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

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

China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993.

The measure was buried in a VAT law passed in 2024 in an effort to modernise China’s tax regime. VAT accounts for nearly 40% of China’s total tax revenue.

  • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    12 hours ago

    The idea that people felt they have “comfortable income” to have 5 kids while working 6 days a week at a coal mine and living in a one bedroom apartment but can’t have kids today because they can’t put each one in separate room is just silly.

    Is it though? The standards are much higher now and there’s a lot more effort put into raising each child. That’s literally a standard people have now.

    A lot of people want to form a family. They want to have a kid or two.

    Isn’t this my original point? I didn’t say everyone wanted to have an entire litter. There are plenty of people who want to have a family without sacrificing opportunity.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
      1·
      11 hours ago

      Isn’t this my original point? I didn’t say everyone wanted to have an entire litter. There are plenty of people who want to have a family without sacrificing opportunity.

      Is it? Oh, I though you meant that people want to have as many kids as possible. If you mean people want to have one or two kids I can agree (I think this is societal need, not biological but it’s just my opinion). This is still way below replacement levels and just this need will not guarantee long term survival of society. So I guess we agree that natural needs of people will not solve demographic issues developed countries are facing.

      • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 hours ago

        I think then it would be a good question to ask why families with 1 or 2 kids why they don’t have more.

        I’d say the main reasons would be:

        1. Money: Even the most child friendly countries only cover a fraction of the cost of raising a child. As far as I’m aware, they might cover daycare, but that still leaves a ton of chores. And again, the standard might be you want to have a room per child, plus a guest room.
        2. Opportunity Cost: Taking leave will pause your career. Taking two years off in your 20s can really delay career growth, again leading to money issues down the line.
        3. Higher standards for marriage and stability: This might not be directly related to money, but maybe we can blame capitalism ruining everything including dating apps.

        So governments might be able to move the needle a bit with these families by providing extra support.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.netEnglish
          1·
          3 hours ago

          Makes sense. I guess that’s why the poorest people have the least children.

          Oh, wait:

          That’s why I was asking for a source. Your theories have no backing in reality. The truth is that people simply don’t want to have a lot of kids because it’s a chore. Society puts pressure on people to form a family by constant propaganda in popular media and by using peer pressure (once all your friends have kids all they do is stuff for kids. people without children are left out). My guess is poor people have more kids because they don’t have family planning education and resources to do it. Once you satisfy the societal need to form a family unit (usually by having one child) there’s no more pressure and people stop having children. I’m sure there are many people that would like to have one child by can’t afford it (or they think they can’t afford it) and government can help them but no matter what you do people will not go back to having 4 or 5 kids. There’s no “natural drive” to do it.

          • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            15 minutes ago

            $200k isn’t sufficiently rich:

            Do people you know just not like their kids? Parents generally really like their offspring.

            There’s definitely some biology involved. For example, women can forget the pain of childbirth.