Hungary's new huge birth rate subsidies

[The Great-German Empire]

Independence from what?

Whatever. Foreign pressure is definitely easier to deal with when your population isn't withering away; even if for a small country like Hungary it's still a pipe dream to not be influenced. What's more, in the face of the most recent geopolitical confrontations, the West is undermanned. It needs to stop being eclipsed by every other civilization - all of which now have free access to most of Western technology - in those terms.

[NERVUN]

How hard did your dad beat you edge lord.

Nice bit of flamebaiting. Knock it off, right now.

[Novus America]

Unless people have children there will be nobody to support you when you get old.

Your children will not give a fuck about you when you're old. If anything you'll be an inconvenience to them so they'll biff you into a rest home, assuming of course you're not casually wheeled into a hospital room and euthanised so that the fruit of your loins claims their inheritance earlier.

Long term a child is going to pay more in taxes than the parents were paid in subsidies.

Only if the child is male.

Unless something is done there will be a deflationary spiral and economic collapse when there are more propels retired and unable to work because of age than workers.

That is going to happen regardless of how many children are born. There's no point going on about the economic argument if you have children that will never have a job thanks to automation.

I am not talking about your own children.
I am talking about collapsing pension systems, nobody paying taxes for roads, police, etc.

The Luddite fallacy is still a fallacy BTW.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717 ... e-fallacy/

Relying on robots that do not and may not exist is not a good strategy.
Besides the economic crisis will hit long before technology reaches a point we no longer need people to do any jobs.

If we actually reach a point, if ever where robots taking all jerbs actually happens we can reconsider or end these policies. Until then we absolutely should not bet our entire future on something not likely to happen soon enough to save us.

Besides Moore’s law is already ending, computing power growth slowly.
We will probably see computers reach technological maturity soon.

[Yusseria]

The irony here is that you could say roughly the same thing about pro-mass immigration types.

Immigration has benefits. Pumping out more kids without any kind of thought as to who raises them or the quality of life they would have doesn't benefit anyone.

More to the point, having half the population that already is a net consumer of taxpayer money consume even more money from a dwindling tax base on the false pretense that natalist policies would increase said base is complete and utter idiocy. History has shown us that said policies don't work, which is ironic given that one of the greatest criticisms of welfare systems by right-wing nationalists is their exploitation by foreigners.

Having more children keeps society going. The vast majority of immigrants are poor. They sponge off the welfare system and taxpayers are expected to pay for them. They breed poverty. They live in poverty. You don't think about the quality of life they have. You just want more people. They consume even more money from a dwindling tax base. And of course there are illegal immigrants who work for pennies and get treated like shit but we're supposed to be okay with it because "hurr hurr who will pick the lettuce". You certainly don't care about their quality of life. You just want cheaper fruits and vegetables.

[Costa Fierro]

I am talking about collapsing pension systems, nobody paying taxes for roads, police, etc.

Pensions will likely be made redundant given life expectancy is increasing exponentially.

Besides the economic crisis will hit long before technology reaches a point we no longer need people to do any jobs.

Unlikely.

If we actually reach a point, if ever where robots taking all jerbs actually happens we can reconsider or end these policies. Until then we absolutely should not bet our entire future on something not likely to happen soon enough to save us.

We'll reach the point where automation renders have the workforce redundant before we reach a demographic crisis.

[Saiwania]

Why? You'd need to have children to get these "benefits". More to the point, what's to stop women having more than four kids to more than one father? The problem with natalists like you is that you don't think about the quality of life for the child, just pumping more of them out and forcing half the population to work harder and pay more for nothing that directly benefits them.

I say "boo hoo" with regards to the "quality of life" for the child. The fact is that this would all be relative anyways. The majority of people did just fine before there were ever modern economic systems or living conditions. The human race survived before there was ever capitalism and it can survive beyond capitalism provided civilization doesn't collapse. The fact that there is superior technology and that there exists more wealthy people than in all of recorded history, is sufficient enough progress.

So far as people having too many children is concerned, I'd empower the state to be able to sterilize certain people by force such as what the PRC allegedly did to enforce their "one child policy" in certain years.

The state shouldn't be paying for the retirement of old people in my view, if the old people can simply become apart of extended families (where they can live rent free) or if the old people can use their 401K or retirement savings to fund their existence. If they don't have enough money, maybe they just can't retire and have to keep working- this is just too bad. Private businesses and corporations stopped paying pensions because they realized that it doesn't make any financial sense to keep subsidizing the lives of people whom are no longer producing anything for that business and aren't still on that company's payroll. That is the harsh truth of the matter.

[Costa Fierro]

Having more children keeps society going.

Having children perpetuates the current issues that we have as a species. They can't be solved by simply pumping out more kids when said kids are the problem.

The vast majority of immigrants are poor.

So what exactly is wrong with helping those in poverty, hmm?

They sponge off the welfare system and taxpayers are expected to pay for them. They breed poverty. They live in poverty.

And how is paying women to live at home and pump out kids any different? After all, the mother obviously won't be expected to work when she has four, five, six, or more children to look after. And given that women as a group are already net consumers of taxpayer money through existing government assistance for children, how is this any different to immigrants who you claim to sponge off the welfare system?

All these natalist policies are designed to do is replace one class of impoverished welfare dependents with another, if we're making the assumption all most immigrants do when they arrive in a new country is immediately go onto welfare and not contribute anything. There's no progress, no difference. The only thing that changes is the skin colour of the dependents.

You don't think about the quality of life they have. You just want more people.

Again, how is having more kids any different?

They consume even more money from a dwindling tax base.

Again, how is having more kids any different?

And of course there are illegal immigrants who work for pennies and get treated like shit but we're supposed to be okay with it because "hurr hurr who will pick the lettuce". You certainly don't care about their quality of life. You just want cheaper fruits and vegetables.

So we've gone from making an argument that doesn't demonstrate how these programs will benefit countries with low birth rates to something completely disingenuous.

[Costa Fierro]

I say "boo hoo" with regards to the "quality of life" for the child.

Seeing as you've basically said children don't matter, I'm going to disregard the rest of your post as largely being one steaming pile of shit.

[Diopolis]

That's good. I'd like to see how well they work before I pass any other judgements though.

[Saiwania]

Seeing as you've basically said children don't matter, I'm going to disregard the rest of your post as largely being one steaming pile of shit.

Children matter for achieving certain national objectives and ends in my view. But the personal wants/needs of children, not so much. It is up to them to make the best of their situation or take their life towards the direction that they want, provided it is not diametrically opposed to the state.

[Costa Fierro]

Children matter for achieving certain national objectives and ends in my view. But the personal wants/needs of children, not so much. It is up to them to make the best of their situation or take their life towards the direction that they want, provided it is not diametrically opposed to the state.

So what exactly is the point of having children if their well being and welfare is not secured?

[Yusseria]

Having more children keeps society going.

Having children perpetuates the current issues that we have as a species. They can't be solved by simply pumping out more kids when said kids are the problem.

The vast majority of immigrants are poor.

So what exactly is wrong with helping those in poverty, hmm?

When they aren't even from this country yet come here to sponge off the system? Many things.

They sponge off the welfare system and taxpayers are expected to pay for them. They breed poverty. They live in poverty.

And how is paying women to live at home and pump out kids any different? After all, the mother obviously won't be expected to work when she has four, five, six, or more children to look after. And given that women as a group are already net consumers of taxpayer money through existing government assistance for children, how is this any different to immigrants who you claim to sponge off the welfare system?

All these natalist policies are designed to do is replace one class of impoverished welfare dependents with another, if we're making the assumption all most immigrants do when they arrive in a new country is immediately go onto welfare and not contribute anything. There's no progress, no difference. The only thing that changes is the skin colour of the dependents.

You are, of course, making the assumption that these kids will not contribute anything to society as they become older. That's flawed on many levels.

You don't think about the quality of life they have. You just want more people.

Again, how is having more kids any different?

How is mass immigration any different?

They consume even more money from a dwindling tax base.

Again, how is having more kids any different?

Again, how is mass immigration any different? I'm literally just repeating what you've said back to you. You're incapable of realizing how hypocritical you are. You lack self-awareness.

And of course there are illegal immigrants who work for pennies and get treated like shit but we're supposed to be okay with it because "hurr hurr who will pick the lettuce". You certainly don't care about their quality of life. You just want cheaper fruits and vegetables.

So we've gone from making an argument that doesn't demonstrate how these programs will benefit countries with low birth rates to something completely disingenuous.

How so? Because it makes you look bad?

[Costa Fierro]

When they aren't even from this country yet come here to sponge off the system? Many things.

Ah, so welfare dependency is OK as long as you're born in the country whose system you're sponging off?

You are, of course, making the assumption that these kids will not contribute anything to society as they become older. That's flawed on many levels.

It's not flawed when you consider that half of those kids won't contribute anything to society and it takes almost 35 years for the other half to make net contributions back. And don't sit there and tell me raising kids and doing housework is contributing to society because it's the easiest job that can be done.

How is mass immigration any different?

Ah, whataboutism.

Again, how is mass immigration any different? I'm literally just repeating what you've said back to you. You're incapable of realizing how hypocritical you are. You lack self-awareness.

More whataboutism.

How so? Because it makes you look bad?

It's a non-argument. Actually demonstrate what positive impacts this will have and how it is different to immigrants sponging off the system.

[Far Easter Republic]

I'm guessing some of the motivation for the incentives was to give a massive f*** you to the EU over the migrant crisis. But hey, kids are cute!

[Far Easter Republic]

Denmark runs "sexy" advertisements offering subsidized vacations for couples to romantic places (e.g. Paris) for the explicit purpose that they have will be having sex there and hopefully getting pregnant.

Does it work?

[Saiwania]

So what exactly is the point of having children if their well being and welfare is not secured?

In my mind, it is akin to a natural resource to be farmed or micromanaged as appropriate. It is the future human capital of the state, which should aspire to: one people, one nation, one leader.

[Costa Fierro]

Denmark runs "sexy" advertisements offering subsidized vacations for couples to romantic places (e.g. Paris) for the explicit purpose that they have will be having sex there and hopefully getting pregnant.

Does it work?

Probably not. If Germany can waste fifteen billion euro on benefits for couples to have children only to be given the collective middle finger by the German people, I doubt Denmark is going to achieve the same thing with ads getting people to have sex to save the country.

[Costa Fierro]

In my mind, it is akin to a natural resource to be farmed or micromanaged as appropriate. It is the future human capital of the state, which should aspire to: one people, one nation, one leader.

Because that worked out so well the first time.

[Far Easter Republic]

Does it work?

Probably not. If Germany can waste fifteen billion euro on benefits for couples to have children only to be given the collective middle finger by the German people, I doubt Denmark is going to achieve the same thing with ads getting people to have sex to save the country.

I think Denmark's main issue is the fact that the world's greatest parent foot killer came from there.

[Novus America]

I am talking about collapsing pension systems, nobody paying taxes for roads, police, etc.

Pensions will likely be made redundant given life expectancy is increasing exponentially.

Besides the economic crisis will hit long before technology reaches a point we no longer need people to do any jobs.

Unlikely.

If we actually reach a point, if ever where robots taking all jerbs actually happens we can reconsider or end these policies. Until then we absolutely should not bet our entire future on something not likely to happen soon enough to save us.

We'll reach the point where automation renders have the workforce redundant before we reach a demographic crisis.

Again Luddite fallacy and the end of Moore’s law.
Computer advances are slowly, we are reaching the maximum of what we can extract from the materials we have.

And betting the entire existence of our society on your claim?
With zero back up plan if you are wrong?
Hell no.

[Far Easter Republic]

Immigration has benefits. Pumping out more kids without any kind of thought as to who raises them or the quality of life they would have doesn't benefit anyone.

More to the point, having half the population that already is a net consumer of taxpayer money consume even more money from a dwindling tax base on the false pretense that natalist policies would increase said base is complete and utter idiocy. History has shown us that said policies don't work, which is ironic given that one of the greatest criticisms of welfare systems by right-wing nationalists is their exploitation by foreigners.

Having more children keeps society going. The vast majority of immigrants are poor. They sponge off the welfare system and taxpayers are expected to pay for them. They breed poverty. They live in poverty. You don't think about the quality of life they have. You just want more people. They consume even more money from a dwindling tax base. And of course there are illegal immigrants who work for pennies and get treated like shit but we're supposed to be okay with it because "hurr hurr who will pick the lettuce". You certainly don't care about their quality of life. You just want cheaper fruits and vegetables.

Well said.

[Novus America]

Denmark runs "sexy" advertisements offering subsidized vacations for couples to romantic places (e.g. Paris) for the explicit purpose that they have will be having sex there and hopefully getting pregnant.

Does it work?

Almost certainly not.
The reasons people do not have children have to do with things like high housing and childcare cost, work life balance and the like.

Silly gimmicks will not fix it.

[The South Falls]

I mean, fucking until you have 8 kids is so beneficial, I would if I were a Hungarian. As long as they can feed all those kids.

[Internationalist Bastard]

36 k for three kids? That sounds like not a lot

[The South Falls]

36 k for three kids? That sounds like not a lot

Plus no income tax if you've got another one.