"It is your freedom not to have children, but pay a 'low birth rate tax' instead"... 'Our child' is responsible for the retirement of singles and DINKs [What do you think?]

[Financial News] A debate is raging online over the solution to the low birth rate problem, with claims being raised that a so-called "low birth rate tax" should be imposed on DINKs and non-married households.

Recently, a post titled "We must collect a low birth rate tax from DINKs and single people. Absolutely" was uploaded to Blind, an anonymous community for office workers.
Author A stated, "Not having children is indeed a matter of personal freedom," but argued that individuals should not be exempt from bearing any of the social costs associated with such a free choice.
Mr. AArguing that there are already examples where society shares the burden of costs arising from individual choices, such as automobile taxes, property taxes, and taxes on alcohol and tobacco, the low birth rate issue is viewed from the same perspective.He said that it needs to be viewed there.
He said, "The children being born now will become the people who actually run South Korea 30 years from now," adding, "They work, pay taxes and health insurance premiums, contribute to the National Pension, and help maintain various social services."
On the other hand, it was pointed out that even childless people, as they age, come to utilize social infrastructure maintained by the labor and taxes of the next generation, such as health insurance, pensions, police and fire services, and nursing and care services.It is a structure where the cost of raising children is borne by the parents, but the benefits are shared by all members of society.am.
A claimed that childless households do not relatively bear the burden of childbirth and childcare costs, education expenses, career loss, and housing costs, stating, "The taxes and insurance premiums a child pays 30 years from now, as well as the labor provided, are also used to maintain the retirement of DINKs and non-marriage."
Accordingly, arguing that current measures to address the low birth rate must be structurally changed from a focus on childbirth incentives, they proposed partially increasing social insurance contributions for childless households, providing income tax reductions based on the number of children, reflecting contributions to child-rearing in National Pension calculations, and easing health insurance premiums, property taxes, and housing costs for multi-child households.

However, Mr. AI stated that I have no intention of morally condemning non-marriage or DINKs.He drew a line. He asked, "You just need to pay an appropriate price for choosing the life you want and enjoying that freedom," and asked, "Does it make sense that someone who raised three children their whole life and someone who raised none are treated almost the same in the old-age social security system?"
It has been reported that Mr. A, who is raising two elementary school children, stated that he has no objection to the fact that if the system changes, he, too, would enjoy fewer social infrastructure benefits than families with three or more children.

Reactions from netizens who heard the story were mixed. Some netizensIt is true that we are using the system maintained by the next generation.He expressed agreement, saying, "It is a valid point from the perspective of maintaining the state."
On the other hand, other netizens commented, "What happens if you want to have a child but can't because you're not feeling well?", "How can you know if the child born will become a worker who contributes to society or a tax thief?"Even now, the direction is moving toward increasing benefits for families with children, even if they don't openly call it a DINK tax.He refuted it.
Counterarguments pointing out the limitations of the parental leave system have also emerged. One netizen saidEven when combining parental leave benefits and parental benefits, it falls far short of half of one's usual monthly income, and one must even give up performance bonuses equivalent to the duration of the leave.He pointed out, "In industries where competition for performance evaluations is fierce, taking even a short leave of absence can cost you your job, so there are many DINKs among high-earning professionals."
[email protected] Seong Min-seo Reporter