- 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: Hungary passes no-income tax law for mothers to boost birth rate
Posted on 3/17/25 at 8:41 am to Penrod
Posted on 3/17/25 at 8:41 am to Penrod
The way to do this would be to make childcare free through tax incentives, so it still costs money if you are poor but is free for the wealthy essentially.
I don’t know why we need more people. The issue is boomers, but once boomers are gone and we get another cycle or two lower birth rates we will even out as far as age ranges go. People are freaking out that we’ll have too many old people and not enough young people to take care of them, but that’s just because of the boomers.
I’m not saying we have too many people, but I don’t think we need this many people either.
I don’t know why we need more people. The issue is boomers, but once boomers are gone and we get another cycle or two lower birth rates we will even out as far as age ranges go. People are freaking out that we’ll have too many old people and not enough young people to take care of them, but that’s just because of the boomers.
I’m not saying we have too many people, but I don’t think we need this many people either.
2
Posted on 3/17/25 at 8:54 am to baldona
quote:
don’t know why we need more people
We don't need more people in a general sense. We need more of the right people. See the opening scene of idiocracy for clarification.
I would prefer to see incentives for having kids out of wedlock go away vs adding incentives for having kids in wedlock.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:08 pm to baldona
quote:
I’m not saying we have too many people, but I don’t think we need this many people either.
If you can figure out a way to make productivity to go way up without adding people (maybe AI) then you don’t. But traditionally you do, otherwise you’d have to march to China’s tune.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:14 pm to RaoulDuke504
That's awesome.
There should be severely reduced/no income tax on two-parent households.
There should be severely reduced/no income tax on two-parent households.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:15 pm to RaoulDuke504
quote:
Declining birth rates are a problem all over the globe. This is the most extreme measure to combat that.
I can think of several measures that would be much more "extreme"
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:17 pm to RaoulDuke504
So why wouldn't all businesses in Hugary be trasfered to under 30 year old women so as to avoid income tax? And is that not anti male/sexist?
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:18 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
No, the world is overpopulated. White, brown, or blue
There is no evidence of this, as in none, zero, zilch, nada, zip, null set, etc.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:22 pm to RaoulDuke504
Bill Gates is not happy.
Posted on 3/17/25 at 5:26 pm to deltaland
Family member had to adopt with her husband after a few years of trying, but then had twins. Keep trying.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 2:59 pm to DesScorp
quote:
The answer is simple. Quit pushing girls to have men’s lives instead of being wives and mothers.
People will downvote this but the whole push to get women working had less to do with feminism and more about increasing GDP.
Now we are all living paycheck to paycheck and GDP growth is only fueled through debt.
And our population is shrinking as we get older. It’s gonna be a mess soon.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 3:05 pm to RaoulDuke504
This is going to increase taxes for men, either in the form of either higher income taxes for men or higher sales taxes for everybody.
Especially the lifelong exemption for 2 kids. My God, as far as I can tell, the woman could give both of her kids up for adoption immediately after they're born, and not miss a day of work from having to raise kids, and she'd still get this income tax exemption for the rest of her life.
Especially the lifelong exemption for 2 kids. My God, as far as I can tell, the woman could give both of her kids up for adoption immediately after they're born, and not miss a day of work from having to raise kids, and she'd still get this income tax exemption for the rest of her life.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 3:09 pm to Missouri Waltz
The replacement rate is actually something like 2.05 kids per person. It's slightly higher than 2 kids per person due to a slight majority of kids being boys.
However, considering that the world population didn't reach 1 billion until 1804, I think that people are oddly concerned about a population decline. The problem is moreso that the dumbest people seem to be having the most kids, not a population decline per se.
However, considering that the world population didn't reach 1 billion until 1804, I think that people are oddly concerned about a population decline. The problem is moreso that the dumbest people seem to be having the most kids, not a population decline per se.
Posted on 3/18/25 at 4:24 pm to RaoulDuke504
Probably already said, but all this will likely do is lead to dads being the ones staying at home raising the kids and moms being the major breadwinners for the family.
That said, any incentive that works by reducing the amount of money taken by the govt is one I'm in favor of.
That said, any incentive that works by reducing the amount of money taken by the govt is one I'm in favor of.
This post was edited on 3/18/25 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 3/18/25 at 4:27 pm to RaoulDuke504
Nice Idea, I have no problem with parents getting breaks concerning children who would is the better question.
The World needs more blue eyed blond children.
The World needs more blue eyed blond children.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News