It appears Socialist Finland may have woken up.

[Jumi]

I said both partners working not two jobs. You ignored the costs of food, the increased expenses, increases housing costs, increased clothing costs, etc.

Yes. You can have just one parent working and do fine.

I am Canadian.

Ok.

Wrong as the decline in birthrates match the changes in family finances including income taxes.

Family finances sounds more reasonable then taxes. You know Russia has low birth rates and low taxes. There are lots of countries with poor finances and high birth rates. I'm not seeing the "wrong"

Luxuries? This is babble as the cost of children isn't a luxury product nor needs such products.

Lots of culture is about having luxury products like iphones and the yearly Thailand vacations. If you can skip those then raising children in my country has no obstacles moneywise. You could have a stay-at-home mom or dad.

Pot meet kettle. Yawn

I haven't asked you to convince yourself of my views by looking around randomly...

You provided no reasons until this post. You babbled before that

Not much substance to reply to either, just statements with no backup.

Canada? Yes as uneducated people do not get paid 40k a year for no reason.

Ok. I know life is tougher there than here. So you see 40K as subsistence level in your country? I've lived quite well as a student on much, much less (if updated to today's inflation)

Canada's is lower than Finland

Ok, was talking about the US as you probably guessed. Canada's birthrate is 1.6 which is lower than Finnish 1.75. The US is 1.86 with lower taxes. Russia is 1.6 with even lower taxes.

How many families having kids with both partners working?

I didn't see that statistic that includes men, but last stat I have is 70% of women with children working as opposed to 85% of women without children. Seems about European average, regardless of taxes.

 

[Revoltingest]

The US is 1.86 with lower taxes.

Some time ago, @Wirey & I compared our tax burdens.
They weren't noticeably different. But impressions of great
differences arise in how we're each taxed.
One must look at the large picture....fed income tax, state
income tax (or province), city income tax, sales tax, real
estate tax, personal property tax, capital gains tax, etc.

Of course, we each get different services from our governments
for the taxes we pay. He gets free brain surgery. I get to watch
Ameristan attack all sorts of foreign countries.
He might have the better deal, eh.

 

[Jumi]

Some time ago, @Wirey & I compared our tax burdens.
They weren't noticeably different. But impressions of great
differences arise in how we're each taxed.
One must look at the large picture....fed income tax, state
income tax (or province), city income tax, sales tax, real
estate tax, personal property tax, capital gains tax, etc.

Yep, makes sense. Did you compare deducting services from that?

I save a pretty penny by not belonging to the state church which has ~1.70% tax on all members...

Another interesting thing in nordic countries is that lot's of people here voluntarily pay to labor unions to provide extra security. It's like an extra tax, but if you get unemployed you can get higher benefits from the labor union's fund... I would like to see universal income replace the bureaucracy. We could to raise the current "welfare" then by 50% and still save money. Perhaps less labor union power also...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Population decline is connected to the welfare state and the taxes required for it.

So do you want to keep ignoring the issue? We are consistently living longer because of advances in medicine. Many places, regardless of their economy and status of welfare they offer, are having to deal with an aging population. Japan might have it worse than any other country. But also America's population is aging, and action is required. As it is in Canada. And Finland. As is the case in Italy, France, Germany, and the UK will soon have a "super aging" population. And even Portugal and Romania are seeing their population aging.
So, what, get rid of the welfare state and get rid of an aging population? Will it somehow stop people from aging?

 

[Shad]

So do you want to keep ignoring the issue? We are consistently living longer because of advances in medicine. Many places, regardless of their economy and status of welfare they offer, are having to deal with an aging population. Japan might have it worse than any other country. But also America's population is aging, and action is required. As it is in Canada. And Finland. As is the case in Italy, France, Germany, and the UK will soon have a "super aging" population. And even Portugal and Romania are seeing their population aging.

Cut taxes so people can afford to have more children

So, what, get rid of the welfare state and get rid of an aging population? Will it somehow stop people from aging?

No lower taxes as an incentive to reproduce more often.