Exactly, pragmatic and effective while preserving Japanese culture. I would add qualifications that the family must be a nuclear family that is otherwise not on public assistance. Just give them huge tax breaks for having 4+ kids. The trend would reverse in 9 months.

I disagree about the public assistance part especially for a country like Japan.

I'm not sure if anyone cares about this anymore, but ethnically Japanese people will become nearly extinct if they don't make some radical changes. They should massively incentivize people - even financially poor Japanese - to have kids. Just because someone has a career in e.g. a Japanese bank moving spreadsheets around doesn't mean they should be favored.

> Just give them huge tax breaks for having 4+ kids. The trend would reverse in 9 months.

Hungary has already tried this and it doesn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_policy_in_Hungary

> "The Second Orbán Government made saving the nation from the demographic abyss a key aspect and therefore has introduced generous breaks for large families and greatly increased social benefits for all families. Those with three or more children pay virtually no taxes."

S.Korea is trying regular cash payouts: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/12/south-korea-splashe...

Evidently much more is required. Or it could be that the problem isn't solely financial. In heavily urbanized countries, most people apparently prefer easy modern entertainments to the rigors and stresses of parenting.

Those amounts are pitiful, S Korea is giving a total of $10k to have a kid? Even a $100k would barely scratch the surface in a high COL area where a partner is dropping a six figure salary or paying $40k/yr for daycare.

If they’re serious then make the incentives serious, and scale.

A tax on not having kids.... That sounds dystopian as hell.

Well one problem is that from an individualistic perspective, it makes financial sense to have as few children as possible (all other concerns aside). There should be government policies such that it's more financially rational to have kids, especially since children are generally a net positive.

Perhaps there should be a tax that starts at age 19, and increases in percentage the longer you don't have children. I am also not sure if it's better to only tax women (since they are the ultimate gatekeepers) or men as well.

If you do have children, especially 2 or above, the government should pay you dividends in some form along with other benefits.

As in many countries with declining population, as the demographic pyramid is inversed, voting power is concentrated on the elder side.

Good luck passing any laws that put elderlies at a clear short term disadvantage ("the country will be better for it in 20~30 years" won't resonate much to a 70 yo couple)

So I was childless (not completely by choice) until the “happy accident” came along at 40. Part of it was waiting until we bought a house, because I’m Texan enough to have internalized that responsible people don’t have children before they own property (I don’t believe that for others, but I was never quite able to let it go for myself, much like my personal feelings about other social issues)

Punitive taxes on the childless would just ensure that the ones waiting for prudential reasons (savings, home ownership) would be even less likely to take the plunge.

As a man, I'm not capable of having children, so that seems a bit unfair.