zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
Solution is simple and well-known but requires balls: separate childbearing from marriage politically, and treat it as a full-time job. Institute flat tax charged from all adult population and use it to pay salaries to all women (not "families") with children based on number of children without regard to "quality", variating (guaranteed inflation-adjusted till age of 18) salaries, and taxes, according to the birthrate factual vs desired: increase both if birth rate is too low, until it is sufficient. As simple as that.

Because this will be exploited by the poorest underclass women who will have lots and lots of children to milk the taxpayer (and that's fine!), the resulting market-based salary won't at all be huge.

>>anovik+D6
>this will be exploited by the poorest underclass women who will have lots and lots of children to milk the taxpayer (and that's fine!)

It blows my mind that people think this way. You're going to get a lot of children who are wanted for fiscal benefits, but are unwanted from a maternal benefit. So yes, number goes up, but at what non-fiscal cost?

>>GenerW+bb
Of course, using children for your fiscal benefit while freeing yourself of the maternal responsibility is reserved for those child-free riding off of social security paid for thanks to parents raising productive children.

You see it's only moral to use other children as fiscal cattle, not your own!