From 1 January, contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – part of a carrot-and-stick approach by the government to increase births
China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.
From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993.
The measure was buried in a VAT law passed in 2024 in an effort to modernise China’s tax regime. VAT accounts for nearly 40% of China’s total tax revenue.
Humans have a natural drive to procreate (not just have sex), so if your population doesn’t want to have children, maybe look at what you’re doing to make them avoid this natural proclivity.
I’d argue the only real solution is a longer leave for both parents without affecting their careers. But it’s generally just not doable with their corporate culture.
Leaders of all “developed” nations need to look at this.
Birth rates are plummeting, and its not because of some religious children of men scenario or plastics in our sperm.
People just don’t want kids, and why would we? World is a shithole, everything costs too much and we are being constantly reminded that WW3 is just around the corner.
china has significantly worst, because of the one child policy, which heavily skewed the results as well. prefer male offspring over female ones, leading to massive imbalance, and its still be preferred.
Source?
The fact that there continue to be humans.
There continue to be atomic bombs. Do people have natural drive to build them?
I’m not even sure that comment really rises to the level of a counter arguement.
People have been around a lot longer than atomic bombs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4956347/
This is about protecting infants not about drive to procreation.
And how do we get these infants we love protecting?
This doesn’t say we have infants because we love protecting them. It says why we protect them once we have them. If you don’t understand this there’s really nothing to talk about. I will just assume there’s no proof for your first statement and it’s most probably false.
I’d argue the 8 billion people on this planet suggests it’s true.
In developing countries people have kids because it’s an investment. You need kids to help you work the fields, take care of the house and take care of you when you’re old. Infant mortality is high so family planning is difficult and people have a lot of kids. Once certain economical level is reached and people can count on social security to take care of them when they are old kids become an expense, not investment and, surprise surprise, people stop having kids. Almost universally in every developed country in the world birth rates are below replacement levels, even in countries with best social programs and highest life satisfaction. So no, it’s not true.
Have you considered that developing also means everyone is too busy focused on becoming a productive cog? There are much higher opportunity costs for women even with token benefits from the government. I’m saying that the benefits aren’t nearly enough since every developed country has to compete in the same rat race.
Look at birth rates by income, for those with a very comfortable income, the birth rate is higher.