There used to be financial reasons to do so. Ever since society moved from living off the land, birth rates have slowly fallen. There were people talking about "birth crisis" in the 1920s. This argument has been overused so much and is always used to justify heinous acts.
The rate we're at now is around average, ignoring post-war spikes.
If we're below replacement rates, that has to be below average. But on the other topic, you're saying that white people look at making kids as a financial tactic and not a sincere desire to create life and families?
I'm saying that people now only have a few kids because that's what makes sense. When people had large families, it was to help work the land.
What do you think taxing people more for not having kids will do, if you believe a sincere desire to have a family is necessary? Desire is antithetical to natalist ideology. It's a Stalinist thought process, where having kids is your duty to the state.
I think that eliminating all immigrants is sufficient for raising white birth rates because people won't be taxed as much to care for the immigrants, and housing and other costs will go down. Making children more affordable. It's affordable to browns because of welfare. People's desires to procreate are reduced because of the high cost of living and the expectation for that to worsen as browns flood the country more, while taxes continue to go up to cover the browns' cost of living. Adding in the cost of higher education makes this topic even more fucked up. Guess who gets it for free, and who pays for the free education and their own children (or child, more like) to go as well?
Even in more homogeneous white countries, socialist policies still discourage raising kids because the responsibile people that work and pay into the system are too busy to raise kids and have a massive additional cost, per kid. While the welfare leeches get paid extra, per kid, and already get everything for free.
There used to be financial reasons to do so. Ever since society moved from living off the land, birth rates have slowly fallen. There were people talking about "birth crisis" in the 1920s. This argument has been overused so much and is always used to justify heinous acts.
The rate we're at now is around average, ignoring post-war spikes.
If we're below replacement rates, that has to be below average. But on the other topic, you're saying that white people look at making kids as a financial tactic and not a sincere desire to create life and families?
I'm saying that people now only have a few kids because that's what makes sense. When people had large families, it was to help work the land.
What do you think taxing people more for not having kids will do, if you believe a sincere desire to have a family is necessary? Desire is antithetical to natalist ideology. It's a Stalinist thought process, where having kids is your duty to the state.
I think that eliminating all immigrants is sufficient for raising white birth rates because people won't be taxed as much to care for the immigrants, and housing and other costs will go down. Making children more affordable. It's affordable to browns because of welfare. People's desires to procreate are reduced because of the high cost of living and the expectation for that to worsen as browns flood the country more, while taxes continue to go up to cover the browns' cost of living. Adding in the cost of higher education makes this topic even more fucked up. Guess who gets it for free, and who pays for the free education and their own children (or child, more like) to go as well?
Even in more homogeneous white countries, socialist policies still discourage raising kids because the responsibile people that work and pay into the system are too busy to raise kids and have a massive additional cost, per kid. While the welfare leeches get paid extra, per kid, and already get everything for free.