this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
113 points (98.3% liked)

World News

51337 readers
1657 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 44 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 29 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 11 points 12 hours ago

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.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Humans have a natural drive to procreate

Source?

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

The fact that there continue to be humans.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

This is about protecting infants not about drive to procreation.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And how do we get these infants we love protecting?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I’d argue the 8 billion people on this planet suggests it’s true.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 25 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

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.

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.

A lot of people want to form a family. They want to have a kid or two.

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.