China to hike tax on condoms in attempt to boost falling birth rate
(www.theguardian.com)
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Dec 02:44
https://lemmy.world/post/40353389
from MicroWave@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 18 Dec 02:44
https://lemmy.world/post/40353389
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.
#world
threaded - newest
I don’t know who will find this information helpful but I wish I knew when I was young.
A woman is only fertile during about 5 days each lunar cycle. Unfortunately those days are the most fun but the other 24 are safer.
Testicles descend when it’s hot to cool down because heat kills sperm. If you buy a microscope, and dunk your sack in hot water for a few minutes each day, you can become temporarily sterile and verify it with the microscope.
Finally, there’s a point you can press just in front of your anus that suppresses ejaculation. Any one of those things by itself would be risky but all three and it would be nearly impossible to fertilize an egg.
or you could just, you know, get a 16 minute vasectomy procedure and bypass all that.
Fully reversable if you ever want kids, truly a better option and something I wished I knew when I was younger.
If the Chinese goverment is increasing taxes on condoms to force people to give birth more, I doubt they will let men get vasectomies easily
Best part about being in Asia is you’re a couple hour flight to Thailand, Singapore, India, Malaysia, and South Korea where such things like medical tourism is common for Chinese.
The reversability is over exaggerated, in the best case it’s about 50% from before the procedure
You can’t make a blatant statement like that without considering age and how long one has had said procedure.
As a general rule while not accounting for age and health too, see the following. Also, feel free to fact check me because I’m that sure of this:
< 3 years: Sperm return ~97-100%, Pregnancy ~80%.
3 - 8 years: Sperm return ~90%, Pregnancy ~50%.
9 - 14 years: Sperm return ~79%, Pregnancy ~44%.
15+ years: Sperm return ~71%, Pregnancy ~30%.
You made the first blatant statement. Furthermore you make claims that seem very dubious and then write feel free tonfact check me? Why not post a source?
And pregnancy rate of 80% isn't very good to begin with but it drops to only 50% after 3 years? Thats abysmal and to suggest to get such a procedure as a temporary solution is kinda insane. Vasectomies should be treated as a final solution.
No, you did with your 50% success rate and did so without a single citation.
But you probably know better than licensed physicians…
Again and as stated. it depends on the age of the patient, their health and other factors. But you probably know better than licensed physicians…
Conpared to the OPs statements, a vasectomy is a far better choice unless you’d rather let the woman suffer a full surgery with abdominal pains and scar tissue with a tubal ligation. Yeah, okay buddy.
I was not the one who wrote the 50% statement, but no worries.
Your statement was,"Fully reversable if you ever want kids," and that is simply not true. I am not saying that i know better than licensed physicans i am saying that the actual data that you just posted agrees with me. A vasectomy may be reversible, if you decide for it in less than three years it may even be likely. But if you decide for a vasectomy you should not consider that as an viable option because the chances are not very good.
This i a strawman argument and you should know that. Not once have i argued for a tubual ligitation as a viable alternative for a reversible procedure. I am glad to discuss everything but let's try to maintain some good discussion conventions and not just imagine new arguments.
Edit: from your source "Even if sperm return, pregnancy rates are lower (30-70%) and depend on partner’s fertility as well."
So one in three people wont be able to conceive in the realistic best case scenario.
Those are not great numbers for advocating vasectomy as temporary contraceptive
“A woman is only fertile during about 5 days each lunar cycle. Unfortunately those days are the most fun but the other 24 are safer.”
Can confirm that these are the best days to get wiggy with it - ask me how I know…kids.
This is the worst advice. Is this Kennedy’s account?
Why is it bad advice to give men the means to control their reproduction without any outside party involvement? Because nobody profits off of it? The article is about limiting access to birth control. I’m simply saying, if your government does it you can still have safe(er) sex. No hormones or abortions needed.
Because your advice is “naturalistic” shit. It’s not only famously unreliable at controlling pregnancies but it also offers zero protection from STDs.
Because the advice is BAD. You have no idea what you are talking about and if you keep playing doctor you will hurt someone. Medical degrees are not a scam to get money from you. They are to protect the public from people like you.
might as well tell them to make like a couch in a college dorm, and pull out.
Well for an added layer of caution on those 5 days, maybe, but not on its own.
STI’s will be booming.
HIV: It’s free real estate
Time to buy metal coat hanger manufacturing stonks
Humans have a natural drive to procreate (not just have sex), so if your population doesn’t want to have children, maybe look at what you’re doing to make them avoid this natural proclivity.
I’d argue the only real solution is a longer leave for both parents without affecting their careers. But it’s generally just not doable with their corporate culture.
Leaders of all “developed” nations need to look at this.
Birth rates are plummeting, and its not because of some religious children of men scenario or plastics in our sperm.
People just don’t want kids, and why would we? World is a shithole, everything costs too much and we are being constantly reminded that WW3 is just around the corner.
china has significantly worst, because of the one child policy, which heavily skewed the results as well. prefer male offspring over female ones, leading to massive imbalance, and its still be preferred.
Source?
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4956347/
This is about protecting infants not about drive to procreation.
And how do we get these infants we love protecting?
This doesn’t say we have infants because we love protecting them. It says why we protect them once we have them. If you don’t understand this there’s really nothing to talk about. I will just assume there’s no proof for your first statement and it’s most probably false.
I’d argue the 8 billion people on this planet suggests it’s true.
In developing countries people have kids because it’s an investment. You need kids to help you work the fields, take care of the house and take care of you when you’re old. Infant mortality is high so family planning is difficult and people have a lot of kids. Once certain economical level is reached and people can count on social security to take care of them when they are old kids become an expense, not investment and, surprise surprise, people stop having kids. Almost universally in every developed country in the world birth rates are below replacement levels, even in countries with best social programs and highest life satisfaction. So no, it’s not true.
Have you considered that developing also means everyone is too busy focused on becoming a productive cog? There are much higher opportunity costs for women even with token benefits from the government. I’m saying that the benefits aren’t nearly enough since every developed country has to compete in the same rat race.
Look at birth rates by income, for those with a very comfortable income, the birth rate is higher.
If you compare Europe with developing countries a lot of people have comfortable incomes and even in the wealthiest countries birth rates are below replacement levels. You can keep coming with reasons like lack of healthcare, childcare, expensive homes and so on but the fact is that people in Africa don’t have any of that and they still have more kids. Even in Europe or US people used to have more kids in way worse economic situation than today. 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. People used to have a lot of kids because it was a necessity. Once the necessity was gone they stopped.
A lot of people want to form a family. They want to have a kid or two. Once they do they stop procreating because there’s no natural drive to keep having more and more children. They keep having sex because there is natural drive for that but the drive to have kids is just something you made up.
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.
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.
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:
So governments might be able to move the needle a bit with these families by providing extra support.
Makes sense. I guess that’s why the poorest people have the least children.
Oh, wait:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.curiana.net/pictrs/image/c1fa839a-ce7a-4300-8ae9-0950769ade9f.png">
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.
$200k isn’t sufficiently rich:
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/33418d23-587f-440e-95c5-d15f621d9861.png">
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.
Interesting. I looks like it starts going up around the 1% threshold again. This is the level where kids are not a chore anymore. People have nannies to take care of the kids when they wake up at night, change diapers, feed them, drive them to school and so on. Maybe you’re right. When you hit a level of income that lets you have kids and live your life at the same time people will opt for more kids. You know what? You convinced me. We should aim for making everyone a millionaire. I have no idea if it’s economically feasible or how would it work but it’s a nice goal to have.
Of course they like their kids but kids are also a major pain in the ass. They are always happy when they can leave kids with grandparents or at childcare. I know a couple where the mother doesn’t work and they still leave the kid at childcare. Even during holidays when both of them don’t work they still take the kid to childcare. I guess they all aim for the 1% experience of only spending quality time with kids, not having them around all the time.
The fact that there continue to be humans.
There continue to be atomic bombs. Do people have natural drive to build them?
I’m not even sure that comment really rises to the level of a counter arguement.
People have been around a lot longer than atomic bombs.
That’s… Oh my God. That is such a bad idea, for so many reasons. But I think if the point is to expand your population, specifically the poorest and most uneducated, it hits the mark.
Oh no… That is the point, isn’t it?
The future ruling classes are going to need serfs.
Yeah it’s a great way to dilute the intelligence of a population while skewing voting toward more conservative representation. Half the US has similar values.
I’m no expert but this really doesn’t seem like the right solve for falling birth rates.
they tried nothing and they are all out of ideas, its not unique to china either. they are tyring to avoid discussing the actual causes.
It’s not a problem to be solved. It’s something to be adapted to.
China is run by morons. Restricting people to 1 child for decades was idiotic and this is nearly as stupid.
This is even more stupid. Even if you succeeded in making people have more unprotected sex, if people don’t want it, you’re still gonna have a bad time. The children who are born unwanted aren’t going to have as good of life as those wanted for many reasons. At least 1 child who was born previously got more resources and had better chances. Though both are stupid decisions, I agree. This one even more. And another reason - you hopefully see you’ve made a stupid decision in the past and should have not meddled with organic needs of people in such an extreme way. So then OBVIOUSLY, the solution is to double down, but in the opposite way. /s
and not because of the generations of damage the one-child policy caused after it ended, and the HCOl,a nd the lack of job prospects for the over-degree’d holders that graduated plus the recent evergrande situation. instead they do this or use the invade taiwan rhetoric.
plus the increasing bitterness towards, china for trying to lure scientists/professionals from the usa to thier industries.
Coming up next: China’s STD epidemic and what can we do about it?
I’m guessing the stance of the CCP on abortion is going from not good to dystopian.
Because children are widely known as being very inexpensive to raise.
How much is the tax going to be? $20,000 per year?
Time for One Child (at least)-policy
So you’re saying that I was right to express concerns in the recent post about China covering childbirth expenses, and that it wouldn’t stop there?
Original comment:
Well, that didn’t take long. The other post was earlier this week.
That’s how you get surges of STDs among other awful things…
how dare you speak ill of China! CHINA IS THE BEST!
CHINA IS A NUMBER 1!
/s
Oh man, flashbacks to an ancient meme.
TAIWAN NUMBAH ONE, CHINA NUMBAH …FOUR
reddit.com/…/if_you_shout_taiwan_no1_in_this_game…
I can’t believe this was 10 years ago.
Please tell me that nobody would give up condoms over a 13% price hike.
I can’t imagine people who can’t afford moderately more expensive condoms can afford another child. I do suspect however that they can afford to spread venereal disease
Yeah, that’ll change the behavior of all the people who think it’s cheaper to have and raise a kid than pay another nickel everytime they use a condom.