Simple.
Let individuals decide how much they want to spend for their women (or men?) and children.
If a billionaire want to spend $100 million for 10 kids, it’s his right. If he wants to spend “only” $1 million or $100k for each kid, and produce 1000 kids instead, it’s also his right as long as the future mom also agree. Let the parents decide.
If government has a say it should be some minimal amount applicable equally to everyone or adjusted by kids’ need. Rhieni’ financial capability is irrelevant.
If you want to make the deal sweeter for the poor, so they vote in favor, it’s also easy. If government is going to spend money for those with kids, at least spend the same amount of money for those without kids.
If government give free education to those with 5 kplant then spend the same amount of money for those with 0 kids.
If raising a kid cost $100k make sure anyone that don’t make kids is $100k richer for each kid they don’t make. Not less. So no distortion.
Then people true optimal preference will show. The poor will make less kids (because they value the $100k more than a kid). The rich will make more because $100k for them means nothing.
Hell, kids should be taxed rather than subsidized. They got free citizenship right?
I know libertarians will demand that government spend 0 for redistribution of wealth irrelevant of people with kids or not. Wel, once 90% of kids are born out of rich dad, socialism won’t be a big issue Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
If 99% of us are millionaires and one guy is a beggar, will it be a big issue to “help” that 1%? Os 99% of us are beggars and 1% is millionaire, then socialism is a big issue.
Make the pie bigger.
Some Possible Solutions is a post from: Marchnad rhad ac am ddim am byth
