The author, Mr. A, who revealed that he is raising two elementary school children, argued, "Not having children is indeed a personal freedom," but also argued, "The freedom not to have children and who will bear the social costs arising from that choice are completely different matters." Just as one must pay social costs regardless of their will, the logic that there is no need to bear costs like low birth tax for not having children does not hold. Mr. A pointed out that in the current ultra-low birthrate situation , families raising children are paying a significant cost to create the next generation, adding, "Even now, some people are investing their own money, time, and career to raise their children." He continued, "Whether you're DINK or single for life, your age In the end, the next generation will live within the country while enjoying social and medical infrastructure. Even if someone turns 70, who would argue that since I haven't had children, I won't use the health insurance premiums paid by the younger generation and won't enjoy all the infrastructure?" He retorted, "The important thing is that the benefits generated by a child raised that way are enjoyed not only by the parents but also by DINKs, sinks (single and childless), and unmarried men and women alike," adding, "The taxes and insurance premiums the child pays 30 years from now The labor force and social systems provided also go into maintaining the retirement of DINKs and unmarried individuals," he said. Rather than forcing childbirth, the social contributions made to raising the next generation should be properly recognized through taxes and social insurance!!!!!!
Comments 0
Log in to comment.