should really be having children, and the state should not be encouraging people who do not want children to have so. As I said above, you could end up with unwanted, unloved children if that happens.

 

[Huntergreed]

As a young male, it’s interesting to read about the different perspectives on this, I must admit I never realised this was as major an issue as it seems to be.

Admittedly, I have little to no interest in mating for the purpose of procreation at the current time (or indeed into the short to mid term future). My lifestyle at present (travelling all the time, working very flexibly with little to no other commitments) and the fact that I’m (from a selfish perspective) considerably better off financially without a partner are the main reasons!

I feel that the finances and lifestyle sacrifices required for financially supporting a family are a major negative contributory factor at present.

Given the cost of living crisis, no end in sight to extremely high inflation rates, the cost required for financially supporting a family (practically impossible on only a single average-rate income now) is just too high to appear even remotely attractive.

A large part of my life is travelling all over the place for recreation/leisure. Getting a partner would prevent/reduce that to some extent both financially and circumstantially, and at my age I’d rather be travelling and seeing the world when I have few other financial commitments!

For those reasons, procreation is simply not at (or near) the top of my priority list at present, and I know an increasing number of people my age who are coming to the same conclusion.

 

[Scotrail12]

The idea of governments promoting having families feels dated to me but I get the point that they haven't exactly created an economy that would make one want to have children in at the moment.

Ultimately though, not everyone is right to be a parent and we shouldn't be forcing the idea. I'm a gay 20 year old, absolutely not a cat's chance in hell will I be a parent. Why would I want to be? Even taking my current age out of the equation, it's extra hassle to even procreate in my case (of course I can adopt but that's not relevant to the question of population growth) and I just think I'd be a bad parent. I don't have the patience for kids, I've always preferred the company of adults, I'm fairly selfish about how I want to spend my free time, the responsibilities would stress me out way too much and financially I'd rather a comfortable life for me and my future husband than having the expenses of kids to worry about.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think there's a difference between using public transport where practicable rather than driving everywhere, and having children when you don't really want to.

Nobody is suggesting people who don't want children should be forced to have them!

See above; lifestyle changes to deal with climate change are less radical.

But government policies which encourage family-starting will prioritise family units (howsoever those are formed, btw). This probably should come in the form of expanding or increasing child benefit, tax breaks for working parents, the end of the single person's discount on council tax, better subsidised childcare, all the way down to rethinking how public transport could be made more child-friendly (more pram space, for example). This will have to be funded somehow and will probably result in a heavier tax burden across society.

Because families are not for everyone. Maybe I am in an unusual social group but a clear majority of my friends are either childless or have just one child.

Wouldn't go so far as saying that is an unusual social group - people with kids and people without tend to have different social circles - but that is not a typical cross-section of society and can't be used to support any argument.

Having children is a huge responsibility, as I've said already. It's clear to me that only people who wish to accept that responsibility should really be having children, and the state should not be encouraging people who do not want children to have so. As I said above, you could end up with unwanted, unloved children if that happens.

Nobody is suggesting that people who don't want to have children should be forced to have them, like a baby farm or something (!)

What the state ought to do however is prioritise far more resources into encouraging family setups, because there are lots of people who would, and could, have families and indeed accept that responsibility that currently don't - or leave it too late. Stable and healthy families are the essential first line of support - instead of the state! - for most people and of course are the way of ensuring the human race's survival. You can't let the birth rate fall too low else the population will collapse; the problems already extant which block family-starting are mainly the necessity of a double income household, employment stability, affordability of housing and ease and affordability of child-raising. Those will get worse - a lot worse - in a rapidly ageing society which then increases pressure on the working age population. Saying "well maybe tech will solve it or maybe we'll all sit on our bums all day while the robots take care of everything" is like people kicking the can down the road on climate change.

Solving those four problems will make things better for everyone anyway.

 

[E27007]

As a young male, it’s interesting to read about the different perspectives on this, I must admit I never realised this was as major an issue as it seems to be.

Admittedly, I have little to no interest in mating for the purpose of procreation at the current time (or indeed into the short to mid term future). My lifestyle at present (travelling all the time, working very flexibly with little to no other commitments) and the fact that I’m (from a selfish perspective) considerably better off financially without a partner are the main reasons!

I feel that the finances and lifestyle sacrifices required for financially supporting a family are a major negative contributory factor at present.

Given the cost of living crisis, no end in sight to extremely high inflation rates, the cost required for financially supporting a family (practically impossible on only a single average-rate income now) is just too high to appear even remotely attractive.

A large part of my life is travelling all over the place for recreation/leisure. Getting a partner would prevent/reduce that to some extent both financially and circumstantially, and at my age I’d rather be travelling and seeing the world when I have few other financial commitments!

For those reasons, procreation is simply not at (or near) the top of my priority list at present, and I know an increasing number of people my age who are coming to the same conclusion.

You are describing a keystone principle of the MGTOW movement , as a single man you are pursuing your own goals and interests unencumbered by the hard grind of funding a wife and children, your life doesl not center around working to support the traditional wife / children / family-sized house / two-car scenario, as a single man your needs are modest, small home, modest bills, car-free, needs which can in the long-term be funded by part-time working.
Your risk is likely to be when you are still single and around 30 years of age, you will be targeted by single women of similar age, desperate for a first baby, those women will fake and feign their feelings towards you in order to have that baby, At 30 I was targeted by two such psychotic women, and it was quite upsetting to deal with such, one became a stalker, actually changing employer to come and work in the same office.
The overall effects of forever-single men are profound, such men can live on modest incomes, therefore pay little income tax, the lifeblood of profligate government spending, such men are modest consumers, less demand for goods and services.
It is an issue not of only population growth, as MGTOW challenges the assumption of men the ever-willing workhorse The formerly willing workhorse has tasted the sweetness of the pasture and is rejecting the workcollar for the pleasure of grazing upon those pastures.

 

[yorksrob]

Nobody is suggesting people who don't want children should be forced to have them!


But government policies which encourage family-starting will prioritise family units (howsoever those are formed, btw). This probably should come in the form of expanding or increasing child benefit, tax breaks for working parents, the end of the single person's discount on council tax, better subsidised childcare, all the way down to rethinking how public transport could be made more child-friendly (more pram space, for example). This will have to be funded somehow and will probably result in a heavier tax burden across society.


Wouldn't go so far as saying that is an unusual social group - people with kids and people without tend to have different social circles - but that is not a typical cross-section of society and can't be used to support any argument.


Nobody is suggesting that people who don't want to have children should be forced to have them, like a baby farm or something (!)

What the state ought to do however is prioritise far more resources into encouraging family setups, because there are lots of people who would, and could, have families and indeed accept that responsibility that currently don't - or leave it too late. Stable and healthy families are the essential first line of support - instead of the state! - for most people and of course are the way of ensuring the human race's survival. You can't let the birth rate fall too low else the population will collapse; the problems already extant which block family-starting are mainly the necessity of a double income household, employment stability, affordability of housing and ease and affordability of child-raising. Those will get worse - a lot worse - in a rapidly ageing society which then increases pressure on the working age population. Saying "well maybe tech will solve it or maybe we'll all sit on our bums all day while the robots take care of everything" is like people kicking the can down the road on climate change.

Solving those four problems will make things better for everyone anyway.

If you're in a family unit, you already have substantial economies of scale in terms of having two potential breadwinners to pay for mortgages, bills etc. I don't agree that single householders should be further penalised with the removal of the single person discount etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you're in a family unit, you already have substantial economies of scale in terms of having two potential breadwinners to pay for mortgages, bills etc. I don't agree that single householders should be further penalised with the removal of the single person discount etc.

The problem is that if you have two main breadwinners you need to pay for childcare, which for full time care is well over £1000 a month - and of course they're only "potential" breadwinners. A better and healthier society wouldn't necessarily have two full time parents AND the burden of having to pay that much for childcare.

Couples do have economies of scale. Families with children do not.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem is that if you have two main breadwinners you need to pay for childcare, which for full time care is well over £1000 a month - and of course they're only "potential" breadwinners. A better and healthier society wouldn't necessarily have two full time parents AND the burden of having to pay that much for childcare.

Couples do have economies of scale. Families with children do not.

Then the sensible thing would be to subsidise childcare (as we effectively already do from school age).

The economy of scale is still there, it's just that the couple in question have chosen to utilise it for bringing up a family.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The problem is that if you have two main breadwinners you need to pay for childcare, which for full time care is well over £1000 a month - and of course they're only "potential" breadwinners. A better and healthier society wouldn't necessarily have two full time parents AND the burden of having to pay that much for childcare.

Couples do have economies of scale. Families with children do not.

Many examples of the "second earner" having their entire income (or very nearly) used to fund childcare. Own case for example back in the day - when my wife had about £5 a month left after paying for that. Of course , her working enabled her to keep her competencies up in the NHS , and of course she maintained her continuity of pensions and so on. .

A bit better these days , but childcare costs are crippling. (for a period of time at least) - many people really struggle.

 

[johncrossley]

I do not recognise a connection with "incel", Incel is involuntary celibacy. I do recognise the thinking of "MGTOW".....the growing movement of Men Going Their Own Way . Men who purposely reject the lifestyle of marriage and children as a poor proposition due to the many risks such as property and financial asset stripping by an ex-wife. My contribution to population growth ...ZERO. There is no way I would risk my hard earned assets by fathering children, I meet a significant number of men who have reached the same conclusion

Something I read a few years ago, and I'm not sure how true this is, but in Germany (where there is a particularly low birth rate) there is an imbalance of women and men because educated women emigrated from eastern to western Germany. So men in the west don't feel the need to commit, as they can play the field etc. and men in the east have fewer women to choose from. This may be the case in wealthy urban areas such as parts of London. I certainly know a lot of men who view having children as a mug's game. Why have children when you can have a more luxurious lifestyle, with less aggravation?

 

[gg1]

Your risk is likely to be when you are still single and around 30 years of age, you will be targeted by single women of similar age, desperate for a first baby, those women will fake and feign their feelings towards you in order to have that baby, At 30 I was targeted by two such psychotic women, and it was quite upsetting to deal with such, one became a stalker, actually changing employer to come and work in the same office.

As a child free man, the obvious way of preventing that eventuality is to have a vasectomy, and being very open about it right at the start of any relationship or potential relationship.

I would have done exactly that when I hit 30 if it wasn't for the fact that my partner who I met at 28, had already had a tubal ligation in her late teens (ordinarily the NHS won't perform the procedure on women that young but she has a heart condition whereby carrying a baby to term carries a high risk of death).

 

[AlterEgo]

Then the sensible thing would be to subsidise childcare (as we effectively already do from school age).

Much better to make it free - as we do with schooling - and fund it from taxation, which everyone will pay for.

Many examples of the "second earner" having their entire income (or very nearly) used to fund childcare. Own case for example back in the day - when my wife had about £5 a month left after paying for that. Of course , her working enabled her to keep her competencies up in the NHS , and of course she maintained her continuity of pensions and so on. .

A bit better these days , but childcare costs are crippling. (for a period of time at least) - many people really struggle.

The burden really is still very extreme. About £1200-1500 a month here in London if you want full time childcare and both parents to keep their careers. It does indeed eat up almost all the second earner's salary in many cases. And living on a single wage and having one stay at home parent quite often means borderline poverty.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Much better to make it free - as we do with schooling - and fund it from taxation, which everyone will pay for.


The burden really is still very extreme. About £1200-1500 a month here in London if you want full time childcare and both parents to keep their careers. It does indeed eat up almost all the second earner's salary in many cases. And living on a single wage and having one stay at home parent quite often means borderline poverty.

Agreed - serious issue (we managed after a while by my wife working weekend shifts and me taking annual leave for childcare !) - of course most people we know / knew then had no other support from near family. Still , worth it as all 3 have made good career choices. Child care is really quite difficult one gathers nowadays ,as apart from crippling costs , there seem to be less "providers" around.

To think 1920's France had all sorts of family incentives from the State to encourage population growth after the ravages of World War 1 , Russia similar post WW2.

Not that handing our "Motherhood" medals would really make much difference nowadays. Probably a discussion for the likes of Mumsnet......

 

[ainsworth74]

the end of the single person's discount on council tax

See this is my concern. I have no issue with making it easier for families. Indeed some of the things will benefit everyone (such as affordable housing or better job security/wages) but why punish, in this case, people who live alone? What is the policy objective of ending the single persons discount? To try and force people to shack up together? Why should someone who lives alone be punished for doing so? Which will surely then lead onto other punishments for those who don't live with a partner and have children? By all means make society a better place to raise a family, everyone is after all likely to benefit either directly or indirectly from such changes, but it seems perverse that we'd use state power to make life harder for people who don't want to couple up and don't want to have children.

 

[AlterEgo]

See this is my concern. I have no issue with making it easier for families. Indeed some of the things will benefit everyone (such as affordable housing or better job security/wages) but why punish, in this case, people who live alone?

Why do you think it's a punishment? Single person's discount in most places is only 25%, why isn't everyone moaning it isn't 50%? Why aren't people complaining "oh this is Big Government trying to make me get a girlfriend or boyfriend?"

What is the policy objective of ending the single persons discount?

Increasing the council tax take to pay for improved services relating to children and families.

To try and force people to shack up together?

See above re: 25%. There are also housing pressures. In my view the housing pressure alone - especially in urban areas - should be enough political justification to promote cohabiting, regardless of any "pro family" agenda.

Which will surely then lead onto other punishments for those who don't live with a partner and have children?

That's making up a scenario to get mad at.

 

[ainsworth74]

Why do you think it's a punishment? Single person's discount in most places is only 25%, why isn't everyone moaning it isn't 50%? Why aren't people complaining "oh this is Big Government trying to make me get a girlfriend or boyfriend?"

Well seeing as you asked, it should be. Council Tax was based on the idea that there would be two adults living in a rateable property therefore logically the discount should be 50% but I'm not silly enough to think that that is ever likely to be on the cards!

Increasing the council tax take to pay for improved services relating to children and families.

Gotcha. Though I can't help but feel that looking at central taxation rather than the regressive nightmare that is Council Tax would be more logical. Someone who is currently on a low income would suddenly need to find, potentially, several hundred pounds extra per year to pay the extra Council Tax they now owe due to the removal of a discount which has existed since 1993. Something which those who are well off could easily absorb but someone on minimum wage will find far harder to absorb. Looking at Middlesbrough removing the 25% discount for someone living in a Band A property could easily equal having to pay an extra weeks wages to Council Tax (approx £350 extra per year around here) for someone on minimum wage. More as you move up the Bands (though accepting that a minimum wage worker is less likely to live in say Band D than they are Band A or B!).

See above re: 25%. There are also housing pressures. In my view the housing pressure alone - especially in urban areas - should be enough political justification to promote cohabiting, regardless of any "pro family" agenda.

Of course we could help relieve those pressures by building suitable accommodation for the wide range of different circumstances people find themselves in. More one and two bedroom flats less three bedroom semi-detached houses perhaps? Plus, much like removing the single persons discount will have more impact on the less well off, I rather suspect that all that this will do is mean that if you're on a low wage you'll need to find someone else to live with (romantic or otherwise) but if you're well paid you'll still live on your own. It is, of course, a problem that already exists (more acutely in some areas than others) but I'm not sure exacerbating it is a positive thing.

That's making up a scenario to get mad at.

Perhaps, though who is getting mad? But is it also not just a logical conclusion of the path that's being suggested? As I've said before promoting polices that will help everyone throughout society (better job security, more affordable housing, etc) are all fine and noble goals which have my full support as it will help everyone. But some of the ideas you've suggested seem to be targeting one group (the childless or single people) at the expense of another (families) which personally I cannot support. Creating a society where circumstances make raising a family easier is something which I don't have a problem with. Using the power of the state to try and create a sociey where people are expected to have children is not something I can support.

I would see it as being the same as that thread we had a little while ago where someone wanted to use the power of the State to get people to go to church whether they want to or not. As long as the State isn't directly interfering in someone's ability to worship then that's the end of what the State should be doing in that regard. Same thing here. The State can try and ensure that society is set up in a way which doesn't directly make it harder for people to have ae family but it shouldn't be getting involved in actively promoting that choice at the expense of others.

Going on a slightly different tack, would birth control still be available on the NHS? After all free and easy access to birth control is no doubt one of the reasons we've seen a reduction in fertility rates. Removing that access would seem to help increase the fertility rate? Or is the line drawn before that?

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps, though who is getting mad? But is it also not just a logical conclusion of the path that's being suggested? As I've said before promoting polices that will help everyone throughout society (better job security, more affordable housing, etc) are all fine and noble goals which have my full support as it will help everyone. But some of the ideas you've suggested seem to be targeting one group (the childless or single people) at the expense of another (families) which personally I cannot support.

But the majority of government social policies already do this!

Governments do not take a dispassionate view on whether humans should procreate and propagate our species. Most government policies are designed for families by default, expect the current measures aren't going far enough and some of them simply aren't working. Over 4% of GDP is spent on what you might call pro-child or pro-family policies. You're already funding free schooling, free school meals, child benefit, child tax credit, the kids' playpark down the road, etc etc we could go on 100 times longer. Your taxes *today* will mostly go to benefit families with children - still by far the "default" and majority setup for adults of child-rearing age - to make it easier for people to raise families, or to have more than one child.

Creating a society where circumstances make raising a family easier is something which I don't have a problem with. Using the power of the state to try and create a sociey where people are expected to have children is not something I can support.

That already happens. The expectation is that adults will want to have children. That is something most people have always done, and still continue to do. You are still insisting this issue is somehow "forcing single people to have partners and then have kids". No! Have you ever considered not everyone is like you? That there are lots of people who actually do want children who feel they can't afford it, either in finances or lifestyle penalties? Or that existing families with one child perhaps don't feel able to support more than one?

I would see it as being the same as that thread we had a little while ago where someone wanted to use the power of the State to get people to go to church whether they want to or not.

That's because you're not engaging with the actual issue and it's a bad faith (sorry for the pun) comparison. Religion is none of the state's business. Having solid social policies which make it easier for people who want kids - or a bigger family - to have them, is.

 

[ainsworth74]

But the majority of government social policies already do this!

Governments do not take a dispassionate view on whether humans should procreate and propagate our species. Most government policies are designed for families by default, expect the current measures aren't going far enough and some of them simply aren't working. Over 4% of GDP is spent on what you might call pro-child or pro-family policies. You're already funding free schooling, free school meals, child benefit, child tax credit, the kids' playpark down the road, etc etc we could go on 100 times longer. Your taxes *today* will mostly go to benefit families with children - still by far the "default" and majority setup for adults of child-rearing age - to make it easier for people to raise families, or to have more than one child.

Yes and I'm not sure where I disputed that? I actually think it's almost evil that we have a two child limit on Child Benefit and Universal Credit/Child Tax Credit. That clearly is driving child poverty upwards as well as, more anecdotally, increasing the numbers of abortions. I'd remove it tomorrow, though of course the Daily Mail et al would screech about it so there's no chance of the current shower doing so. We clearly need to spend more on education in general and I'd not object expanding the free school meals programme either. We also clearly need better funding for social services to help ensure that the children who need help get it. My concern is more in policies directly targeting one group, for instance people living alone, to benefit another. Not in providing support to families.

If you want to chuck an extra 1p on income tax to fund more support for children and families I wouldn't particularly object to that because everyone would be pitching in equally to fund that as income tax is fairly progressive in that those that earn more pay more. If you want to impose a regressive tax (increasing Council Tax by removing the single persons discount) then I have a strong objection to that.

That already happens. The expectation is that adults will want to have children. That is something most people have always done, and still continue to do. You are still insisting this issue is somehow "forcing single people to have partners and then have kids". No! Have you ever considered not everyone is like you? That there are lots of people who actually do want children who feel they can't afford it, either in finances or lifestyle penalties? Or that existing families with one child perhaps don't feel able to support more than one?

I think I must be communicating poorly because you'd have to be an imbecile to not have thought of those things and I'd like to think that you don't think I'm so foolish. Of course I have considered that not everyone is like me. I look out the frackin window from time to time you know? Equally it's quite obvious lots of people want children and some people want more children and don't feel able to do so because of circumstances outside of their control. I'm also not disputing that the default for most people is that they will have kids at some point in their life. And all power to them!

To be clear I don't foresee the Procreation Police rocking up at my front door checking if I've had a child or not and carting me off to jail or assigning me a partner if not but I am deeply suspicious that the end point for this will be to make it deliberately awkward, as a policy position, for anyone who hasn't coupled up or hasn't had children. That is where my objection lies.

Perhaps your good intentions with regards to making it easier for families (which, again, I don't necessarily object to as plenty, if not all of them, will benefit society as a whole, couples, singles, families with one child or families with ten children) won't end up that way but I can't help but suspicious of overreach by someone less well intentioned which does create a situation in which you don't have to form a family unit but it would make life much easier for you if you did comply and form one. That to me is a backwards step as right now if someone wants to live alone or not have children there isn't any massive roadblock or state backed nudges (or put another way punishments, perhaps that's where the confusion lies? We're taking the term "punishment" to mean different things?) making it difficult for them.

That's because you're not engaging with the actual issue and it's a bad faith (sorry for the pun) comparison.

Never apologise for a pun!

Religion is none of the state's business. Having solid social policies which make it easier for people who want kids - or a bigger family - to have them, is.

As long as those policies aren't also intended to make it harder for people who don't want kids then we're in accord. That is my concern. That the State won't just try and create a situation where having a family is easier (again, something which will likely benefit all to a greater or lesser extent) but that it will go out of its way to make it harder for anyone who doesn't want a family.

 

[Magdalia]

Council Tax was based on the idea that there would be two adults living in a rateable property therefore logically the discount should be 50% but I'm not silly enough to think that that is ever likely to be on the cards!

Council Tax was designed to be a hybrid of household rates, charged on the property, and community charge, paid by individuals. As you say, it was based on two adults living in a rateable property. The single person discount is only on the community charge component of council tax, not on the property component. That's why it is 25%, that is half of 50%.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be clear I don't foresee the Procreation Police rocking up at my front door checking if I've had a child or not and carting me off to jail or assigning me a partner if not but I am deeply suspicious that the end point for this will be to make it deliberately awkward, as a policy position, for anyone who hasn't coupled up or hasn't had children. That is where my objection lies.

Well look at it this way - pro-family policies will always have a kneejerk "isn't that a bit...fashy?" reaction to them. I'm sure when the idea "shouldn't we promote families?" people do picture the motherhood medals and other frankly dehumanising aesthetics of some 20th Century family policies, not to mention the rights violations. I'm sure some people think only certain types of families might be supported by a hypothetical government that will take it seriously. And there's always a slippery slope argument to be made.

I foresee the big problem to be - look, this is something that really does need action, and it will come to pass, and it is better that the issue is owned by properly civic minded people rather than left as a boiling frog to be seized upon by unsavoury political factions when there really is a crisis.

 

[johncrossley]

As long as those policies aren't also intended to make it harder for people who don't want kids then we're in accord. That is my concern. That the State won't just try and create a situation where having a family is easier (again, something which will likely benefit all to a greater or lesser extent) but that it will go out of its way to make it harder for anyone who doesn't want a family.

Anything that makes it easier for families will make it worse for everyone else, inevitably. If more taxpayers' money is spent on families, that means more tax that needs to come from single people. Encouraging families is counter-productive given that climate change is the most critical problem facing the world.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The burden really is still very extreme. About £1200-1500 a month here in London if you want full time childcare and both parents to keep their careers. It does indeed eat up almost all the second earner's salary in many cases. And living on a single wage and having one stay at home parent quite often means borderline poverty.

We should fix that, not subsidise institutional childcare. Kids should, until school, grow up with their own parent(s).

Far too many parents think they can just have a kid then carry on as before because someone else can bring it up. No, you can't. The financial pressures could however be dealt with, and that'd be far better than pushing ever younger kids into institutional childcare which is sub-optimal for their development.

As for Council Tax, despite the fact that it would whack me as a higher earner living in a small house, I think it should be replaced with a local income tax, plus a tourist tax for people with or operating holiday homes.

 

[nlogax]

We should fix that, not subsidise institutional childcare. Kids should, until school, grow up with their own parent(s).

Far too many parents think they can just have a kid then carry on as before because someone else can bring it up. No, you can't.

Is that really fixable? You're asking to undo 40-odd years of societal change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that really fixable? You're asking to undo 40-odd years of societal change.

Not universal change. Bringing up your own is much more common where housing is cheaper. I was, and so have been my sister's kids.

But yes, it is fixable. One thing that would massively help would be that for a married couple living together the tax free allowances can be pooled.

 

[Giugiaro]

There are also housing pressures. In my view the housing pressure alone - especially in urban areas - should be enough political justification to promote cohabiting, regardless of any "pro family" agenda.

You don't need to. In Portugal, for instance, the only way we can have a decent life away from our parents' home, either as singles or as unmarried couples, is to live in a shared home.
Given how crudely expensive housing is right now...

I was the only student in the last home I lived in when studying in Aveiro. Everyone else was already employed, and some were in a romantic relationship sharing a bedroom.
The rent was up to 250€/mo, with all bills covered (although we had an expenditure limit). Most of them only earned a minimum wage, which was 550€ at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was going to say that that rent was low, but EUR550 a month minimum wage is incredibly low. Is Portugal generally quite a low wage country?

 

[johncrossley]

I was going to say that that rent was low, but EUR550 a month minimum wage is incredibly low. Is Portugal generally quite a low wage country?

According to

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

GDP per capita in Portugal is $24,495, compared to $49,761 in the UK.

 

[PTR 444]

The overall effects of forever-single men are profound, such men can live on modest incomes, therefore pay little income tax, the lifeblood of profligate government spending, such men are modest consumers, less demand for goods and services.

I’m not sure whether you make this out to be a good thing or not. Yes, less income tax means less money for government spending, but surely that would be counterbalanced by the societal benefits of reduced demand anyway?

 

[birchesgreen]

Your risk is likely to be when you are still single and around 30 years of age, you will be targeted by single women of similar age, desperate for a first baby, those women will fake and feign their feelings towards you in order to have that baby, At 30 I was targeted by two such psychotic women, and it was quite upsetting to deal with such, one became a stalker, actually changing employer to come and work in the same office.
The overall effects of forever-single men are profound, such men can live on modest incomes, therefore pay little income tax, the lifeblood of profligate government spending, such men are modest consumers, less demand for goods and services.

Just be a sad geek (trainspotter will work) then this fantasy i mean terrible thing will not occur to you.