From 1 January, contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – part of a carrot-and-stick approach by the government to increase births
China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.
From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993.
The measure was buried in a VAT law passed in 2024 in an effort to modernise China’s tax regime. VAT accounts for nearly 40% of China’s total tax revenue.
Have you considered that developing also means everyone is too busy focused on becoming a productive cog? There are much higher opportunity costs for women even with token benefits from the government. I’m saying that the benefits aren’t nearly enough since every developed country has to compete in the same rat race.
Look at birth rates by income, for those with a very comfortable income, the birth rate is higher.
If you compare Europe with developing countries a lot of people have comfortable incomes and even in the wealthiest countries birth rates are below replacement levels. You can keep coming with reasons like lack of healthcare, childcare, expensive homes and so on but the fact is that people in Africa don’t have any of that and they still have more kids. Even in Europe or US people used to have more kids in way worse economic situation than today. The idea that people felt they have “comfortable income” to have 5 kids while working 6 days a week at a coal mine and living in a one bedroom apartment but can’t have kids today because they can’t put each one in separate room is just silly. People used to have a lot of kids because it was a necessity. Once the necessity was gone they stopped.
A lot of people want to form a family. They want to have a kid or two. Once they do they stop procreating because there’s no natural drive to keep having more and more children. They keep having sex because there is natural drive for that but the drive to have kids is just something you made up.
Is it though? The standards are much higher now and there’s a lot more effort put into raising each child. That’s literally a standard people have now.
Isn’t this my original point? I didn’t say everyone wanted to have an entire litter. There are plenty of people who want to have a family without sacrificing opportunity.
Is it? Oh, I though you meant that people want to have as many kids as possible. If you mean people want to have one or two kids I can agree (I think this is societal need, not biological but it’s just my opinion). This is still way below replacement levels and just this need will not guarantee long term survival of society. So I guess we agree that natural needs of people will not solve demographic issues developed countries are facing.
I think then it would be a good question to ask why families with 1 or 2 kids why they don’t have more.
I’d say the main reasons would be:
So governments might be able to move the needle a bit with these families by providing extra support.
Makes sense. I guess that’s why the poorest people have the least children.
Oh, wait:
That’s why I was asking for a source. Your theories have no backing in reality. The truth is that people simply don’t want to have a lot of kids because it’s a chore. Society puts pressure on people to form a family by constant propaganda in popular media and by using peer pressure (once all your friends have kids all they do is stuff for kids. people without children are left out). My guess is poor people have more kids because they don’t have family planning education and resources to do it. Once you satisfy the societal need to form a family unit (usually by having one child) there’s no more pressure and people stop having children. I’m sure there are many people that would like to have one child by can’t afford it (or they think they can’t afford it) and government can help them but no matter what you do people will not go back to having 4 or 5 kids. There’s no “natural drive” to do it.
$200k isn’t sufficiently rich:
Do people you know just not like their kids? Parents generally really like their offspring.
There’s definitely some biology involved. For example, women can forget the pain of childbirth.
Interesting. I looks like it starts going up around the 1% threshold again. This is the level where kids are not a chore anymore. People have nannies to take care of the kids when they wake up at night, change diapers, feed them, drive them to school and so on. Maybe you’re right. When you hit a level of income that lets you have kids and live your life at the same time people will opt for more kids. You know what? You convinced me. We should aim for making everyone a millionaire. I have no idea if it’s economically feasible or how would it work but it’s a nice goal to have.
Of course they like their kids but kids are also a major pain in the ass. They are always happy when they can leave kids with grandparents or at childcare. I know a couple where the mother doesn’t work and they still leave the kid at childcare. Even during holidays when both of them don’t work they still take the kid to childcare. I guess they all aim for the 1% experience of only spending quality time with kids, not having them around all the time.