"Levy More Taxes on DINK and Unmarried Individuals": Heated Debate Over "Low Birthrate Tax"

These days, it is easy to find DINK (double income, no kids) couples or unmarried individuals around us.

Arguments suggesting that a so-called low birthrate tax should be levied on them have emerged, sparking continuous debate online.

Levying a low birthrate tax on DINK and unmarried individuals—what kind of argument is this, exactly?

The core idea is that just as households raising children are paying the cost of creating the future generation, those without children should also share the corresponding social burden and shoulder the social costs.

Proponents have consequently suggested increasing social insurance premium burdens for childless households while significantly reducing income taxes based on the number of children.

In response, the majority of netizens showed they could not empathize with the author's argument, stating that policies are already heading in the direction of expanding benefits for households with children, and asking whether unmarried and DINK individuals are not also picking up the staffing gaps caused by parental leave.

On the other hand, some voices agreed, arguing that it is a matter concerning national survival.

We are also curious about your thoughts.

(Source: Blind)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.