China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
-
China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
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
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
That's not going to work. Instead, it'll boost the abortion rate and cause a spike in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases.
(Attempts to force women into pregnancy by withholding contraception tend to fail horrifically—see also Romania in the 1970s and 1980s following Decree 770.)
-
China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
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
the Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
That's not going to work. Instead, it'll boost the abortion rate and cause a spike in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases.
(Attempts to force women into pregnancy by withholding contraception tend to fail horrifically—see also Romania in the 1970s and 1980s following Decree 770.)
@cstross I'm well aware of all the social & financial factors lowering birth rates around the world. But I also think a significant number of young people feel the world was a better place when there were "only" 3 billion of us.
-
@cstross I'm well aware of all the social & financial factors lowering birth rates around the world. But I also think a significant number of young people feel the world was a better place when there were "only" 3 billion of us.
@Nazani They're not wrong, *but* climbing down off this window ledge we stepped out of will be a challenge. Especially with 0.1% of the population owning 50% (or more) of the wealth. We badly need a more equitable wealth distribution or all but the 0.01% of us are going to end up working until we drop then dying in poverty.
-
@Nazani They're not wrong, *but* climbing down off this window ledge we stepped out of will be a challenge. Especially with 0.1% of the population owning 50% (or more) of the wealth. We badly need a more equitable wealth distribution or all but the 0.01% of us are going to end up working until we drop then dying in poverty.
-
J Jürgen Hubert shared this topic on
-
/ @LaNaehForaday @Nazani What country? Hint: the problem is global and can't be fixed within any single jurisdiction.
-
/ @LaNaehForaday @Nazani What country? Hint: the problem is global and can't be fixed within any single jurisdiction.
@cstross @LaNaehForaday We can do this the easy way with taxes or we can do it the hard way. From 2014, evergreen:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/ -
@cstross @LaNaehForaday We can do this the easy way with taxes or we can do it the hard way. From 2014, evergreen:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/@Nazani @cstross @LaNaehForaday wow, that was an eye-opener of a read. It’s a crying shame more of the 0.01% didn’t think like him and do something about it.
-
@Nazani @cstross @LaNaehForaday wow, that was an eye-opener of a read. It’s a crying shame more of the 0.01% didn’t think like him and do something about it.
@WiteWulf @Nazani @LaNaehForaday He's definitely not wrong, though. (I read it in 2014 when it was first published and one thing leaps out at me now, with 20/20 hindsight: I bet he sold McKenzie Scott on the idea, who he has almost certainly known for a long time via Jeff Bezos.)
-
@WiteWulf @Nazani @LaNaehForaday He's definitely not wrong, though. (I read it in 2014 when it was first published and one thing leaps out at me now, with 20/20 hindsight: I bet he sold McKenzie Scott on the idea, who he has almost certainly known for a long time via Jeff Bezos.)
@cstross @Nazani @LaNaehForaday yeah, but again, McKenzie Scott went about it the wrong way. They donate phenomenal amounts of their accrued wealth to charity, rather than paying better wages and not accruing it in the first place.
But by the same token, is higher wages for working and middle class workers better or worse than taxation of company profits being used to support low paid workers? I guess there’s a middle ground where both happens. I, obviously, am no Adam Smith
-
@cstross @Nazani @LaNaehForaday yeah, but again, McKenzie Scott went about it the wrong way. They donate phenomenal amounts of their accrued wealth to charity, rather than paying better wages and not accruing it in the first place.
But by the same token, is higher wages for working and middle class workers better or worse than taxation of company profits being used to support low paid workers? I guess there’s a middle ground where both happens. I, obviously, am no Adam Smith
@WiteWulf @Nazani @LaNaehForaday AIUI McKenzie Scott is rich because she pocketed a lot of AMZN shares during her divorce—but not a controlling interest, so she can't set employment policy.
