Saiwania wrote:This is to be applauded in my view, but I suspect that it could be even more effective if abortion were to be made illegal and all if not more contraceptives were banished from the country on a temporary basis.
Making contraceptives illegal (and then outright banning abortion) didn't work for Chile. If anything it actually devastated the fertility rate.
I genuinely don't think anything will make pre-1970 birth rates come back. It's an era long gone with various factors that simply cannot be replicated, short of fundamentally decreasing quality of life.
Ifreann wrote:George Soros apparently has five children.
I don't think Soros has Hungarian citizenship. He was born prior to Hungary signing UN stateless convention treaties. I did find an article from 2003 claiming he got honorary citizenship though.
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:bonk my theoretical
lul
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:What is your opinion, OP?
A little too expensive for my tastes, and I don't think it's particularly good to be encouraging increased birth rates from the lowest stratas of society unless it goes hand in hand with paternalism, conscription and some serious investment into education and policing. All in all way too costly unless fundamentally trying to socially reengineer society. Then again, Russia has tried it, and it worked, but still not to replacement rate. Poland has tried it, and it's extremely expensive (and perhaps immoral given that it pretty much is high enough to replace a minimum wage job), and people would rightly question whether it is worth it for 0.1 increase in fertility rates which at best means an one million people fewer people lost by 2100.
But if it works, it works. This is certainly the biggest package of offers any government has ever given for children, so maybe. I mean, even if you're some kind of financial manager in the upper middle class, why wouldn't you have an extra two children just to effectively save one fifth of your entire income from the taxman?
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Trumptonium1 wrote:The incentives will not be available for non-Hungarian citizens, and Hungary also plans to make the application process for naturalisation more stringent so that immigrants do not abuse the system.
A clear and open violation of European Union law, which will lead to a fine payed by holding back some of the 4 billion euros Hungary receives every year.
I don't think Hungary cares about that to be honest. At the end of the day Hungary would still be in economic boom territory if the EU removed all funds.
Western Vale Confederacy wrote:That is of course implying that the Visegrad Four still remotely listens to the EU anyways.
Really it's more about 3SI now, given that Bulgaria and Croatia (and outside, Italy) have taken controversial turns recently and also been chased by EU Commission.
Valrifell wrote:I would ask why they don't just make their own union already so everyone can move on with their lives, but then I remember all that sweet monetary aid.
Indeed, turning your back on free money with no strings attached is pretty stupid. However it's losing value as it keeps becoming smaller with each budget cycle, as their currencies appreciate and as their economies grow faster than for the money to make a difference.
Dumb Ideologies wrote: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.
In the West-west? Unlikely, because generally natalist undertones either go hand in hand, or are accused of, xenophobia and anti-immigration stances, which isn't something the liberal Conservative Party can stomach. Also I believe that the Tories' hard-on for reducing the population of "the poors" is more important than decreasing the dependency ratio. Basically the Tory Party wants the middle class to fuck more but without bothering the government about it, so that there's more money around for pensions which is the budget golden goose for elections for them.
Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:Western Vale Confederacy wrote:That is of course implying that the Visegrad Four still remotely listens to the EU anyways.
Yeah... Poland caved by reinstating its supreme court after an ECJ ruling, and they still uphold the vast majority of EU laws. Every time the European Commission moves its hands to the money funnel, Visegrad caves.
This is entirely untrue. Poland didn't reinstate the supreme court, the new rules still apply, it was simply decided the laws cannot be 'grandfathered' per se and the current stock of supreme court judges will not have the new judicial reforms laws apply to them. Plus there's an election coming up and they want to keep their 45% as close to 45-50% as possible to continue running without a coalition, and having zero major conflicts is rather beneficial.
It's why the EU A7 case against Poland hasn't been revoked.
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:17 am