Specifically in the us there are incentives for children on individual taxes. They aren’t huge, but they are direct from the government as a “child tax credit”
If your employer decided to they could also give you “incentives”. This is not disallowed.
But when/if the government gives incentives to companies to do the exact same thing that the government should be doing itself… means the government really just wants to pay the company, and not actually incentivise the people to have children.
It’s not an argument, it’s what is. Any incentive is still an incentive. The amount just reflects what value they put to said incentive.
Now imagine they repealed that tax credit, and replaced it with corporate incentives to do the same thing. In this hypothetical, do you think the parents would actually get the same amount of benefit, or less?
So it’s the amount you care about, not the method of the incentive.
The original comment is about the method of the incentive, and pointing out that even though the us incentive doesn’t have the same value as other countries, the method is at least not directly giving that incentive to corporations, hoping they’ll “do the right thing”(hint, they won’t)
Don’t we have the same system in the US?
This us pretty standard system across “west”
Specifically in the us there are incentives for children on individual taxes. They aren’t huge, but they are direct from the government as a “child tax credit”
If your employer decided to they could also give you “incentives”. This is not disallowed.
But when/if the government gives incentives to companies to do the exact same thing that the government should be doing itself… means the government really just wants to pay the company, and not actually incentivise the people to have children.
You mean 2k per year in child tax credit for some eligibale parents…
Don’t spoil me so much daddy Sam!!!
That covers like one month of day care lol
I can’t tell if you making a good faith argument here tbh
It’s not an argument, it’s what is. Any incentive is still an incentive. The amount just reflects what value they put to said incentive.
Now imagine they repealed that tax credit, and replaced it with corporate incentives to do the same thing. In this hypothetical, do you think the parents would actually get the same amount of benefit, or less?
Thank you daddy Sam for allowing peasants to keep 2k of their money to have a child
Aren’t you the one who claimed I wasn’t making a good faith argument?
It seems your only argument is “$2000/yr bad!!!” Care to elaborate on that?
Korea provides more cash than that… Payments from 150 to 750 USD per month depending on age/situation.
US social policy is clown even vis a vis degeneracy like Korea. Don’t get me start on health care.
So I am not sure what your original point about the US giving child tax credit was for…
So it’s the amount you care about, not the method of the incentive.
The original comment is about the method of the incentive, and pointing out that even though the us incentive doesn’t have the same value as other countries, the method is at least not directly giving that incentive to corporations, hoping they’ll “do the right thing”(hint, they won’t)
Providing the incentive as tax credit inherently ties the benefit to employment, just not as much as the clown proposal in OP.
My understanding that base Korea benefit is done via direct transfer, which is the proper method for such things.