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.