Comments on: Paying People to Have Kids, Part Deux http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/ parenting tips, tricks and commentary Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:32:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Anon http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/comment-page-1/#comment-13749 Anon Wed, 25 Jul 2007 01:22:06 +0000 http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/#comment-13749 The government makes a payment to parents for each child they have (as the article states, currently AUD$4133. This payment is the same regardless of whether it is a first child, second child, etc. Intiuitively thinking, it might make sense for the government to not make any payment for a first child, since lots of couples will have that one regardless. Further, it might intuitively make sense to increase the payment for <i>additional</i> children. So, the payment would be nothing for the first child, $4000 for a second child, and $8000 for a third child, since it is these additional children you want to encourage. However, the government's aim is to increase <i>lifetime</i> fertility, and the greatest determinant of lifetime fertility is the age of the mother when she has her first child. The payment means that a woman who would previously have had her first child at 28 may now have it at 25. This makes her much more likely to have a third child. I am an economist working for the Australian government, and while this isn't the government's explicit policy (lowering the age of mothers having their first child), it is how the numbers actually work out. The government makes a payment to parents for each child they have (as the article states, currently AUD$4133. This payment is the same regardless of whether it is a first child, second child, etc.

Intiuitively thinking, it might make sense for the government to not make any payment for a first child, since lots of couples will have that one regardless. Further, it might intuitively make sense to increase the payment for additional children. So, the payment would be nothing for the first child, $4000 for a second child, and $8000 for a third child, since it is these additional children you want to encourage.

However, the government’s aim is to increase lifetime fertility, and the greatest determinant of lifetime fertility is the age of the mother when she has her first child. The payment means that a woman who would previously have had her first child at 28 may now have it at 25. This makes her much more likely to have a third child.

I am an economist working for the Australian government, and while this isn’t the government’s explicit policy (lowering the age of mothers having their first child), it is how the numbers actually work out.

]]> By: RootAnn http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/comment-page-1/#comment-13303 RootAnn Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:41:05 +0000 http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/#comment-13303 I have read that the government payout for children actually does not improve the fertility rate according to studies. (Canada also has some tax benefits for children - Canadian Child Tax Benefit.) Many countries are looking at future population issues as their fertility rate is below the level of replacement (2.1/woman). I have read that the government payout for children actually does not improve the fertility rate according to studies. (Canada also has some tax benefits for children – Canadian Child Tax Benefit.)

Many countries are looking at future population issues as their fertility rate is below the level of replacement (2.1/woman).

]]> By: Michael http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/comment-page-1/#comment-12243 Michael Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:48:44 +0000 http://www.raising4boys.com/2007/04/19/paying-people-to-have-kids-part-deux/#comment-12243 I doubt that a one-time $5000 payment would turn having a kid into a net financial gain. I would think that this is targeted at people who want more kids but don't think that they can afford them. I doubt that a one-time $5000 payment would turn having a kid into a net financial gain. I would think that this is targeted at people who want more kids but don’t think that they can afford them.

]]>