Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Irish birth rate falls below 1.4 - far below replacement level

1246

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭JVince


    Or bring back the 1.3 million Irish born people who have populated every corner of the world - and universally welcomed, even those without the correct documents, aka the undocumented Irish in USA & Australia



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    You can encourage all you want.

    It's a personal choice.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭mulbot


    It is, should be based on biological reasons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    No. It should be based on personal choice and personal circumstances.

    Not me or you.

    In 2025 I can't see how anyone could be struggling with that concept.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭mulbot


    Yes of course, but for biological reasons, having children earlier is better. The very fact that the risks are far nore numerically higher will show that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,341 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    You could hand me a free house in every county in Ireland and I still wouldn't be having kids, because some people - shock horror - just don't want them.

    It's well documented that fertility rates fall in tandem with more educational, working and (obvs) contraceptive opportunities for women.

    The taboo (and believe me, there is one) against being child-free by choice is also slowly being eroded.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    So they can raise children to maintain the population who have a higher chance to contribute to society instead of being a drain. High earners will pay for their increased child allowance multiple times over in income tax and inheritance tax.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    So encouraging higher income earners whilst discouraging lower income earners to have children will maintain the population?

    That's illogical.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭mulbot


    Encouraging higher earners to have children while discouraging lower earner or non earners to have as many children would lead to a balance.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,805 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    That some people is the minority. The majority do want to have children (they are great craic).

    Insanely high rents are holding some people back, and I can unbderstand why.

    image.png

    image.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,341 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    That's never going to happen, because for many, many, deep-rooted cultural, sociological and practical reasons, certain demographics will always have more children than others.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    There is nothing in my post about discouraging lower earners. They will continue to have kids they way they currently do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    There was multiple double child benefits given by the last government as well as increasing the age of those entitled to it.

    One-off cost of living measures don't count as "increasing children's allowance" which you alluded to. The flat rate €140 (decreased between 2013 and 2015) hasn't seen an increase In fact, in 2007 it used to be €160 flat rate per child. Shameful stuff and we've seen three instances of left-wing and far-left parties form Government in the intervening years.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,071 ✭✭✭mulbot


    Estonia has that policy introduced few years ago, works really well there, Finland also, even France, so it does work



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Giving more money to more affluent people and less to lower earners is discouraging them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    I would seriously hope that these pointers are not guiding anyone who is in power to frame policy on housing anywhere let alone Ireland. Demand is the reason why prices are where they are. A case in point:

    Over 2,300 applications for 46 discounted apartments

    Having children at 40 and beyond, especially for first time mothers, sees an increased risk of developmental issues for the baby.

    Secondly, by the time that child is in the mid-late teens you're knocking on the door of 60 yourself and the energy levels required to be caring for them is alot less than someone in their mid-40s.

    It's all common sense really.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,611 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I agree with all of this.

    What seems insane to me is that right wing and right-leaning governments have for decades now insisted on privatising everything under the sun. By turning a public good and essential need, housing, into a grubby investment product, they've turned one of the most difficult, expensive and arduous things a human being can do into all that but only for richer people as well. Now, they're complaining about very predicable consequences.

    I remember being told over and over again that if I wanted something, I should pay for it myself. If I don't have the cash, I go without. Saving money is almost pointless now for millennials and Gen Z so why wouldn't they just splurge on coffee and avocadoes.

    As you've said, some people just don't want kids which is absolutely fine. I'm not 100% sure where I stand but since I will at best afford a grotty flat for myself in a decade or two, the decision has been made for me.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,077 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    Tax break doesn't mean directly handing over payment to the recipient, it means taking less off of them, i.e. leaving them with more of their money.

    No doubt some will counter with "government will just increase taxes elsewhere" to off set the loss. The government should be respecting the taxpayer by looking to cut back on the excessive waste it currently lords over.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Giving double children's allowance is more children's allowance, expanding the qualifications ages is more children's allowance.

    i.e. an increase

    Personally I would prefer to see no new increases and the money spent wisely on continued services and subsidies.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Secondly, by the time that child is in the mid-late teens you're knocking on the door of 60 yourself and the energy levels required to be caring for them is alot less than someone in their mid-40s.

    What energy levels do you need for caring for a 19 year old?

    Would a fit 60 year be better suited to care for a 19 year old then an unhealthy 45 year old? Should Tusla get involved if younger parents are obese?

    Where do you want to go with this?

    Should people who only have the personal circumstances and choice at 40 not have a child because some people on the internet don't like it?

    Have we not told women what they should and shouldn't do with their bodies long enough in this country?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,611 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Still needs to be paid for though. You've not answered the question.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    An interesting topic.

    By the time the stigma about unmarried parents went, people were being encouraged to develop careers, delay having children, plus it became almost impossible to do it on one average income, so both parents needed to work. And now house prices are very expensive also.

    People were codded into thinking their 'career' was way more important than it is, and many people are paying a high price for that, they won't have children at all. Society has turned hugely against the idea of family since the 80s.

    That could all turn around again, the failure of the referendum last year kind of shows that the wind may have turned. People don't like working very hard to live a childless life paying off a huge mortgage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,959 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    That is certainly an interesting take on it.

    But I don't think women choosing to become financially independent or at least more financially robust, furthering their careers and choosing when and who to have children with was them being "codded" by anyone.

    If anything the codding took place when we regarded women as little more than baby factories who if they were chosen by a man for marriage had to leave the work force and become completely dependent on that man.

    No divorce, no contraception.

    That was the parlour trick.

    and many people are paying a high price for that, they won't have children at all

    Many people don't want children.

    Procreating isn't a perquisite to have a fulfilling life.

    How that is framed as a any sort of high price is confusing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭Downlinz


    It's funny how the boomers causing the decline of life quality for young people are the same people also alarmed by decline of birth rate and are perplexed at how to solve it.

    The reason is simple, young people have no money due to wages not rising with inflation and have no prospect of owning a home due to the never ending housing crisis. Many cannot afford to have a child without falling into poverty and also feel it would be irresponsible to bring a child into an unstable rental situation where they could be turfed out onto the streets or their parents shed at a moments notice.

    The solution is also simple, mass transfer of wealth from the old and rich to the young and poor. Flood the housing market with properties particularly through taxing the hell out of vacant properties and banning foreign investors buying property, and make the minimum wage a living wage.

    But of course the FF/FG electorate don't want to hear about solutions that hit their pocket so the birth rate will continue to fall and young Irish will continue to emigrate.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Its a long term solution.
    If a high earning parent has children they will be continuing to earn and work. Paying income taxes and VAT on stuff they buy for the child over a lifetime.

    Those children will most likely be raised with good educations and become high earners themselves paying high income tax etc. Its a cycle we want to encourage.

    Childless high earners will put their money into cash savings, investments, pension, foreign holidays etc. Less of their income goes back to the government.

    Ultimately the end up paying the government back to a decent extent indirectly.

    Its like the government spend on civil service salaries. They immediately get back a large percentage of that in in income tax, a bunch more on VAT, the rest of the money that gets spent goes to someone who also pays tax etc etc. All they money goes right back to the government eventually.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,677 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Go away with your facts ! Can you imagine the difference in tax contribution v drain of a contributing citizen v a cradle to grave lifer, possible crime, free housimg, mecucal cats, education, health care, you're talking millions in the difference... we want more kids alright, from a certain demographic...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,611 ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    It isn't. It's another cynical handout for rich people. Nothing more.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,677 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    IIt's Solves part of the problem. They ate swimming in so much money, you know what. Literally do give dual income high earning households, extra incentives to have kids..

    Only problem is, they'll probably emigrate out of this swamp, once they have completed their degree... the land of low pay and extortionate income tax rates over 44,000. Why would they stay..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,552 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    I suppose when you run politics that turns basics like water, energy, food, housing into commodities or speculation objects even then you end up with a stressed population that will no longer produce enough children. What did they think was going to happen?

    Of course 'their' answer to it is immigration. And while that may seem generous and the right thing to do to some its not so generous on the 'donator' countries. It causes a brain drain there and is really just another form of colonialism.

    All in the name of growth and capitalism - which is going to be our downfall for so many reasons not the least the obvious fact that we seem determined to turn over every single stone on this planet for the ever-increasing growth mantra - but which we follow like lemmings anyway cos we're being told its the only show in town and we love to believe it cos it gives us iPhones yay.

    Rant over. 😁

    Post edited by CalamariFritti on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,024 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    Where's the evidence that it solves part of the problem?

    If you have a dual income high earning household they more than likely already have enough money to have kids, some are choosing to have none and some are having some. The decline in average family size evidences that the majority for whatever reasons, be it financial, biological or even trivial, no longer want large families.

    Personally, I'd like to have kids but there's no chance I'd be considering to have more than 2 and a lot of others clearly feel the same.



Advertisement