There should be an auction system for women to accept bids from the government to have kids. Might not get the type of parents society wants though.
Or remove old age benefits, and make it so you might only get them directly from your kids if the kids are willing to support you. That would put long term consequences more into view and link costs and benefits.
> There should be an auction system for women to accept bids from the government to have kids. Might not get the type of parents society wants though.
I always thought this was closer to fair.
If (expected cost of child) >> (expected benefits for having child), are we really surprised that a lot of people decide not to?
If you want to look at the results when that changes to == or <, look at lower income families, where the US incentives are higher (additional low income-qualified programs + absolute tax breaks are more valuable) and child costs lower (greater use of public education and facilities).
But... given the nature of a free market, I expect adjusting the benefits for higher-income people would be cost-prohibitive.
In countries with solidary pension systems you can surely bind retirement benefits to number of children.
The issue being, they try to avoid paying more than the bare minimum anyway and if you pay less, that means dead old homeless people on the street. Would be a great advertisement to having children, thoug.
In my coutry, most people under 45 (who could actually bear children) doubt they will see any retirement ever. Of course that affects their desire for procreation as well.
But!
Turns out it doesn't work. At all.