Hungary's new huge birth rate subsidies

[Internationalist Bastard]

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

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

Still does that balance out? Isn''t it, like in 100 thousands per kid

[Kowani]

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

Still does that balance out? Isn''t it, like in 100 thousands per kid

It’s Hungary, costs of living are lower.

[DACOROMANIA]

Hungary's new huge birth rate subsidies are good, these may work, but I don't think they will work as intended.
In Hungary still exist a form of a far-nationalism ideology which make them to feel superior themselves. While intended birth rates, there should be also proper education for a humanist society.
In fact these are policies started with effects mostly because of a "fear" of the afro-syrian immigrants.

Still does that balance out? Isn''t it, like in 100 thousands per kid

It’s Hungary, costs of living are lower.

Not so lower, because they're trying stand out of East Europe economy zone (even if they attempt to control parts of).

[Yusseria]

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?

It's far more justifiable if you're actually a citizen, yes.

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.

I'd rather having that over poorer, already-adult immigrants never making those contributions back.

Also, raising kids is easy? You serious?

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.

It's not whataboutism. It's you being a hypocrite.

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.

You're the one arguing against it. The duty of proving points falls upon you, friendo.

Learn how debate works.

[Costa Fierro]

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

Considering we're betting the future of society on raising kids that cost resources we simply don't have because the future might result in a smaller tax pool? That's incredibly short sighted.

[Costa Fierro]

It's far more justifiable if you're actually a citizen, yes.

How is it more justifiable? If you sponge off the welfare system, i.e you are physically and mentally capable of working and chose not to, you are a drain on the taxpayer. That in of itself is not justifiable. It doesn't matter what genitalia you have or what skin colour you have, no one should be living off the government if they're capable of working and paying back into that system.

I'd rather having that over poorer, already-adult immigrants never making those contributions back.

You already have half the fucking population never making those contributions back. That's the point I was making. This isn't an improvement on migrants, assuming of course migrants are welfare dependents.

Let me break it down for you so you can understand this better. You are still arguing for people who are already not contributing back into the tax system to be given more taxpayer money for having children with no hope of seeing that investment returned, yet criticise migrants for (allegedly) doing the same thing. How is that better? How is that an improvement? What benefits will this have?

Also, raising kids is easy? You serious?

Of course it is. There's plenty of people out there whom I wouldn't trust to be responsible with a box of crayons managing to raise a child and not completely fuck it up.

It's not whataboutism. It's you being a hypocrite.

It is whataboutism. You're standing there saying "well what about mass migration" without actually challenging or addressing the points I am making.

Learn how debate works.

That's something you need to do.

[Costa Fierro]

Still does that balance out? Isn''t it, like in 100 thousands per kid

It’s Hungary, costs of living are lower.

Hungarians also do not earn as much, so the cost of living is proportionate to how wealthy the country is. It's why very wealthy countries like Switzerland are notoriously expensive to live in.

[Novus America]

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

Considering we're betting the future of society on raising kids that cost resources we simply don't have because the future might result in a smaller tax pool? That's incredibly short sighted.

The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.

Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.

[Costa Fierro]

Considering we're betting the future of society on raising kids that cost resources we simply don't have because the future might result in a smaller tax pool? That's incredibly short sighted.

The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.

Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.

We don't have the resources. Currently we're using 125% of the Earth's capacity. Adding more people is not a good idea.

[Darussalam]

Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.

I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.

No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".

This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.

[Byzconia]

Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.

I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.

No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".

This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.

So, eugenics, basically?

[Kowani]

The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.

Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.

We don't have the resources. Currently we're using 125% of the Earth's capacity. Adding more people is not a good idea.

You forget/underestimate the power of technology to reduce the amount of resources used.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Seems like a reasonable response to a real population problem. Curious though. Much of the centre-right (or at least the sons of Thatcher and Reagan who enjoy LARPing as conservatives) have been moral panicking for decades about poors having more children than they can afford without the help of daddy state. That's often taken the form of cutting and capping child benefits after a certain amount of children.

I wonder if they'll do a wholesale reversal on this or will try to hold two entirely incompatible viewpoints simultaneously and make contradictory and self-defeating provisions? Haha, joke, they're politicians. We all know it's the latter.

No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".

This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.

Weirdly specific and small-scale diversion, but I don't have a Roma-specific policy because in the country I live in they've largely been supplanted by the Irish travellers. I would support pro-integration polices to try to make all wandering groups part of mainstream society and an end to giving them liberties to stretch and outright break the law that they currently enjoy under pro-multicultural and pro-diversity policy.

That aside, the idea of continuing to discourage the domestic working-class from having children while paying the middle class to have them is fairly incoherent as a "natalist" policy because you're trying to financially incentivise only those who already have enough money to have more children than they're currently having but have chosen not to. If the working-class majority have fewer children and the middle class minority have marginally more (which is all that could realistically be achieved), the birthrate goes down and you'll eventually require large-scale immigration.

My point is that there's no "Goldilocks Zone" where you can balance these contradictory impulses, the numbers don't add up. It's fantasy politics.

[Costa Fierro]

So, eugenics, basically?

No, eugenics would be actually sterilizing people of a certain race or ethnicity. This is social engineering.

[Costa Fierro]

You forget/underestimate the power of technology to reduce the amount of resources used.

I'm not underestimating the power of technology. Rather I am aware of the slow progress society makes when we don't have that much time left and to argue that more people need to be born is just pouring gasoline on an already out of control fire.

That aside, the idea of continuing to discourage the domestic working-class from having children while paying the middle class to have them is fairly incoherent as a "natalist" policy because you're trying to financially incentivise only those who already have enough money to have more children than they're currently having but have chosen not to.

That's what humours me the most. I may not phrase it in an manner in keeping with polite conversation, but there's not much to be achieved by replacing one alleged group of people dependent on welfare with another purely because one group has desired physical traits or is of a specific ethnic group.

It's funny to watch people who criticise foreigners of exploiting a country's welfare system suddenly do a 180 when it's their own ethnic group being promoted to pump out more kids for that sweet, sweet welfare cheque.

[Darussalam]

No doubt you think people who oppose subsidizing Roma families (who have far above replacement fertility rate) are "LARPing as conservatives".

This is the main problem of the indiscriminate natalist policy, yes. I'm sure many right-wing Europeans will be on board with the idea if they could find a way to exclude Roma families (who are generally larger than Europeans) from benefits. Like it or not, disproportionate population growth among the lower class does present a problem. Honestly, it makes as much sense as open border (and indeed grounded on broadly similar logic), funny that people who shill for it tend to stand on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Natalism targeted for high-income or highly educated people is probably more ideal.

Weirdly specific and small-scale diversion, but I don't have a Roma-specific policy because in the country I live in they've largely been supplanted by the Irish travellers. I would support pro-integration polices to try to make all wandering groups part of mainstream society and an end to giving them liberties to stretch and outright break the law that they currently enjoy under pro-multicultural and pro-diversity policy.

That aside, the idea of continuing to discourage the domestic working-class from having children while paying the middle class to have them is fairly incoherent as a "natalist" policy because you're trying to financially incentivise only those who already have enough money to have more children than they're currently having but have chosen not to. If the working-class majority have fewer children and the middle class minority have marginally more (which is all that could realistically be achieved), the birthrate goes down and you'll eventually require large-scale immigration.

My point is that there's no "Goldilocks Zone" where you can balance these contradictory impulses, the numbers don't add up. It's fantasy politics.

Working class growth has approximately similar effect as large-scale immigration - perhaps the only difference is that present governments tend to intensify negative effects of the latter in the name of diversity politics, but for all intents and purposes they are the same thing.

Hence "progressive" cash transfer is a decent but not exactly sustainable way to promote national population growth. It's a better way to spend money than recklessly destructive welfare state that incentivizes poverty, but in the long term it's not much better either. You need taxpayers to sustain them, and income has strong hereditary correlate - there will be a time where the income pool is exhausted, and you're left with the children of the working class, but at least muh blood and soil amirite, at least the mob is the same race instead of blacks!

In general even without childbearing incentives the wealthy tend to have less children than the poor in the present era, which is indeed quite a problem. I suspect most of it has to do with public education, which indeed correlates with fertility reduction even in poorer societies (i.e Kerala, African countries) and its associated credential inflation. Education has no effect beyond signaling and status increase, so it's reasonable that educated individuals would overrate the need of education more than it's worth, more so than less educated ones.

[Byzconia]

So, eugenics, basically?

No, eugenics would be actually sterilizing people of a certain race or ethnicity. This is social engineering.

That's not what the word "eugenics" means. This wouldn't really qualify as "social engineering" either--that usually refers to attempts to forcibly mold all of society in a specific way (see: New Soviet man for an example). They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but the way you're using them is inaccurate.

[Tasuirin]

What a strange policy. That's all I can really say on this. Even if they don't want immigrants, the idea of trying to bring up the population by offering tax concessions is just strange.

[Darussalam]

No, eugenics would be actually sterilizing people of a certain race or ethnicity. This is social engineering.

That's not what the word "eugenics" means. This wouldn't really qualify as "social engineering" either--that usually refers to attempts to forcibly mold all of society in a specific way (see: New Soviet man for an example). They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but the way you're using them is inaccurate.

Sir Francis Galton, the father of modern eugenics, might agree with you:

5. [the 5th aim] Persistence in setting forth the national importance of eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through: (I) It must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as a fact. (2) It must be recognized as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration. (3) It must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet of the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races. What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction. The improvement of our stock seems to me one of the highest objects that we can reasonably attempt. We are ignorant of the ultimate destinies of humanity, but feel perfectly sure that it is as noble a work to raise its level, in the sense already explained, as it would be disgraceful to abase it. I see no impossibility in eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind, but its details must first be worked out sedulously in the study. Overzeal leading to hasty action would do harm, by holding out expectations of a near golden age, which will certainly be falsified and cause the science to be discredited. The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of eugenics as a hopeful and most important study. Then let its principles work into the heart of the nation, which will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly foresee.

I don't care it's called whatever, really. There is a highly racialized tint to eugenics narrative because in multiracial societies, there are races who are disproportionately represented in certain classes. But human differences are also about classes, not only races.

[The Huskar Social Union]

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.

Go back to 1945 then.

[Novus America]

The future WILL result in a smaller tax pool. That is a given.
And we do have the resources.

Ensuring the survival of our economy is a good use of resources.

We don't have the resources. Currently we're using 125% of the Earth's capacity. Adding more people is not a good idea.

We do have the resources, we just need to use them better.
Besides underpopulation, not over population is the threat the West is phasing.
Our countries are dying out.

Maybe you do not care if the West ceases to exist because nobody is left.
But most people do.

Besides a small birthrate increase in a few Western countries will not offset the collapse of East Asia anyways.

Besides these policies still will not bring our birth rates above replacement, simply slow the rate of decline a little.

[Costa Fierro]

Besides underpopulation, not over population is the threat the West is phasing.

A population reduction would be beneficial for a multitude of reasons.

Besides these policies still will not bring our birth rates above replacement, simply slow the rate of decline a little.

The problem is that these policies take years for any effects to be felt, and those effects will be minimal. Meanwhile all these credits and loans have to be financed.

[Novus America]

Besides underpopulation, not over population is the threat the West is phasing.

A population reduction would be beneficial for a multitude of reasons.

Besides these policies still will not bring our birth rates above replacement, simply slow the rate of decline a little.

The problem is that these policies take years for any effects to be felt, and those effects will be minimal. Meanwhile all these credits and loans have to be financed.

A population reduction is going to happen regardless.
But if it is too rapid it will cause economic collapse.

Besides we are not talking a small reduction.
We are talking entire countries disappearing.
Which your misanthropic arguments support but not everyone hates humans to the same degree.
Some of us want humanity to survive.

Yes it will take time to pay back, a long term investment is not a bad investment just because it is long term.

It is okay to think about the long term future of humanity and not just getting a short term tax cut (declining population means ever increasing taxes per person long term).

When you can never retire, and face ever increasing taxes as you work to death at 80 with no puplic services maybe you will think differently.
But some of us would rather make sacrifices now to reduce our suffering later.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I suspect that this is something cooked up by someone or someone’s in the Hungarian government who are deathly afraid of a potential demographic change.

[Novus America]

I suspect that this is something cooked up by someone or someone’s in the Hungarian government who are deathly afraid of a potential demographic change.

The demographic change is one aspect of it, but legitimate economic concerns are another.

Over reliance on immigration, especially for a place like Hungary (which is not a particularly in demand destination) has its problems as well, especially as many countries supplying immigrants are facing plunging birth rates as well.

For example many people in the US might say immigration from Mexico can offset our low birthrate, but Mexico’s birthrate is only slight higher and falling faster.