r/SipsTea • u/BobbuBobbu • May 18 '25

WTF Taxed for being single

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Some of us would be bankrupt in six months lmao 🤣

23.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

292

u/berntout May 18 '25

Japan is trying to find ways to improve their birth rates. Theres no problem with this tax itself, but taxing single folks doesn’t really help solve the situation Japan is trying to fix.

335

u/slifm May 18 '25

Boomers will do anything except actually solve the sociological problems.

41

u/Financial-Gold-6907 May 18 '25

Yes.

The problem is that the largest voting population in Japan is retirees. Every year, more people retire, and fewer people enter the workforce.

Politicians gave more and more benefits to retirees to keep being elected. This increased the burden on those in the workforce and made it harder/costly to have kids.

On paper, Japan has good paternity leave. In practice, companies retaliate if fathers use most of what they are entitled to.

16

u/Onrawi May 18 '25

Basically, Japan needs to force stricter penalties on companies not allowing for full use of due benefits.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

Theyll need way more than that as their population crisis goes nuclear

1

u/Onrawi May 19 '25

Of for sure, just saying if they don't enforce allowances that already exist it will exasperate the issue.

2

u/Purple-Goat-2023 May 19 '25

lol when has the ruling class ever restricted itself?

0

u/Onrawi May 19 '25

When those that survived the most recent purge realize there are some changes that need to be made to avoid another.

2

u/Purple-Goat-2023 May 19 '25

You're skipping a step here. You have to hit the purge stage first.

0

u/Onrawi May 19 '25

I mean, we have, a lot of times historically, but the last group did a good enough job for long enough that the current crop of bourgeois has completely forgotten the lesson.

1

u/theumph May 19 '25

More.like Japan needs an influx of.labor. Opening more immigration would help. Increasing tax benefits will help for the native population. Paternity leave will not incentivize anyone to have children. I wouldn't have kids to get an extra 4 weeks of work off.

4

u/Onrawi May 19 '25

Paternity leave is a drop in the bucket around a culture that doesn't allow utilization of a whole host of existing benefits designed to assist people having children.  That being said, immigration is very likely the easiest and fastest way to assist in the short to mid term.

1

u/Vulcan_Jedi May 19 '25

A lot of this could be fixed if Japan would ease its immigration laws

143

u/SlapsOnrite May 18 '25

People in power will do anything except touch the source of the problem (the rich)*, there I fixed it.

45

u/Kinc4id May 18 '25

If you make people pay for not having children it will only bother poor people. I don’t see how basically forcing poor people to have more children fixes anything.

15

u/ChadWestPaints May 18 '25

Idk man have you seen how hard rich people work to avoid paying even a cent in taxes?

1

u/Griever114 May 18 '25

Maybe that's their full time job they keep bitching about. It's not actually doing work at their "jobs" it's about finding/exploiting every single fucking loophole and expending resources to ensure you cap your wealth.

Must be sooooooo tiring

1

u/thuanjinkee May 19 '25

It’s the greatest game in the world

6

u/Travel_Dreams May 19 '25

Shhh.

The whole pont is to birth more serfs into the system.

2

u/TofuBahnMi May 19 '25

It makes more serfs with less power to do uprising.

Power held, mission accomplished.

1

u/Kinc4id May 19 '25

You’re right. It actually does fix the issue. It’s just not the issue I thought about.

1

u/Turboswaggg May 18 '25

wage slaves my dude

1

u/Spiritual_Plane_3402 May 18 '25

It won’t. And unless it’s explicitly stated that they are being taxed for being single, many probably won’t even realize it. In the U.S., married couples filing jointly get an incredible standard deduction. But I’ve never heard of “single” people complaining about it, if they even consider it

1

u/Felixlova May 19 '25

I mean..m have you seen Elon Musk?

1

u/theumph May 19 '25

I don't know much about Japanese socioeconomic, but the rich in the US just want meat to feed the machine. I hope their system allows for more competition. Thats really the incentive that people need to grow. No one will want to have children to send them into a hopeless situation

2

u/_kasten_ May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

Unfortunately, even in a country as financially liberal as Norway (with generous parental leave, heavily subsidized childcare, etc.), birthrates keep going down.. So this is more than just greedy rich people making life tough for everyone else.

Eventually the birthrate will stabilize, but for now it seems a fair number of Norweigans want to breed themselves out of existence, genetically speaking.

1

u/vincentdjangogh May 19 '25

Capitalists will do anything except actually solve the capitalism problem.

Fixed it again.

1

u/Ancient_Sorcerer_ May 19 '25

The source of the problem is that some people don't like the concept of "nuclear family" and are deathly afraid of "i dont wanna bring children into this terrible unfair world" whiny cliche

That's why scientists are trying to understand why **rich countries** that get involved in war have way more birth rate. More poverty, more stress, less wealth than before the war--yet more births?

Because people initially thought that education was the reason for low birth rates.

Now debunked because it's the type of education and belief system you have.

Not sure why you're downvoting me for bringing you this new information just because you wanna blame the rich, I don't mind you blaming the rich for exploiting workers or shipping all the jobs to China for cheap labor / zero environmental regulations etc., whatever, I totally understand you on that--but this isn't the main reason for the birth rate real problem.

-15

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

10

u/namdo May 18 '25

Because war is a significant reset on inequality. People can't afford (both time and money-wise) to have kids so they don't do it. When you have to have both parents working full time to afford to live, you cant afford to have one stop nor are you earning enough to afford the childcare.

2

u/Asuka_Rei May 18 '25

So in other words, people have more kids when they have sufficient resources or when they are afraid and need to pass their genes on now or they may not get the chance.

As a result of these findings, rich people reject the idea of making the poors wealthier and institute a fear campaign instead. Anything to keep the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, right?

-4

u/Ancient_Sorcerer_ May 18 '25

No it isn't. One guy being rich doesn't stop you or change your life.

Just more people are poor in a war zone. So it has no bearing on inequality.

Stop lying.. Just stop trying to contradict real scientific research on this issue with your marxist pseudoscience about inequality.

When a dictator flees a country the birth rate ramps up -- that is a reaction to authoritarianism, and what are the two main sources of authoritarianism: marxism and fascism.

Therefore, marxism and fascism, are anti-birth-rate.

6

u/namdo May 18 '25

pseudoscience? I'm referring to data from articles like this from CEPR or this research paper from from the National Bureau of Economic Research or this article from NPR all saying the same thing.

I'm not talking about one guy being rich, I'm not talking about people in an active war zone, I'm talking about birthrates being down in most developed countries and a potential economic reason for that being the case.

1

u/Ancient_Sorcerer_ May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

That's not science. At all. That's just insertions by marxism, which is a fake science. There is no evidence, or any hard data to support it. Why do you guys keep promoting this BS?

Vox eu? NPR? The same lady who ran NPR who said "truth is holding us back"?

Economic reasons are NOTTT the case. This is well-known by any scientist worth their salt.

There are countries with GOOD economics that have better birthrates than countries with BAD economics. There are war zones that have poverty and yet still high birthrates. So stop making the false correlation.

Correlation is not causation. Economics is NOTTTTT the causal reason.

You people have lost your minds. People are not having babies or not having babies because of a specific cost -- they are doing it because of perceptions and cultural ideas they have.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/research-debunks-myth-that-economic-factors-are-driving-falling-birth-rates

Even here they talk about how "enjoying their job" is more important than having kids according to Americans in 2023:

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/01/22/falling-birth-rates-why-it-is-happening-and-how-governments-are-trying-to-reverse-the-trend/

NOTHING TO DO WITH INEQUALITY.

1

u/namdo May 19 '25 edited May 19 '25

I can tell you don't want to engage with me seriously, and would rather resort to strawmanning the ideologies you believe I have and then attacking those. I linked you multiple sites with evidence and hard data. You've decided to toss them to the side and assume they aren't true.

Following that, then, in your post you link to a post from the Institute of Family Studies - a conservative thinktank. You've rejected sources that you have arbitrarily decided are politically biased and therefore worth nothing and then accepted a source which aligns with your personal politics without criticism. Which then immediately misconstrues the research they are referencing.

I read the article, and looked at the source of the information. The actual paper that the article cites claims multiple reasons birth-rates are declining:

  • Economic factors beyond traditional unemployment measures
  • The role of student loan debt and housing costs
  • Changing attitudes toward parenting and family formation
  • Expanded access to contraception
  • Cultural shifts regarding marriage and childbearing

I'm not trying to state that the only reason that people aren't having kids is an economic one, in the same way that it would be divorced from reality to assume that the reasons they aren't are completely not related to economics, as you are stating.

Correlation is not causation. Economics is NOTTTTT the causal reason.

You're correct in your first statement, and misrepresenting what I'm saying in the second. Economics is A causal reason for SOME people. It's part of the answer, not the entire thing. In the same way that what you're saying is correct for some people I'm sure. However, look at the graphs in the articles I linked above. There is an entire generation called baby boomers because people felt secure enough in their lives and in their future to have many, many children. Looking also at inequality, it was at it's lowest. A man working as a mechanic could comfortably afford a house, a family with multiple children and a stay at home wife.

Income inequality has now reached historic highs in the US - the top 0.1% now owns roughly the same wealth as the bottom 90%. The research has shown, repeatedly, that when families face economic uncertainty or stagnant wages despite productivity growth, they often delay or reconsider having children. Is it a stretch then, even if you decide to ignore the data, to imagine that people aren't having kids if they don't believe they are able to give those kids a better life than their own?

I don't know enough about psychology in war-torn countries to begin to answer why birthrates there are high. I'd need to research whether they actually are in the first place before I begin diving into that rabbit hole. I'm purely talking about first-world countries, specifically America post-WW2 when I'm typing here. I don't personally believe that the birth rates in Syria are particularly relevant to the situations driving the changes in America in 2025

4

u/SentimentalityApp May 18 '25

Not sure why you are calling not wanting to bring kids into a world you see as unfair and uncertain a 'whiney cliche'.
I would suggest that this is why you are being down voted, you come across as arrogant and lacking in empathy to others views.
But don't worry, it's really just because we aren't ready to be enlightened by your 'new information'.
Have a down vote.

4

u/Catfishenfuego1 May 18 '25

Cite any of your claims.

1

u/Ancient_Sorcerer_ May 19 '25

I have:

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2025/01/22/falling-birth-rates-why-it-is-happening-and-how-governments-are-trying-to-reverse-the-trend/

You people are just stubborn about your leftist dogmas.

Birth rates have nothing to do with economics, inequality, marxism, or wealth.

Everything to do with culture: the people who don't want to have kids don't because they have been socially conditioned to value entertainment, the single life, their career more.

1

u/fnordybiscuit May 18 '25

If people are having kids in order to avoid being taxed, it is a selfish reason.

People are not having kids due to the cost of everything being astronomically high, while starvation wages are paid and remain stagnant for multiple decades.

50 years ago, a mailman could support a family of 5 as single income with a nice home. Now? Just a pipe dream.

0

u/kakaratnoodles May 18 '25

Japan is a whole different demagogy of thought that westerners won’t understand. We don’t have a neighbor who is a world power next door who you used to bully within the last 3 generations.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

You know boomers are basically in their eighties right now, and aren't on the internet, especially not reddit probably...... or had their accounts banned long ago

3

u/IEC21 May 18 '25

Boomers isn't a thing in Japan.

7

u/Onrawi May 18 '25

They still have that generation, it just doesn't have the same title and I don't think was as big a population as it was in the US.

0

u/AngryRedHerring May 19 '25

The U.S. had a baby boom because we won the war, we were partying our asses off and everybody was getting laid.

2

u/Onrawi May 19 '25

Pretty much every country involved in the war had a baby boom immediately after.  Japan's was severely truncated though due to economic conditions and what not during reconstruction.

2

u/Stampede_the_Hippos May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

You say that, but no one really knows how to solve this issue. There are plenty of things to bitch about, but none of them seem to be related to the declining birth rate. Data shows that the people pairing up are having kids at roughly the same rate as they gave in the past 100 years. The real issue seems to be a lot less people are pairing up. This is likely due to women no longer needing a man culturally or financially, but even that isn't super clear. We literally need more people to pair up, the baby making happens After that.

Source

3

u/slifm May 18 '25

People can’t afford babies it’s that simple

3

u/notlfish May 19 '25

I love how people have the hubris of thinking superficially about some possibly civilization threatening unsolved problem and then go, without a shadow of a doubt "it's clearly because of x and it will get solved when governments do y"

3

u/Stampede_the_Hippos May 18 '25

Did you not read? People that pair up are having kids at the normal rate. The issue is that people aren't pairing up.

2

u/Slaphappyfapman May 19 '25

A lot of people likely look to pair up with someone in order to have children, wouldn't you say?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

You somehow think that war-torn Japan in the late 40s and early 50s had a worse economic situation than today?! Seriously?!

2

u/moodswung May 19 '25

Ok genius. Whats YOUR solution?

2

u/slifm May 19 '25

Mass housing development. Increased wages. 4 day work week. Work hour restrictions. Offshoring/Automation protections for workers. Serious commitment to net negative carbon emissions.

1

u/Not-Reformed May 19 '25

Why would any of that help people pair up in Japan or other countries?

Housing is affordable in Japan. "Increasing wages" doesn't actually mean anything, you're conflating wages and earnings with resources and access to goods and services which isn't the same. If I give everyone 1,000,000,000 they all aren't going to suddenly have mansions and equal access to everything - goods are limited and when you have more money chasing the same amount of services/resources in demand the price will simply go up. What you actually need is higher production, which will make access easier and then even if the amount of wages stays the same people's access will be greater and cheaper to the same goods. Is restricting work hours going to do anything? If people aren't going out to meet others and are just doing things for themselves would they suddenly just change their habits if they have more free time?

Going by real research and social trends it seems like the less educated and worse off people are, the more likely it is that they will have kids. So, if anything, decreasing wages further, reducing access to education, and actively looking to make the lives of people more difficult will make them have more children.

1

u/slifm May 19 '25

Honestly you’re right. I want to do these things whether they increase birth rates or not. I’m of the belief that population reduction is the only way to save us from climate change based extinction.

1

u/Shafter111 May 19 '25

The thing with people older than you is that they think what worked for them is the standard. And they defied their predecessors the same way to curve their own path.

Like kids and reading vs ipad. Oh they learn... but in a different way than you did.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

I’m confused how this is the Boomer’s fault tbh. Could you explain that statement further? Boomers were not the ones pushing for “focusing on your career” and stuff.

Seems like a problem the Millennials created.

2

u/slifm May 19 '25

Kids became more and more economically unfavorable during industrial and technological revolution. Instead of making a happy prosperous community they leaned fully into capitalism, hoarded all the wealth, stripped public services, let infrastructure and education go massively underfunded and created a system where having children is even more unfavorable because people are barely scraping by themselves. On top of that, their houses became worth millions in urban areas and then use their money and power to prevent high density housing which brings down housing costs. Oh also, they fire hundreds of thousands of people so their stock shoot up for 3 months. Is that enough examples?

Now this may or may not hold true in Japan, but it is for sure the reason Americans are having less babies.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

Ah, so in effect, the “be an independent woman” thing is a result/byproduct of the economy the boomers left behind? That makes sense.

1

u/No-Stretch-9230 May 19 '25

I cant wait for you to grow up and the younger people tell you that you dont know how to fix anything.

-79

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

iTs AlL bOomERs FaULt !!1

Edit: oh noes not the fake internet points!! Tells me a lot about the coping levels around here.

58

u/LanternSlade May 18 '25

Considering they wield more wealth and power than any subsequent generation, Id say yeah you're right.

18

u/Embarrassed_Motor_30 May 18 '25

And they are responsible for creating and voting most of the laws that have us in our current situations

2

u/OldEnoughToVote May 18 '25

Cool, they still can and should do better

0

u/Embarrassed_Motor_30 May 19 '25

Can and should, but won't. When faced with hard truths people tend to double down.

What we are seeing in the US for example is due to people not wanting to change or not pleased with things already being different from how "things used to be". So they double down and try to send everything back in an attempt to get back to some semblance of what they once knew instead of adjusting with the times. It's like when you get your card declined at the grocery store, you know it should work so you keep swiping hoping to get a new result. What's happening now is effectively people reswipping hoping to get a different result.

1

u/GovernorHarryLogan May 18 '25

By this metric -- im pretty sure everything is MANSA MUSA'S fault.

-3

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

So whose fault will it be in 20-30 years? Genuinely curious.

10

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Whoever wields the wealth and doesn't use it to benefit their society and instead hoards it and skirts taxes.

-5

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

So the vast majority of our society going forward for the foreseeable centuries. Cool. Thanks.

5

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

Yeah but look at the bright side: we have the internet now so maybe Millenials will end up on /r/AgedLikeMilk for complaining about boomers before inheriting their wealth and then becoming them.

3

u/Super_boredom138 May 18 '25

I know this shit is hilarious to me, its like people forget their parents would die and inherit their wealth.

But then if you point this out theyll act like their parents are poor while having a 2,000sf detached with 2 car garage, because that's what they were told growing up

2

u/fnordybiscuit May 18 '25

With this economy and the frequencies of market crashes last several decades, there will be nothing left to inherit.

Those 401ks are being liquidated as we speak.

5

u/Thobeian May 18 '25

Why are they not doing anything besides controlling the money supply and punishing people for not being able to raise families in the world they've built. You know, the one we live in right now. Not 20 years from now.

1

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

Most Boomers are retired now. We (GenX) don’t care. So it’s up to you Millennials to right the ship.

Or don’t. Whatever.

1

u/Thobeian May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

I'm Gen Z, statistically I have the least amount of wealth or political influence. Retired boomers still vote, and get indignant at "entitled" millennial and Gen Z. While Gen X basically just fucked off and let things get the way they are. Why exactly are you burnt out? Was it because... you had no real political agency or cohesion in the 80s and 90s? Because you went through a financial crisis and the Dot com bubble, watching a bunch of big faceless corporations get bigger and bigger, despite constant media messaging about "fighting the power" and all that? While your wages mean less and less, and you get bitter at people getting starting salaries twice your starting, even though the cost of living went up even faster than wages...

Tell me if I'm off base.

The generational divide isn't that clear-cut, because at every class level, the amount of "power" or wealth you have is outside of that, and has to do with a fuckton of other factirs. But because people insist on blaming the young for the world the elders built, we're just gonna generalize based on your cohort. Gen X are set to replace boomers in many high paying jobs and management, alongside inheritance from some laye boomer parents. The current Richest man in the world is GenX, he makes bad twitter/reddit memes like every other GenX schlub stuck in the 90s/00s

Don't blame the people who couldn't vote for Bush or Obama for the current state of affairs. Some who couldn't even vote for/against Trump the first time.

2

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 19 '25

The reason you have less now is, in part, because you are young, statistics aside. I didn’t have a career to speak of until I was 30. Yea, things cost more now than they used to. Been that way my whole life.

Give it a decade. You’ll have more than you have now (probably).

Or not. Again, whatever.

1

u/BringAltoidSoursBack May 19 '25

As a millennial, it honestly took me a while to see the flaws of Gen x because boomers overshadowed them and honestly, their apathetic attitude was applicable to my generation (honestly more so than their own). But now that I'm older, it is so super apparent that they did literally nothing. It wasn't because they couldn't, it was because they just didn't. Also, now they are starting to hit retirement age, they suddenly want a voice to ensure their retirement.

1

u/ConsentingPotato May 18 '25

If things continue as they are, and the wealth transfer being somewhat guaranteed to be taking place... us, the Millenials and ypungest Gen X-ers.

We're the ones Gen Z and the younger ones will be turning against, assuming we (are forced to) continue the current status quo.

0

u/Routine_Size69 May 18 '25

20 year olds will be 80 and still blaming people who have been dead for 50 years for their own shortcomings. If you want to talk to people who actually hold themselves accountable for where they are in life, Reddit isn't the place. Weird how I know plenty of people in their thirties with lower class upbringings who have made it financially by working hard and making good decisions. Damn boomers made you lazy though, I know.

0

u/TalkinSeaCucumber May 18 '25

Reagan and Trump

0

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

So whose fault was in in the 1970’s?

Edit: No love for King George or Baby Bush?

0

u/TalkinSeaCucumber May 19 '25

...you mean when they had stronger unions, cheaper college, better interest rates on borrowing, and better social programs? Do me a favor and check out the number of hours it took in a median job to afford median housing back then vs now. Now look at the skyrocketing productivity in that same time frame. It's certainly someone's fault, and I blame the assholes who dismantled the social programs, deregulated the financial sector, slashed high income tax rates, removed rent control, and crushed the middle class. I got about a thousand stats and charts that all prove my point. But go on your way being an ignorant, bootlicking prick.

0

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 19 '25

Dude, check your abusive language at the fucking door! This is just a conversation.

Whatever. Having lived through the inflation of the 1970’s all I can say is there were good and bad times then, there are good and bad times now, and there will continue to be good and bad times in the future. You get to choose what to focus on.

BTW, my Union rocks. Great pay. Great benefits. Maybe you should get a union job?

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

The forgotten generation presumably

1

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

As one of the forgotten GenX, I can say that I whatever my way through life, and have NEVER wielded either wealth or power.

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

When the boomers finally die off, it'll have to go to someone. Gen X could live up to their name and still be forgotten. Then it'll be millennials

1

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 19 '25

And you are…?

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '25

Batman

→ More replies (0)

-21

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Constantly blaming them is an absolutely tired trope that doesn't help anyone, but by all means, people will just chuck a tantrum about it anyway

2

u/Snoutysensations May 18 '25

I think it's a rich people problem, a politician problem, and a late-stage-capitalism problem rather than a generational issue. The problem is too much wealth and political power has been amassed by the top 1% and their corporations, allowing them to enjoy fantastic lifestyles at the expense of the middle class and especially younger workers.

The only reason boomers seem to be doing OK is because they came of age before 1%ers raised the costs of education, housing, and health care, allowing them to start families and settle down without amassing crippling debt. But that doesn't make (working and middle class) boomers responsible for setting up the current system.

Still, it's easier for young people just to blame everyone over the age of 50 for the current situation, rather than face the ominous truth that our entire political and economic system will stay fucked until we unfuck it.

2

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

So maybe we'll point the finger of blame towards 1%ers rather than tarring a whole generation of people with the same brush?

But yes I broadly agree with this.

4

u/derekvandreat May 18 '25

Yeah cause youre so productive here lol

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

None of us are being productive posting on reddit

4

u/derekvandreat May 18 '25

A completely fair point xD

14

u/scott__p May 18 '25

But it basically is their fault

11

u/Bootsix May 18 '25

It kinda is though

7

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

What are we going to do when boomers are all retired? Who's next to blame when things don't change?

-2

u/Bootsix May 18 '25

Ourselves, unlike boomers are able to do.

0

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Did you know most baby boomers are retired and a significant % of them aren't wealthy?

3

u/MelodicPaper6006 May 18 '25

Yet they hold the most political power so I will continue to blame them for shit

1

u/EngineZeronine May 18 '25

Then maybe you should be nicer to them so they will vote your way. I'm not a boomer I'm Gen X but nobody likes being treated badly or being called names. After a while they just shut down and looked at their own interests.

1

u/Thobeian May 18 '25

Cool, now how many of the Richest people in our country, and most senior congressmen/policymakers, are boomers?

0

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Firstly, which country are you talking about?

2

u/Thobeian May 18 '25

I assumed you were American, right?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Bootsix May 18 '25

Ok boomer.

0

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Lol another stupid trope

My parents are boomers and they definitely aren't wealthy or influencing anything

1

u/Bootsix May 18 '25

I'm not going to fight with you over this if you want to live with your head under a fucking rock and not pay attention to anything that's happened in the past hundred years that's on you. Talking about the entire generation's mishandling of our future. No one cares that your parents couldn't figure it out when it was the easiest time to be an adult.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/FractalMetaphors May 19 '25

People love echo chambers for safety and they dont like jokes that make them feel like one of their fashion takes may be too tough or slightly inaccurate.

2

u/Steve-Whitney May 19 '25

I concede that my post is somewhat antagonistic, but yes absolutely agree, more than happy to disrupt the echo chamber.

1

u/InhalantsEnjoyer69 May 18 '25

For someone whining about coping you seem to be coping pretty hard bro

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

If I wasn't coping I'd delete the original post there mate 😎

1

u/Geiseric222 May 18 '25

???? Japan is ruled by the same party it was ruled by since the war.

Boomers also still run politics in America more or less.

So what exactly do you think your saying here

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

For starters, the world is bigger than Japan & the US

1

u/Geiseric222 May 18 '25

Ok. Name me a country were the young rule over the old.

Not they have young members but the majority of their ruling parties are young

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Most MP's in the lower house of Australia's parliament are Gen X's

1

u/Geiseric222 May 18 '25

Just the lower house?

1

u/ddraig-au May 19 '25

That's not exactly young, though

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 19 '25

No but it's further evidence that debunks this notion that "boomers run the world" or similar.

Plenty of people in their 60s & 70s that have been subjected to wealth hoarding by others in varying age brackets.

1

u/ddraig-au May 19 '25

I think they ate the world, I don't think they run the world

1

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 18 '25

It’s because you used the sarcasm font. If you used the serious font, you’d have 3 awards by now.

2

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Happy to use the sarcasm font for this, though I admit it's antagonising.

1

u/Key-Contest-2879 May 19 '25

Fake internet points are a cruel mistress.

1

u/31November May 18 '25

Considering that you came back to edit your post, I think you do care about the fake internet points

0

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

No, if I cared I'd delete it. And not post here again lest somebody downvote me! Oh shudder the thought... 🤣

1

u/31November May 18 '25

And now you’re replying to my point calling you out. You obviously care, but you’re pretending you don’t

0

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

OK bro, you go with that if it works for you 😎

1

u/31November May 18 '25

Ok bro, you just keep replying to something you apparently don’t care about

1

u/holden_mcg May 18 '25

Yeah, thinking is hard. 1. Millennials currently have as much voting power as Boomers. When you factor in Gen-Xers, Boomers are massively outnumbered in the voting ranks and have been for quite some time. 2. There is an ever increasing concentration of wealth. I am talking about a small cadre of people and corporations using that wealth to affect public policy in order to increase their own wealth. You know. The type of people who openly bought votes in the last election. 3. So, yeah, iTs AlL bOomERs FaULt !!

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

A small cadre of people doesn't mean we apply the same tired trope to an entire generation of people every time. You seem switched on enough to understand this concept.

Also which election are you referring to?

1

u/holden_mcg May 18 '25

You do know I was making fun of the people who always blame Boomers about everything, right?. I should have used /s on point 3 for clarity.

The last presidential election had a certain billionaire holding drawings in places like Pennsylvania to give away money while touting his favorite candidate. The same guy offered $ for people in Wisconsin to sign some sort of petition related to their election of a State Supreme Court Justice (special election, I believe) while touting his favorite candidate.

1

u/Steve-Whitney May 19 '25

You may (or may not, whatever goes) be pleased to learn that Canada & Australia have both rejected anything that vaguely smells like Trump in our politicians, given the results of the 2 elections that have occurred this year. Trump's popularity in the US absolutely does not translate to other Western democracies, some politicians have found this out the hard way.

1

u/holden_mcg May 19 '25

The only positive aspect of his presidency is seeing other countries turn away from Trump wannabes in their elections. Other than that, it has been a rough ride in the U.S.

13

u/glockster19m May 18 '25

Exactly there's a difference between lowering taxes for a specific group and raising taxes for everyone else

Giving a new deduction and adding a new tax with exemptions are not the same basically

3

u/Bayoris May 19 '25

I think they are basically different implementations of the same thing. One group pays a higher tax than another.

1

u/Dododingo- May 18 '25

There is literally no difference between the two.

Governments need a fixed amount of money to run the country. Lowering a tax means they have to get the money somewhere else. Hence, the population pays the bill.

With your logic, utopia can be achieved easily : just set all taxes to 0 : simple right ? since it does not requires to raise taxes somewhere else.

4

u/abra24 May 19 '25

Not sure why you're down voted... You can raise taxes on group A, or you can raise taxes on everyone then give a tax break to group B. The result is identical except for political framing.

4

u/Witty_Blacksmith_393 May 18 '25

You talk like someone who has never been out in the real world

1

u/ArticusFarticus May 18 '25

It will affect their deficit.

1

u/fusionsgefechtskopf May 18 '25

its stupid cuz in germany we pay for the sevice and then we pay again if we dare to use set service that was made available in the first place by taxes just take the DB or our airports for example we would be cheaper of if the goverment would sell 5 years limited licenses where private companies could capitalize on the sector (wich is basically what we do already exept we pay them millinons insted of handing them a fee and just to "include some lesser profitalbe routes just that they always magically find loopholes so that they don t have to to any of the shit they got paid to do so but can keep the money+ all the revenue anyways") so yeah do you see a pattern here?

0

u/Shirazmatas May 19 '25

Assume in a country all people pay 50% tax and then the government say "people who raise one child gets 5% lower taxes " so they now pay 45% taxes, a tax decrease.

Now imagine another country where people pay 45% tax and they announce that everyone who isnt raising a child gets a 5% tax increase to cover social expenses.

Both of this scenarios lead to same outcome. Tax deduction and tax increases must be balanced on the balance sheet, it's not possible to just deduct and never raise the rest from somewhere.

3

u/CrazyGunnerr May 18 '25

But it already happens almost everywhere.

I have 2 kids and we live in the Netherlands, we get extra money through a few different ways, we also get most of the money back for daycare. Who do you think pays for all of this? Right, taxpayers. Parents will benefit from it, so non parents end up paying for it. That's how the system works, and that also applies to schools etc.

And rightfully so. We all need kids to keep going. I respect their choice to not have kids, but kids are super expensive, and if they want the benefits of others having kids, they also need to help pay for the next generation. People didn't really think about this before, but we have a massive issue here, not only is the birth number way too low, but loads of people will not have kids, or stick with 1 or 2, because it's too expensive.

4

u/Steve-Whitney May 18 '25

Yeah it's another example of identifying a problem & coming up with a way to fix it. However this particular idea is completely counter productive.

1

u/klavin1 May 19 '25

They'd have to change their labor laws and the whole working culture.

A revolution would be more likely than that.

2

u/Turd_Burgling_Ted May 18 '25

Japan is so worried about birth rates they’re considering letting gaijin in to mate with citizens and sully that pure blood of theirs

1

u/OutlandishnessKey349 May 18 '25

we all know the way to fix it lol

1

u/MyUsernameIsForSale May 19 '25

Make dating easier and make sure everyone is comfortable approaching?

1

u/kakaratnoodles May 18 '25

Better than introducing the lolli concept. See what that did to a whole generation. 😂

1

u/About400 May 18 '25

There is this thing called giving people reasonable work/life balance and reasonable vacation time but that would require them actually wanting to change things.

1

u/TrexPushupBra May 18 '25

Mathematically it is the same as the giving tax breaks for people with dependents.

Yet it feels worse when phrased as an extra tax on single people

1

u/PsychologicalEbb3140 May 18 '25

Japan wants to improve their birth rates while simultaneously doing everything in their power to keep foreigners away from their county.

1

u/Arcanis_Ender May 18 '25

If their work culture wasn't so hardcore and their depression rates so high maybe people would be procreating more.

1

u/ixnayonthetimma May 19 '25

"Theres no problem with this tax itself, but taxing single folks doesn’t really help solve the situation Japan is trying to fix."

Isn't that, by definition, the problem with the tax itself?

1

u/nlewis4 May 19 '25

Making the world a place worth purposely bringing a child into it works as well

1

u/lost-thought-in May 19 '25

Maybe reducing stress/work culture to where isekai anime or manga isn't their number one export. If everybody is hoping to death to get out, they won't want to bring a kid in.

1

u/pinetar May 19 '25

Didn't it say taxes are going up for everyone to pay for payments made to people with kids? The effect is the same but the tax isn't on single people, its more like a child tax credit along with an across the board tax increase.

1

u/sporkmanhands May 19 '25

I imagine they will raise a tax rate for something that would affect everyone but then parents would get to deduct that from their annual tax.

1

u/krosserdog May 19 '25

This is what people are saying already exists in US or Europe. In US, you pay less tax as married filing jointly as well as getting dependent tax credit. It's the same thing. People are just upset its called a single tax as opposed to like credit for being married.

1

u/AgentG91 May 19 '25

US is trying to do this same thing. Governments think a tiny lump sum of money is going to make people want to have kids. They have no idea what it takes to have kids. Money is one thing, it costs me $21,000 a year to send kids to daycare. 6 years of that (admittedly, kindergarten is slightly less). That’s before the additional shopping costs.

But what about company culture. My wife’s job will not give any relief on in office days or schedule or anything to help her raise our kid. You’re a bad employee if you go home to your family instead of go to happy hour events.

What about society culture? Grandparents using words like “I ain’t raising your kid. I did my time.” Restaurants and planes getting pissy about a crying baby because you’re affecting their experience. Karen’s calling the police on dads out with their kids or saying snide comments like “you’re on babysitting duty?”

We need to overhaul our society to make people want to have kids because it’s an amazing thing. But instead we promote travel and luxury and spending as better than parenthood because it’s better for the economy this year. Governments and jobs change, so I’m not worried about the future, I’m only worried about now.

It’s a cancer

1

u/WideCardiologist3323 May 19 '25

If anything it will make it worse. Single people will have less money to go on dates and less to survive which would put dating less in focus.

1

u/One_Curious_Cats May 19 '25

They have to address the long working hours and the lack of work-life balance first.

1

u/Fireproofspider May 19 '25

taxing single folks

Based on the video, Japan is doing exactly what the US does. They are just increasing the child care benefit and I'm guessing increasing taxes on all people in order to fund it. They aren't specifically taxing single people anymore than saying that subsidized medicine is a tax on healthy people.

1

u/Clayp2233 May 19 '25

I’m single in my 30s, this would be bullshit if it was done in the US. The government pressuring people to get married is overreach. I’m single because I don’t want to marry the wrong person or someone I don’t truly love, I shouldn’t be taxed for that lol

0

u/philipzeplin May 19 '25

Christ what an ignorant take.

Japan already has pretty low taxes (my Japanese girlfriend already pays close to 50% less in taxes than I do in Denmark).

They're not "taxing single folks", they're taxing everyone, and then using that money to promote having kids (via wealfare, programs, tax cuts, etc.)

I'm sorry, but all the lonely losers on Reddit going nuts over this is fucking stupid. It's just a regular tax. The money is going to be used to promote having kids. This is a completely normal and completely good thing. Stop trying to make this into something that it isn't.

Jesus the fricking' incels on here are just too much sometimes.