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.
I can’t imagine people who can’t afford moderately more expensive condoms can afford another child. I do suspect however that they can afford to spread venereal disease
That’s how you get surges of STDs among other awful things…
how dare you speak ill of China! CHINA IS THE BEST!
CHINA IS A NUMBER 1!
/s
Oh man, flashbacks to an ancient meme.
TAIWAN NUMBAH ONE, CHINA NUMBAH …FOURhttps://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3tu2x4/if_you_shout_taiwan_no1_in_this_game_chinese/
I can’t believe this was 10 years ago.
Please tell me that nobody would give up condoms over a 13% price hike.
So you’re saying that I was right to express concerns in the recent post about China covering childbirth expenses, and that it wouldn’t stop there?
Original comment:
As long as people who don’t want to have children aren’t pressured. Not everyone is interested in parenting, and that needs to be accepted.
Well, that didn’t take long. The other post was earlier this week.
Because children are widely known as being very inexpensive to raise.
How much is the tax going to be? $20,000 per year?
Coming up next: China’s STD epidemic and what can we do about it?
That’s… Oh my God. That is such a bad idea, for so many reasons. But I think if the point is to expand your population, specifically the poorest and most uneducated, it hits the mark.
Oh no… That is the point, isn’t it?
The future ruling classes are going to need serfs.
Yeah it’s a great way to dilute the intelligence of a population while skewing voting toward more conservative representation. Half the US has similar values.
Humans have a natural drive to procreate (not just have sex), so if your population doesn’t want to have children, maybe look at what you’re doing to make them avoid this natural proclivity.
I’d argue the only real solution is a longer leave for both parents without affecting their careers. But it’s generally just not doable with their corporate culture.
Leaders of all “developed” nations need to look at this.
Birth rates are plummeting, and its not because of some religious children of men scenario or plastics in our sperm.
People just don’t want kids, and why would we? World is a shithole, everything costs too much and we are being constantly reminded that WW3 is just around the corner.
china has significantly worst, because of the one child policy, which heavily skewed the results as well. prefer male offspring over female ones, leading to massive imbalance, and its still be preferred.
Humans have a natural drive to procreate
Source?
The fact that there continue to be humans.
There continue to be atomic bombs. Do people have natural drive to build them?
I’m not even sure that comment really rises to the level of a counter arguement.
People have been around a lot longer than atomic bombs.
This is about protecting infants not about drive to procreation.
And how do we get these infants we love protecting?
This doesn’t say we have infants because we love protecting them. It says why we protect them once we have them. If you don’t understand this there’s really nothing to talk about. I will just assume there’s no proof for your first statement and it’s most probably false.
I’d argue the 8 billion people on this planet suggests it’s true.
In developing countries people have kids because it’s an investment. You need kids to help you work the fields, take care of the house and take care of you when you’re old. Infant mortality is high so family planning is difficult and people have a lot of kids. Once certain economical level is reached and people can count on social security to take care of them when they are old kids become an expense, not investment and, surprise surprise, people stop having kids. Almost universally in every developed country in the world birth rates are below replacement levels, even in countries with best social programs and highest life satisfaction. So no, it’s not true.
Time for One Child (at least)-policy
STI’s will be booming.
HIV: It’s free real estate
Time to buy metal coat hanger manufacturing stonks
China is run by morons. Restricting people to 1 child for decades was idiotic and this is nearly as stupid.
This is even more stupid. Even if you succeeded in making people have more unprotected sex, if people don’t want it, you’re still gonna have a bad time. The children who are born unwanted aren’t going to have as good of life as those wanted for many reasons. At least 1 child who was born previously got more resources and had better chances. Though both are stupid decisions, I agree. This one even more. And another reason - you hopefully see you’ve made a stupid decision in the past and should have not meddled with organic needs of people in such an extreme way. So then OBVIOUSLY, the solution is to double down, but in the opposite way. /s
I’m guessing the stance of the CCP on abortion is going from not good to dystopian.
I’m no expert but this really doesn’t seem like the right solve for falling birth rates.
It’s not a problem to be solved. It’s something to be adapted to.
they tried nothing and they are all out of ideas, its not unique to china either. they are tyring to avoid discussing the actual causes.
and not because of the generations of damage the one-child policy caused after it ended, and the HCOl,a nd the lack of job prospects for the over-degree’d holders that graduated plus the recent evergrande situation. instead they do this or use the invade taiwan rhetoric.
plus the increasing bitterness towards, china for trying to lure scientists/professionals from the usa to thier industries.
I don’t know who will find this information helpful but I wish I knew when I was young.
A woman is only fertile during about 5 days each lunar cycle. Unfortunately those days are the most fun but the other 24 are safer.
Testicles descend when it’s hot to cool down because heat kills sperm. If you buy a microscope, and dunk your sack in hot water for a few minutes each day, you can become temporarily sterile and verify it with the microscope.
Finally, there’s a point you can press just in front of your anus that suppresses ejaculation. Any one of those things by itself would be risky but all three and it would be nearly impossible to fertilize an egg.
This is the worst advice. Is this Kennedy’s account?
Why is it bad advice to give men the means to control their reproduction without any outside party involvement? Because nobody profits off of it? The article is about limiting access to birth control. I’m simply saying, if your government does it you can still have safe(er) sex. No hormones or abortions needed.
Because the advice is BAD. You have no idea what you are talking about and if you keep playing doctor you will hurt someone. Medical degrees are not a scam to get money from you. They are to protect the public from people like you.
Why is it bad advice to give men the means to control their reproduction without any outside party involvement?
Because your advice is “naturalistic” shit. It’s not only famously unreliable at controlling pregnancies but it also offers zero protection from STDs.
or you could just, you know, get a 16 minute vasectomy procedure and bypass all that.
Fully reversable if you ever want kids, truly a better option and something I wished I knew when I was younger.
The reversability is over exaggerated, in the best case it’s about 50% from before the procedure
You can’t make a blatant statement like that without considering age and how long one has had said procedure.
As a general rule while not accounting for age and health too, see the following. Also, feel free to fact check me because I’m that sure of this:
< 3 years: Sperm return ~97-100%, Pregnancy ~80%.
3 - 8 years: Sperm return ~90%, Pregnancy ~50%.
9 - 14 years: Sperm return ~79%, Pregnancy ~44%.
15+ years: Sperm return ~71%, Pregnancy ~30%.
You made the first blatant statement. Furthermore you make claims that seem very dubious and then write feel free tonfact check me? Why not post a source? And pregnancy rate of 80% isn’t very good to begin with but it drops to only 50% after 3 years? Thats abysmal and to suggest to get such a procedure as a temporary solution is kinda insane. Vasectomies should be treated as a final solution.
You made the first blatant statement.
No, you did with your 50% success rate and did so without a single citation.
Furthermore you make claims that seem very dubious and then write feel free tonfact check me? Why not post a source?
- https://vasec.org/vasectomy-and-reversal-what-you-should-know/
- https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vasectomy-reversal/about/pac-20384537
But you probably know better than licensed physicians…
And pregnancy rate of 80% isn’t very good to begin with but it drops to only 50% after 3 years? Thats abysmal and to suggest to get such a procedure as a temporary solution is kinda insane.
Again and as stated. it depends on the age of the patient, their health and other factors. But you probably know better than licensed physicians…
Vasectomies should be treated as a final solution.
Conpared to the OPs statements, a vasectomy is a far better choice unless you’d rather let the woman suffer a full surgery with abdominal pains and scar tissue with a tubal ligation. Yeah, okay buddy.
I was not the one who wrote the 50% statement, but no worries.
Your statement was,“Fully reversable if you ever want kids,” and that is simply not true. I am not saying that i know better than licensed physicans i am saying that the actual data that you just posted agrees with me. A vasectomy may be reversible, if you decide for it in less than three years it may even be likely. But if you decide for a vasectomy you should not consider that as an viable option because the chances are not very good.
Conpared to the OPs statements, a vasectomy is a far better choice That heavily depends, if you are in a relationship and 100% to someday have kids a vasectomy is the worse choice cause it lowers your chances of achieving that dream (according tou your sources after just three years 30-50%…).
the woman suffer a full surgery with abdominal pains and scar tissue with a tubal ligation. Yeah, okay buddy.
This i a strawman argument and you should know that. Not once have i argued for a tubual ligitation as a viable alternative for a reversible procedure. I am glad to discuss everything but let’s try to maintain some good discussion conventions and not just imagine new arguments.
Edit: from your source “Even if sperm return, pregnancy rates are lower (30-70%) and depend on partner’s fertility as well.” So one in three people wont be able to conceive in the realistic best case scenario.
Those are not great numbers for advocating vasectomy as temporary contraceptive
If the Chinese goverment is increasing taxes on condoms to force people to give birth more, I doubt they will let men get vasectomies easily
Best part about being in Asia is you’re a couple hour flight to Thailand, Singapore, India, Malaysia, and South Korea where such things like medical tourism is common for Chinese.
might as well tell them to make like a couch in a college dorm, and pull out.
Well for an added layer of caution on those 5 days, maybe, but not on its own.
“A woman is only fertile during about 5 days each lunar cycle. Unfortunately those days are the most fun but the other 24 are safer.”
Can confirm that these are the best days to get wiggy with it - ask me how I know…kids.
