this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
157 points (98.8% liked)

World News

51476 readers
1506 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

From 1 January, contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – part of a carrot-and-stick approach by the government to increase births

China is set to impose a value-added tax (VAT) on condoms and other contraceptives for the first time in three decades, as the country tries to boost its birthrate and modernise its tax laws.

From 1 January, condoms and contraceptives will be subject to a 13% VAT rate – a tax from which the goods have been exempt since China introduced nationwide VAT in 1993.

The measure was buried in a VAT law passed in 2024 in an effort to modernise China’s tax regime. VAT accounts for nearly 40% of China’s total tax revenue.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 80 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's... Oh my God. That is such a bad idea, for so many reasons. But I think if the point is to expand your population, specifically the poorest and most uneducated, it hits the mark.

Oh no... That is the point, isn't it?

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The future ruling classes are going to need serfs.

[–] qualia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah it's a great way to dilute the intelligence of a population while skewing voting toward more conservative representation. Half the US has similar values.

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Voting is done by an internal caucus, and even that's a sham already, where they unanimously allowed Xi to be Chairman a third term.

It's also not going to work, because even if they raised their population, we've seen they can't do anything with their workforce without FDI.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (19 children)

Humans have a natural drive to procreate (not just have sex), so if your population doesn’t want to have children, maybe look at what you’re doing to make them avoid this natural proclivity.

I’d argue the only real solution is a longer leave for both parents without affecting their careers. But it’s generally just not doable with their corporate culture.

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Leaders of all "developed" nations need to look at this.

Birth rates are plummeting, and its not because of some religious children of men scenario or plastics in our sperm.

People just don't want kids, and why would we? World is a shithole, everything costs too much and we are being constantly reminded that WW3 is just around the corner.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 15 points 1 week ago

china has significantly worst, because of the one child policy, which heavily skewed the results as well. prefer male offspring over female ones, leading to massive imbalance, and its still be preferred.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] TheLunatickle@lemmy.zip 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 week ago

HIV: It's free real estate

[–] arin@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Time to buy metal coat hanger manufacturing stonks

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 32 points 1 week ago

Coming up next: China's STD epidemic and what can we do about it?

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 30 points 1 week ago

Because children are widely known as being very inexpensive to raise.

How much is the tax going to be? $20,000 per year?

[–] sircac@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's how you get surges of STDs among other awful things...

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

how dare you speak ill of China! CHINA IS THE BEST!

CHINA IS A NUMBER 1!

/s

[–] Ageroth@reddthat.com 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I can't believe this was 10 years ago.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

China is run by morons. Restricting people to 1 child for decades was idiotic and this is nearly as stupid.

[–] fluxx@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is even more stupid. Even if you succeeded in making people have more unprotected sex, if people don't want it, you're still gonna have a bad time. The children who are born unwanted aren't going to have as good of life as those wanted for many reasons. At least 1 child who was born previously got more resources and had better chances. Though both are stupid decisions, I agree. This one even more. And another reason - you hopefully see you've made a stupid decision in the past and should have not meddled with organic needs of people in such an extreme way. So then OBVIOUSLY, the solution is to double down, but in the opposite way. /s

[–] xep@discuss.online 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm no expert but this really doesn't seem like the right solve for falling birth rates.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 9 points 1 week ago

they tried nothing and they are all out of ideas, its not unique to china either. they are tyring to avoid discussing the actual causes.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 2 points 1 week ago

It's not a problem to be solved. It's something to be adapted to.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

I can't imagine people who can't afford moderately more expensive condoms can afford another child. I do suspect however that they can afford to spread venereal disease

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 18 points 1 week ago

So you're saying that I was right to express concerns in the recent post about China covering childbirth expenses, and that it wouldn't stop there?

Original comment:

As long as people who don’t want to have children aren’t pressured. Not everyone is interested in parenting, and that needs to be accepted.

Well, that didn't take long. The other post was earlier this week.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

I'm guessing the stance of the CCP on abortion is going from not good to dystopian.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 week ago

Please tell me that nobody would give up condoms over a 13% price hike.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

and not because of the generations of damage the one-child policy caused after it ended, and the HCOl,a nd the lack of job prospects for the over-degree'd holders that graduated plus the recent evergrande situation. instead they do this or use the invade taiwan rhetoric.

plus the increasing bitterness towards, china for trying to lure scientists/professionals from the usa to thier industries.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, that'll change the behavior of all the people who think it's cheaper to have and raise a kid than pay another nickel everytime they use a condom.

load more comments
view more: next ›