Do you think the proposal to pay the fertility fund and tax the dink is reasonable?

Existence is reasonable, this sentence has a certain truth, that is, the existence of a certain phenomenon must have its reasons, a method must have its necessity, this Dink tax must be aimed at some developed countries in Europe and the United States, they do not have children, that is, do not have children, the population basically shows a total regression, the total population of the country is getting smaller and smaller, it must be not beneficial to the country's economy and long-term development, this kind of policy is only to control the population, Maintaining a normal growth in the country's total population is actually a helpless move for these countries.

I don't think it's reasonable that everyone has their own right to choose what to do, and they shouldn't be forced to do anything without affecting others.

I also think it's unreasonable, it's their own right to choose Dink, they don't have children, how can they adopt a child**?

10 people think that in the future, who should raise the old man of Dink, if it is the society, then the tax is reasonable.

Everyone's choice is different, Dink chose this path, and he must have thought about what will happen in the future, and I have never enjoyed the only child fee, so I don't feel like I have to pay taxes.

I feel that these questions have their own legitimacy, after all, China is now facing an aging population, which will help ease social pressure.

It's still relatively reasonable, because there are more and more Dinks in modern times, which is not very good for the maintenance of our society.

Since the Dink family needs other people's children to raise them in old age, it should not be encouraged and promoted, and the Dink family should be levied a "social maintenance tax".

I think this proposal is reasonable. Because childbirth has certain benefits for people's fertility, especially Dink.

Personally, I think that teaching fertility ** and taxing Dink is a bad proposal, that is, it may lead to some problems in people's fertility, as well as some problems in consumption.

I think this proposal is reasonable. Because after all, such words are more reasonable for Dink officially. So I think it's quite reasonable.

Childbirth**? Tax Dink? Netizen: Is it a crime not to have a baby?

The establishment of fertility** and the taxation of the Dink family are two expert proposals that have recently sparked heated discussions.

Data mapThis article suggests -

Establish a childbirth system to try to realize the self-operation of the two-child birth subsidy. It may be stipulated that citizens under the age of 40, regardless of gender, must pay a certain percentage of their salary every year for maternity** and enter it into a personal account.

When a family gives birth to a second child or more, they can apply for the removal of childbirth** and receive a maternity allowance to compensate for the short-term loss of income caused by the interruption of labor during the childbearing period. If a citizen does not have a second child, the funds in the account will be withdrawn when he or she retires.

After the news of childbirth sparked heated discussions, Hu Jiye, a professor at China University of Political Science and Law, further said in an interview that because the Dink family needs other people's children to raise them in old age, it should not be encouraged and promoted, and the Dink family should be levied a "social maintenance tax".

Seeing this, netizens couldn't sit still and objected.

A netizen directly pointed out that in the high-tech era, the correct direction for a populous country to fight aging should be to do a good job in education, strengthen scientific research, and improve labor productivity, rather than simply encouraging childbirth.

Netizens said that the brick family should have a few more.