Proposta per invertire il trend demografico in Padania

[asburgico]

Un "prestito sui figli" (il valore è da definire), che ogni coppia riceverebbe all'atto del matrimonio e che verrebbe considerato automaticamente estinto alla nascita del terzo figlio. In pratica, prima si fanno i figli, prima si estingue il debito.
Ok, non è farina del mio sacco però mi pare una proposta abbastanza ragionevole, soprattutto importante dal punto di vista simbolico, oltre che strettamente economico.
Dragon, tu che sei esperto in materia cosa ne pensi?

[Dragonball (POL)]

Originally posted by asburgico
Un "prestito sui figli" (il valore è da definire), che ogni coppia riceverebbe all'atto del matrimonio e che verrebbe considerato automaticamente estinto alla nascita del terzo figlio. In pratica, prima si fanno i figli, prima si estingue il debito.
Ok, non è farina del mio sacco però mi pare una proposta abbastanza ragionevole, soprattutto importante dal punto di vista simbolico, oltre che strettamente economico.
Dragon, tu che sei esperto in materia cosa ne pensi? :)

Si,una buona idea,ma a questo punto,non so se l'incentivo economico basti a far risalire il tasso di natalita' almeno al livello di 2,1 figli/coppia necessario al ricambio e mantenimento della popolazione attuale.Penso che serva anche una diversa mentalita'.
Perche' dico cio'?Beh basta vedere l'esperienza svedese ad esempio o quella tedesca...


Decline in birthrates threatens to shape lopsided societies
By MICHAEL SPECTER - The New York Times

STOCKHOLM, Sweden -- Mia Hulton is a woman of the late 20th century. Soft-spoken, well-educated and thoughtful, she sings Renaissance music in a choral group, lives with a man and works seven days a week.
At 33, she is in full pursuit of an academic career. And despite the fact that she lives in Sweden -- which provides more support for women who want families than any other country -- Hulton doesn't see how she can possibly make room in her life for babies. Someday maybe, but not soon.
"There are times when I think perhaps I will be missing something important if I don't have a child," she said. "But today, women finally have so many chances to have the life they want. To travel and work and learn. It's exciting and demanding. I just find it hard to see where the children would fit in."
Hulton would never consider herself a radical, but she has joined one of the fundamental social revolutions of the century.
Driven largely by prosperity and freedom, millions of women throughout the developed world are having fewer children than ever before. They stay in school longer, put more emphasis on work and marry later. As a result, birthrates in many countries are now in a rapid, sustained decline.
Never before -- except in times of plague, war and deep economic depression -- have birthrates fallen so low for so long.
What was once regarded universally as a cherished goal -- incredibly low birthrates -- has in the industrial world suddenly become a cause for alarm. With life expectancy rising at the same time that fertility drops, most developed countries soon may find themselves with lopsided societies that will be nearly impossible to sustain: a large number of elderly people and not enough young people working to support them.
There is no longer a single country in Europe where people are having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Italy recently became the first nation in history in which there are more people older than 60 than there are younger than 20.(L'Italia recentemente e' diventata la prima nazione nella STORIA in cui la popolazione con + di 60 anni e' maggiore di quella sotto i 20) This year Germany, Greece and Spain probably will cross the same eerie divide.
"Europe is old and rigid," said Jean-Claude Chesnais, director of research at France's National Institute for the Study of Demography. "So it is fading. You can see that as the natural cycle of civilization, perhaps something inevitable. And in many ways, low population growth is wonderful. Certainly to control fertility in China, Bangladesh, much of Africa -- that is an absolute triumph.
"Yet we must look beyond simple numbers. And here I think Europe may be in the vanguard of a very profound trend. Because you cannot have a successful world without children in it."

Experts confounded

The effects of the shift will resonate far beyond Europe. Last year Japan's fertility rate -- the number of children born to the average woman in a lifetime -- fell to 1.39, the lowest level it has ever reached. In the United States, where a large pool of new immigrants helps keep the birthrate higher than in any other prosperous country, the figure is still slightly below an average of 2.1 children per woman -- the number needed to keep the population from starting to shrink.
Even in the developing world, where overcrowding remains a major cause of desperation and disease, the pace of growth has slowed almost everywhere. Since 1965, according to U.N. population data, the birthrate in the Third World has been cut in half -- from six children per woman to three. In the last decade alone, for example, the figure in Bangladesh has fallen from 6.2 children per woman to 3.4. That's a bigger drop than in the previous two centuries.
Little more than 25 years have passed since a famous set of computer studies sponsored by the Club of Rome, a global think tank, showed that population pressures would devastate the world by the mid-1990s.
Nothing of the kind has come to pass. The authors of that dire forecast could not have foreseen 30 years ago that women in countries such as Italy by now would be producing an average of fewer than 1.2 children, the lowest figure ever recorded among humans.(L'Italia ha un tasso di nascite con MENO di 1,2 figli per famiglia,una tasso MAI registrato tra gli umani.) Or that the Berlin Wall would disappear, creating economic uncertainties that have frozen the birthrate from the Black Forest to Vladivostok.
In a world in which women work more than ever before and contraception remains readily available, it is hard to find somebody who thinks that someday soon large families will make a comeback.
"I'm thinking of having children in the future, perhaps two," said Roberta Lenzi, 27, who is single and studies political science in Bologna, Italy, the city with the lowest birthrate in the world.(Bologna e' la citta col tasso di natalita' + BASSO DEL MONDO)
"I'm an only child and, if I could, I'd have more than one child. But most couples I know wait until their 30s to have children. People want to have their own life; they want to have a successful career. When you see life in these terms, children are an impediment. At most you'll have one; more are rare."
There has long been an assumption that low birthrates were better than high ones. Fewer people put less strain on the resources of the planet. And as a country becomes richer, its people always have fewer children. If more people are needed, immigration can be a solution -- and in many places, specialists now think it's the only one left. But Europe, unlike the United States, has been resistant to immigration.
"What is happening now has simply never happened before in the history of the world," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer based at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "This is terra incognita. If these trends continue, in a generation or two there may be countries where most people's only blood relatives will be their parents."
Incentives no longer work
Perhaps no country has tried harder to change its future than Sweden.
Decades ago, with its birthrate dwindling, Sweden decided to support family life with a public generosity found nowhere else. Couples who both work and have small children enjoy cash payments, tax incentives and job leaves combined with incredible flexibility to work part time for as many as eight years after a child's birth.
Sweden spends 10 times as much as Italy or Spain on programs intended to support families.(La Svezia spende 10 volte + di Spagna e Italia per supportare le famiglie) It spends nearly three times as much per person on such programs as the United States. So there should be no surprise that Sweden had the highest birthrate in Europe by 1991.
"We were a model for the world," said Marten Lagergren, undersecretary in the Ministry of Social Health and Welfare, and the man responsible for figuring out what is happening with Sweden's birthrate. "They all came to examine us. People thought we had some secret. Unfortunately, it seems that we do not."
Sometime after 1990, the bottom dropped out of Sweden's baby boom. Between then and 1995, the birthrate fell sharply, from 2.12 to 1.6. Most people blamed the economy, which had turned sour and forced politicians to trim -- ever so slightly -- the country's benefit program. It is normal for people to put off having children when the future looks doubtful, so the change made sense.
But then the economy got better, and the birthrate fell faster and further than ever. By March of this year the figure for Sweden was almost the same as that in Japan -- 1.42. And though it's too soon to say, officials think it may be falling still.
"Nobody on Earth can tell you what is going on here," said Mac Murray, a philosopher trained in statistics who is in charge of planning for the nation's school system. "I believe we are seeing a fundamental shift in human behavior."
All content © 1998 The Kansas City Star


Praticamente da questo articolo si puo' desumere che la Svezia,pur spendendo 10 volte tanto l'Italia per incentivare le nascite dal 1995 ha avuto un forte calo di nascite,e come spiega l'articolo,il calo non e' dovuto al peggioramento dell'economia svedese,perche' anche quando essa,ha ripreso a girare,il tasso di natalita',invece che risalire,e',inspiegabilmente, caduto ancora + velocemente.E cio' in teoria e' illogico con tutti gli incentivi,sgravi fiscali che la Svezia dà alle famiglie,eppure il dato e' questo.
Quindi che significa?Significa che va cambiata anche la mentalita': io conosco parecchie coppie,che stanno economicamente bene,ma che al massimo vogliono avere 1 figlio,perche' di + sono un "impiccio".

[PINOCCHIO (POL)]

abolire l'ici o qualche altra tassa per esempio, ivece di aumentare ancora l'assistenzialismo mi sembra la strada migliore.
Ma per abbassare le tasse bisognerebbe anche tagliare le spese ed inoltre crendo nuovi assistiti si creano nuove sacche clientelari...
saluti padani

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by PINOCCHIO
abolire l'ici o qualche altra tassa per esempio, ivece di aumentare ancora l'assistenzialismo mi sembra la strada migliore.
Ma per abbassare le tasse bisognerebbe anche tagliare le spese ed inoltre crendo nuovi assistiti si creano nuove sacche clientelari...
saluti padani

Un'altra cosa importante,una spesa che incide moltissimo sui bilanci famigliari a cui non si pensa è la scuola,i libri scolastici!!!!
Certe mazzate ogni anno,specie quando arrivava il nuovo professore e a questo non piaceva il libro di testo che usava il precendente collega!Beh,inutile che mi dilungo,sappiamo tutti come funziona!

D'accordo che ne passa di tempo dalla nascita alla scuola,però....
Saluti Padani

[nordista]

Originally posted by asburgico
Un "prestito sui figli" (il valore è da definire), che ogni coppia riceverebbe all'atto del matrimonio e che verrebbe considerato automaticamente estinto alla nascita del terzo figlio. In pratica, prima si fanno i figli, prima si estingue il debito.
Ok, non è farina del mio sacco però mi pare una proposta abbastanza ragionevole, soprattutto importante dal punto di vista simbolico, oltre che strettamente economico.
Dragon, tu che sei esperto in materia cosa ne pensi?

Esenzione di qualsiasi tassa, nella dichiarazione dei redditi successiva alla nascita e solo per l'anno corrente. Questo a mio parere farebbe incrementare il numero dei figli anche alle persone piu' abbienti. Potremmo (ri) vedere il proliferare di famiglie numerose, specialmente da chi se lo puo' permettere economicamente e non usufruira' di altre assistenze a carico di tutti.
-N-