- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Concerns about declining birth rate and then discussions of universal basic income
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:16 am to weagle1999
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:16 am to weagle1999
quote:
considering how to implement UBI to make up for the lower number of jobs due to AI
Socialists will never pass up a good chance to watch their ideas fail in spectacular fashion. The bigger the potential stage, the more giddy they are to try it (because their myopic view allows for failure happening only because they didn't do enough of their idea, not because their idea was faulty to its core).
0
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:24 am to weagle1999
quote:
We are supposed to be worried about declining birth rates, and at the same time considering how to implement UBI to make up for the lower number of jobs due to AI?
I’m pretty sure that most people are concerned about one and not the other. I’ve never seen someone simultaneously hold both positions.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:27 am to cbree88
quote:
then your population plummets and collapses within a few generations. That collapse takes your society and nation down with it.
That is an old paradigm.
quote:
society and nation
Societies and nations change all the time.
Or is the US the first nation that will last forever?
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 11:35 am
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:30 am to Keltic Tiger
Three children per couple is the absolute minimum required to sustain a population and culture. If a couple has fewer than that then they are not contributing to society they are a drain on it.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:30 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
I also know there is no way something could get passed here that was specific incentives like that for the middle/upper middle class so I really don't know the viability of such incentives in our society.
Raise the FSA max would be a good start, let me pay for daycare pre-tax
also, being able to fully deduct private education from taxes would be pretty cool but that will never happen. I would much prefer that then vouchers that none of the good private schools take.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:32 am to Keltic Tiger
quote:question is “will it work?” . I believe studies show that financial incentives in developed countries don’t seem to move the needle on birth rates.
Japan's seriously declining birth rate / population has resulted in a variety of new policies to encourage larger birth rates: a family with 3 children gets free education, for all , through college; flights within Japan the 3rd child flies free; and significant medical care cost reductions for the 3 kids.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:33 am to Missouri Waltz
quote:
Three children per couple is the absolute minimum required to sustain a population and culture. If a couple has fewer than that then they are not contributing to society they are a drain on it.
The affluent couple without kids is a drain while a welfare queen with 8 spawn contributing to society?
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:37 am to Dire Wolf
quote:
Raise the FSA max would be a good start, let me pay for daycare pre-tax
also, being able to fully deduct private education from taxes would be pretty cool but that will never happen. I would much prefer that then vouchers that none of the good private schools take.
For sure, there are definitely things that absolutely can be done. I guess I was more speaking to I just don't see a way in our current society where anything would be able to pass that predominantly favors the middle/upper middle class with no significant changes to the lower class incentives. It would just get shot down immediately as racist or whatever. I'm all for everyone paying the government less. I just don't see realistically any of that happening, unfortunately.
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 11:38 am
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:48 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:It incentivizes the people you want to have kids to have kids, instead of the other way around.
That doesn't really address my point, but go for it.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 11:53 am to Gravitiger
quote:
It incentivizes the people you want to have kids to have kids, instead of the other way around.
It incentivizes everyone to have kids, which is not what I am arguing. Unless you want to change the tax credit for just specific income levels, which isn't what you said. If that is what you're advocating for, all for it.
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 5/20/26 at 12:11 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:You said current policy only incentivizes poor people. This would also incentivize "everyone" including non-poor people, who don't really benefit from a $2,200 credit. That doesn't even get you out of the hospital after a birth.
It incentivizes everyone to have kids, which is not what I am arguing. Unless you want to change the tax credit for just specific income levels, which isn't what you said. If that is what you're advocating for, all for it
But to your point, make it non-refundable or only for working individuals/families above certain thresholds, yes.
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 5/20/26 at 12:22 pm to Gravitiger
Okay which is fine and all, but going back to my original post, does anyone actually think there isa modicum of a chance something like that could actually get passed? It would be shot down almost immediately for cries of racism or class warfare or whatever else they can come up with. I don't see any way progressives would ever allow something like that to pass, so then that brings us back to the point of what doe we do now?
We are really stuck between a rock and a hard place right now because we can't do anything these days that benefits one group over another, even if that objectively is what is needed. Japan doesn't give a shite, they'll flat out say we are doing XYZ because we need this class of people to act differently, deal with it
We are really stuck between a rock and a hard place right now because we can't do anything these days that benefits one group over another, even if that objectively is what is needed. Japan doesn't give a shite, they'll flat out say we are doing XYZ because we need this class of people to act differently, deal with it
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 12:23 pm
Posted on 5/20/26 at 12:23 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
nm
This post was edited on 5/20/26 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 5/20/26 at 12:24 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
I also know there is no way something could get passed here that was specific incentives like that for the middle/upper middle class so I really don't know the viability of such incentives in our society. We have a very lazy populace.
Did you miss this?
Posted on 5/20/26 at 12:24 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
Yes
Posted on 5/20/26 at 1:11 pm to Missouri Waltz
I know this saying wasn't just from my parents that someone else said it but my dad would joke that you have 3 kids to replace yourselves and the homeless man on the street
Posted on 5/20/26 at 1:15 pm to weagle1999
quote:
Societies and nations change all the time. Or is the US the first nation that will last forever?
Horrible logic
So you think we should embrace our stupidity and embrace the decline instead of working to preserve our nation and keep it strong as long as possible?
Posted on 5/20/26 at 1:18 pm to cbree88
We're not going to need such a large population. At some point, AI and robots will be replacing the workforce, not children.
Posted on 5/20/26 at 1:23 pm to weagle1999
America already has ubi but the b doesn’t stand for “basic”
Posted on 5/20/26 at 1:24 pm to El Segundo Guy
Reality of it, is that the biggest concern with the population decline currently is tax funding the government liabilities of the social services programs for retirees. Our population levels aren't at the points of like societal collapse as far as just pure numbers. We've just made horrible policies around our social services and require the younger generation to have as much of a work force as the previous in order to tax them enough to have the cash flow for these programs.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News