• Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I was imagining that in terms of tax breaks. The reason being you’re pay is not tied to the number of your children. If we say minimum wage is enough to cover 2 children, then people have a financial incentive and advantage if they don’t have children. Compare that to minimum wage addresses Mainly your own costs with tax breaks and credits helping to cover child costs.

    • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      So? Who cares if people have a financial incentive to not have kids. That have that advantage now, too.

      Why is it a bad thing to pay people enough for two kids even if they choose not to have them? And why should taxes be paying for this shit when companies make plenty of money to cover the lot of it? That’s just silly.