Just an occasional thing

like, going to the movies with your family, paid for by your employer

Government funded fun? That should happen never.

A flat tax is not good in practice

You can use your own money.

I don't view it as fun

it encourages people to have families

Going to the movies?

I'll be back in 10 minutes.

Tax Benefits for a stable nuclear family with kids is ideal

When people have to say "Im not a nazi" before agreeing with any idea ever implemented in Nazi Germany, even if it was used in other places. <:hangthink:487681962505404416> <:hangthink:487681962505404416> <:hangthink:487681962505404416>

Well, tbqh

National Socialism is gay

Back.

As I was saying, going to the movies on taxpayer money is stupid.

it wasn't on taxpayer money

If you make money on the market you can pay yourself.

Wasn't it gov funded?

I could be wrong about how it worked, but from what I remember

Most employees were working like, over 50 hours a week, and, in exchange, the company they worked for would pay for leisure activities so they could spent time with their family

Why do the companies need to? Doesn't the employer pay a paycheck?

It was to encourage them to spend time with their family

Maybe the thought was

They don't do it normally? If they don't, that's a social issue. The social order shouldn't be decided by the state.

"Wow, I can get paid to spend time with my family, I wish had children"

That is a perverse incentive.

People want to have children because of biology, why does the government need to help that?

I don't know what exactly the motivation was, I just know that it was a thing for the time, I think this was in the middle of the depression

People have children *right now* just fine, tax incentives or no.

Why does it need to exist? Are you supporting it? What I'm really getting at is *why* is this your view on the role of government.

Well, people have less kids now than ever before, but that's because we thought it was a good idea to let women have careers

It doesn't really *have* to exist, as for the actual implementation, to be quite honest, I don't really know. But it is something I would get behind if I was sure it would be feasible, if that answers your question, so yes.

And, as for why, because the state should foster a society that is family centered.

So if we're forcing people to pay for other people to go to the movies... no problem, none at all? If it doesn't have to exist, it shouldn't.

But *why* should the state do this.

I know all these "whys" sound redundant, but it's important, I'm trying to get right to the core here.

I wouldn't word it as "going to the movies"

Doing whatever then.

Paying people to spend time with their family is the goal anyway, the movie thing was just a generic example

I know. But why do they need additional incentive to do this? We have a biological drive to have kids. Just because we have less kids, doesn't mean it's a problem.

" If it doesn't have to exist, it shouldn't."

Monuments don't have to exist, but they do

People used to have LOTS of kids in the past, just saying we have less doesn't expose a problem.

I was speaking specifically about government incentives.