Solving low TFR is easy

[MoeLanYong]

which gender should stay home look after kids?

This is 2026. Both hub and wife are equally well educated. Both can go poly. Both can go uni. Let them decide amongst themselves?

 

[Reborn]

This is 2026. Both hub and wife are equally well educated. Both can go poly. Both can go uni. Let them decide amongst themselves?

so does the govt make it one person home, one work?

 

[MoeLanYong]

so does the govt make it one person home, one work?

How to regulate such things?

 

[Unic0rn]

Our stingy garmen will disagree with your idea

maybe possibly raise the GST to 29% to fund it? extra 20% should be enough?

Lol. Dream on. Sg garment very stingy with singaporeans.

Just sell 4 room BTO at $120k at non mature estates. Served NS: $80k

Make it such that 1 income can provide for his entire family of 2 kids.

Yes we are "raiding the reserves". But we are ensuring there will be Singaporeans in 2126.

actually is possible to have 1 income for entire family of 4 with 2 kids, just need to eat plain white bread for breakfast, cook 1 pot of porridge for lunch and dinner to save lots, and just need to stay in 3 room hdb and take bus and mrt?

 

[Reborn]

How to regulate such things?

cannot regulate then how to increase tfr?

 

[neutralph]

cannot regulate then how to increase tfr?

No iron or political will to regulate. Sure offend voters.

 

[icebleue]

This is 2026. Both hub and wife are equally well educated. Both can go poly. Both can go uni. Let them decide amongst themselves?

Ban domestic helper lor.
Den we can see which one stays at home.

 

[Lss]

Those that can pay more, please buyed mature or prime BTO.

But mature and prime no more large units.

Better to give us option of space but similar pricing with less ideal location.

Prime and large who can afford.

 

[lbcben]

miw want $$$$ rather than local breed babies
want more babies?..just import more talent

there are people addicted to drugs, to gambling, some special group of high ses addicted to import talent

 

[hachi]

And hence our TFR will continue to decline.

And our sovereign wealth fund will gr?w biggerer and biggerer

How is prime area bto related to TFR?

 

[Lss]

How is prime area bto related to TFR?

Housing size is like a plant pot. It limits how large your plant can grow to.

 

[Lss]

This is 2026. Both hub and wife are equally well educated. Both can go poly. Both can go uni. Let them decide amongst themselves?

Likely husband stay home coz have a thing call working mother child relief.

 

[wulu1_69]

maybe possibly raise the GST to 29% to fund it? extra 20% should be enough?

actually is possible to have 1 income for entire family of 4 with 2 kids, just need to eat plain white bread for breakfast, cook 1 pot of porridge for lunch and dinner to save lots, and just need to stay in 3 room hdb and take bus and mrt?

Ai response to your earlier suggestion:

What you are describing is essentially a very high-intensity pronatalist welfare model:

state absorbs large share of:
- housing cost
- child consumption cost
- child maintenance cost

in exchange for:

> attempting to radically reduce the economic deterrent to parenthood.



Structurally, yes — such policies would almost certainly reduce:

financial pressure,

perceived parenting risk,

and first-/second-child affordability barriers.


But there are several major system-level implications and limitations.


---

1. What your proposal would likely improve

Your model directly attacks the “C” variable from the earlier fertility function:

C = housing + child expenses + financial stress

By:

writing off HDB mortgages,

subsidising child necessities,

paying recurring child stipends,


you dramatically lower:

marginal cost of children,

financial downside risk,

and long-term cash-flow pressure.


That would absolutely change household calculations for many couples.


---

2. Why housing support is especially powerful in Singapore

In Singapore, housing is psychologically central because it affects:

debt burden

dual-income necessity

career dependency

financial resilience

retirement security


So:

mortgage removal
→ major reduction in household stress

especially for:

young couples,

middle-income families,

second-child decisions.


This is why many online discussions repeatedly focus on housing.


---

3. But your proposal is fiscally enormous

This is the biggest constraint.

Suppose:

free/forgiven housing,

recurring monthly child allowance,

heavy subsidy of essentials,


for hundreds of thousands of households.

The long-term fiscal obligation becomes extremely large.

Not just:

one-time spending,


but:

recurring structural expenditure over decades.



---

4. The hidden issue: incentives and sustainability

Once benefits become very large:

childbearing
↔ major state transfer entitlement

This raises policy concerns around:

sustainability,

fairness,

labour incentives,

strategic behaviour,

long-term tax burden.


Governments worry about:

> creating extremely expensive permanent entitlement systems.




---

5. Important: financial barriers are not the only constraint

Your proposal strongly reduces:

cost pressure.


But many Reddit threads you shared identified other dominant variables:

VariableYour proposal effect

housing stressmajor reduction
direct child costmajor reduction
time scarcitylimited
burnoutlimited
employer discriminationlimited
work intensitylimited
caregiving exhaustionlimited


So the system becomes:

financial feasibility ↑
but
time + stress constraints may persist

That means fertility would likely rise somewhat, but not necessarily to replacement level.


---

6. International evidence matters here

Many countries already spend heavily on:

child allowances,

housing support,

parental leave,

subsidised childcare.


Yet still face low fertility:

South Korea

Japan

Germany


This suggests:

> money helps, but does not fully overcome modern fertility pressures.




---

7. But your proposal highlights something important

You are essentially arguing:

> if the state truly considered fertility an existential priority, it would socialize far more of the parenting burden.



That is a coherent position.

It reframes children as:

> national public goods,



rather than:

> mostly private household projects.



That is actually a profound philosophical shift.


---

8. Why most governments stop short of this

Because governments also balance:

fiscal sustainability,

taxpayer burden,

labour incentives,

political acceptability,

and intergenerational fairness.


A policy large enough to fully neutralize parenting cost may require:

much higher taxation,

reduced spending elsewhere,

or slower fiscal accumulation.



---

9. The deeper unresolved question

Your proposal ultimately asks:

if society benefits from future children,
how much of child-rearing cost
should society collectively absorb?

Modern low-fertility societies have not reached consensus on that.

Currently, in most advanced economies:

> parents still bear a disproportionately large share of the cost.




---

10. Bottom line

Your proposal would likely:

materially reduce financial deterrence,

improve perceived family feasibility,

and probably increase fertility somewhat.


Especially regarding:

earlier marriage,

second-child decisions,

and middle-income households.


But:

it would be fiscally massive,

politically contentious,

and would still not fully solve:

time scarcity,

work intensity,

burnout,

and caregiving exhaustion,



which many people increasingly see as equally important fertility constraints.

 

[hachi]

Housing size is like a plant pot. It limits how large your plant can grow to.

You are not answering my question? Prime bto... I was not talking about size.

 

[Unic0rn]

recurring monthly child allowance,

heavy subsidy of essentials,


for hundreds of thousands of households.

The long-term fiscal obligation becomes extremely large.

Not just:

one-time spending,


but:

recurring structural expenditure over decades.

healthcare heavy subsidies are recurring for the pioneer generation and medaka generation that numbers in the hundreds of thousands of households too and the long-term fiscal obligation becomes extremely large recurring structural expenditure over decades from more than $20 billion dollars a year to $30 billion dollars a year in four years by 2030.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...soon-surge-past-25-billion-a-year-ong-ye-kung

 

[Lss]

Ai response to your earlier suggestion:

What you are describing is essentially a very high-intensity pronatalist welfare model:

state absorbs large share of:
- housing cost
- child consumption cost
- child maintenance cost

in exchange for:

> attempting to radically reduce the economic deterrent to parenthood.



Structurally, yes — such policies would almost certainly reduce:

financial pressure,

perceived parenting risk,

and first-/second-child affordability barriers.


But there are several major system-level implications and limitations.


---

1. What your proposal would likely improve

Your model directly attacks the “C” variable from the earlier fertility function:

C = housing + child expenses + financial stress

By:

writing off HDB mortgages,

subsidising child necessities,

paying recurring child stipends,


you dramatically lower:

marginal cost of children,

financial downside risk,

and long-term cash-flow pressure.


That would absolutely change household calculations for many couples.


---

2. Why housing support is especially powerful in Singapore

In Singapore, housing is psychologically central because it affects:

debt burden

dual-income necessity

career dependency

financial resilience

retirement security


So:

mortgage removal
→ major reduction in household stress

especially for:

young couples,

middle-income families,

second-child decisions.


This is why many online discussions repeatedly focus on housing.


---

3. But your proposal is fiscally enormous

This is the biggest constraint.

Suppose:

free/forgiven housing,

recurring monthly child allowance,

heavy subsidy of essentials,


for hundreds of thousands of households.

The long-term fiscal obligation becomes extremely large.

Not just:

one-time spending,


but:

recurring structural expenditure over decades.



---

4. The hidden issue: incentives and sustainability

Once benefits become very large:

childbearing
↔ major state transfer entitlement

This raises policy concerns around:

sustainability,

fairness,

labour incentives,

strategic behaviour,

long-term tax burden.


Governments worry about:

> creating extremely expensive permanent entitlement systems.




---

5. Important: financial barriers are not the only constraint

Your proposal strongly reduces:

cost pressure.


But many Reddit threads you shared identified other dominant variables:

VariableYour proposal effect

housing stressmajor reduction
direct child costmajor reduction
time scarcitylimited
burnoutlimited
employer discriminationlimited
work intensitylimited
caregiving exhaustionlimited


So the system becomes:

financial feasibility ↑
but
time + stress constraints may persist

That means fertility would likely rise somewhat, but not necessarily to replacement level.


---

6. International evidence matters here

Many countries already spend heavily on:

child allowances,

housing support,

parental leave,

subsidised childcare.


Yet still face low fertility:

South Korea

Japan

Germany


This suggests:

> money helps, but does not fully overcome modern fertility pressures.




---

7. But your proposal highlights something important

You are essentially arguing:

> if the state truly considered fertility an existential priority, it would socialize far more of the parenting burden.



That is a coherent position.

It reframes children as:

> national public goods,



rather than:

> mostly private household projects.



That is actually a profound philosophical shift.


---

8. Why most governments stop short of this

Because governments also balance:

fiscal sustainability,

taxpayer burden,

labour incentives,

political acceptability,

and intergenerational fairness.


A policy large enough to fully neutralize parenting cost may require:

much higher taxation,

reduced spending elsewhere,

or slower fiscal accumulation.



---

9. The deeper unresolved question

Your proposal ultimately asks:

if society benefits from future children,
how much of child-rearing cost
should society collectively absorb?

Modern low-fertility societies have not reached consensus on that.

Currently, in most advanced economies:

> parents still bear a disproportionately large share of the cost.




---

10. Bottom line

Your proposal would likely:

materially reduce financial deterrence,

improve perceived family feasibility,

and probably increase fertility somewhat.


Especially regarding:

earlier marriage,

second-child decisions,

and middle-income households.


But:

it would be fiscally massive,

politically contentious,

and would still not fully solve:

time scarcity,

work intensity,

burnout,

and caregiving exhaustion,



which many people increasingly see as equally important fertility constraints.

Ask your prompt to look at 3rd and 4th child. I believe this is the real key to increasing TFR.

 

[Unic0rn]

Yes — Singapore’s healthcare budget is now one of the largest government expenditures, projected to exceed $25 billion annually by 2030, which is significantly more than what the government spends on support for babies and children. In 2025, healthcare spending is already set at $20.9 billion, second only to defence, and far above family-related schemes like Baby Bonus and childcare subsidies.

Healthcare is becoming Singapore’s largest fiscal burden, expected to surpass defence within the decade. While family support schemes remain important, they are orders of magnitude smaller in financial commitment compared to healthcare. This reflects Singapore’s demographic reality: an ageing society with rising medical needs.

 

[Lss]

You are not answering my question? Prime bto... I was not talking about size.

I didnt say prime bto. Guess I misunderstood your statement. My view is they want to build only up to 4room for prime and plus is fine. I agree too because of quantum. But please please build back larger units for standard, even if it means pushing the pricing up till plus and prime 4room levels.

 

[hachi]

Then is a good initiative if TFR related to bigger size bto. Ulu places need more people to build amenties。Too bas it doesnt work this way, certain group have doubled the TFR of certain groups and govt is spending a lot of money on them.

 

[Lss]

healthcare heavy subsidies are recurring for the pioneer generation and medaka generation that numbers in the hundreds of thousands of households too and the long-term fiscal obligation becomes extremely large recurring structural expenditure over decades from more than $20 billion dollars a year to $30 billion dollars a year in four years by 2030.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singap...soon-surge-past-25-billion-a-year-ong-ye-kung

We have that many pioneer and merdeka gen citizens? Wow how much is the government paying per pax?