zlacker

>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+(OP)
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!

>>GenerW+(OP)
I wonder if you realize that in a traditional farming family, children were used for agricultural menial tasks very early in their lives, and then booted out of household around adolescence. That's where all of these soldiers and sailors, but also housemaids came from.

Children were genuinely profitable. Not anymore so birth rates plummet.

Nobody can seriously reason how they are going to increase the overall quantity of children while at the same time increase quality of these children('s lives). It's a tradeoff.

But there is a brighter side, if the whole society still benefits from being economically, demographically and culturally solvent, that may offset that tradeoff's quality of life decrease for these children. As we all see it's quite crappy to be a Little Emperor until you are 18 and then realize that education debt + real estate prices = 8===э