The idea that taxing children could improve fertility sounds counter-intuitive. Typically, we assume that taxing an activity reduces it, while subsidizing it (like child tax credits) increases it. However, this ignores the quality and distribution of those births.

However, taxing drugs can improve drug usage. Basically it gives incentives for voters to legalize drugs to collect more money. The effect may be bigger than the negative effect on drugs.

And perhaps the same mechanism works on children too.

We basically bribe voters to make more sensible laws.

This idea can be connected to democratic privatized community where government is run like business and every parents need to buy more share for their children.

Fact Check & Conceptual Feedback

• The "Dilution" Logic: This is a core tenant of Neocameralism (the idea that a state should be run like a business). In current democratic systems, citizenship is a right, not a share. For your argument to work, one must accept the premise that citizenship is a finite resource with a market value.
• Fertility Rates: It is important to note that, historically, the "rich" actually have fewer children than the poor. This is known as the demographic-economic paradox. My proposal would essentially aim to flip this trend by making children a "luxury good" that funds the rest of society. The rich can pay for children easily while the poor will not.

Do you think this "buy-in" model would actually increase the total number of children, or would it just change who is having them?

Basically will the negative effect of children taxation be overridden by more voters' tolerance on rich men having more children.

Like how drug tax supposedly work?