April 25th, 2024

Pro-Natalist Policies

Of white Americans aged 18 to 35, 87.3% of Democrats, 85.1% of Independents, and 72.2% of Republicans plan on below-replacement reproduction, meaning 2 or fewer children.

33.2% of all respondents, 35.9% of Democrats, 38.5% of Independents, and 23.1% of Republicans said that the financial cost of raising children overall was a barrier to having children.

9% of all respondents said that the financial cost of raising children overall was their single biggest barrier to having children.

Republicans were more likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies at 37.5% than those who were less likely at 18.5%. Independents were more likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies at 28.4% than those who were less likely at 21.4%.

22.5% of all respondents and 26.9% of Republicans ranked lifetime income tax breaks for parents as the incentive most likely to induce them to have children.

In February of 2024, a BBC article about South Korea’s catastrophically low birth rate sparked a broad discussion about what exactly is driving low birth rates across so many countries. Our executive director, David Zsutty discussed the matter in further depth here.

Birth rates substantially lower than 2.1 births per woman are dangerous because a rapidly dwindling population often leads to calls for immigration as a quick fix instead of addressing the underlying problems. This is perilous because immigration will oftentimes escalate to such an extent that it begins to replace the native population, while ironically exacerbating many of the issues that lead to low birth rates to begin with, such as a high cost of living (especially for housing) combined with lower wages and a hyper-competitive labor market.

This prompted us to explore which pro-natalist policies would best ameliorate America’s low birth rates, along with which ones would be most electorally viable. And more importantly, to what extent can low birth rates be solved by state intervention at all?

The Homeland Institute polled 779 respondents characteristic of white Americans age 18-35. 85.6% of the respondents were registered voters, and 14.4% were unregistered. This poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3% and was conducted from April 5 through April 17, 2024.

I. Natalist Attitudes

We began by exploring natalist attitudes overall. There was a clear trend across party lines of people wanting to have more children than they currently plan on having.

Q1. How many biological children do you currently plan on having?

Results by Party		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
0	42.9%	47.3%	51.9%	28.8%
1	11.6%	10.0%	8.0%	14.2%
2	27.3%	30.0%	25.2%	29.2%
3	11.7%	10.0%	8.8%	17.7%
4	3.2%	2.3%	1.5%	5.4%
5 or more	3.3%	0.5%	4.6%	4.6%

Q2. How many biological children would you ideally have if you could have as many as you could?

Results by Party		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
0	28.9%	35.0%	35.5%	15.4%
1	7.6%	6.4%	7.6%	7.7%
2	27.0%	27.7%	22.9%	30.4%
3	19.5%	20.9%	18.3%	21.2%
4	8.9%	7.3%	6.9%	12.7%
5 or more	8.2%	2.7%	8.8%	12.7%

Republicans displayed stronger pro-natal attitudes. Almost a third of Democrats and Independents each would still have no children at all even if they could have as many as they want, compared to only 15.4% of Republicans. Additionally, slightly over a quarter of Republicans at 25.4% said they would have 4, 5, or more children if they could have as many as they want, compared to only 10% of Democrats and 15.7% of Independents who said the same.

It should be sobering that 87.3% of Democrats, 85.1% of Independents, and 72.2% of Republicans plan on below-replacement reproduction, meaning 2 or fewer children.

If white Republicans had as many children as they want, the birth rate for their segment of the population would be at least 2.54 which is above the 2.1 replacement rate, and well above their actual projected birth rate of 1.7 based on how many children they already have or plan on having.

The birth rate for Independents if they could have as many children as they want would be 1.8, and their actual projected birth rate is 1.14. For Democrats, these numbers are 1.67 and 1.11. For white Americans as a whole, they are about 2.0 and 1.32.

The current birth rate for white Americans is 1.6, and based on our poll findings we can expect it to drop to about 1.3 over the course of a generation.

But if white Americans could have as many children as they want, their birth rate would be almost replacement level at 2.0, with Republicans gradually replacing Independents and Democrats.

Admittedly, some respondents might have wildly unrealistic ideas about the conditions under which they could have as many children as they want, such as owning a mansion. But there is still a substantial gap between how many children they want and how many they currently plan on having. The Republican gap is the largest at .84 (compared to the Independent gap of .66 and the Democrat gap of .56) despite Republicans also having the highest projected birth rate.

This means that pro-natalist policies should have at least some positive impact and should favor the Republican birth rate the most.

II. Barriers to Children

The next section of our poll explored the specific reasons why people aren’t having children, inviting respondents to select all options that applied to them.

Q.3 If you don’t plan on having any biological children, or only having one biological child, why? Click ALL that apply.
Results by Party		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
N/A, I plan on having or already have two or more children	50.0%	44.5%	45.0%	63.1%
I just don’t want to have children	24.1%	28.6%	31.7%	12.7%
The financial cost of raising children overall	33.2%	35.9%	38.5%	23.1%
I’m worried about the type of world they would be born into	20.9%	23.6%	24.4%	12.3%
Doubts about whether I would make a good parent	18.7%	21.4%	21.0%	11.2%
The cost of good housing	17.2%	16.8%	21.0%	11.9%
The cost of paying for their medical care and insurance	16.3%	17.3%	21.0%	10.0%
Children would interfere with doing fun things like going out, travel, etc.	15.5%	19.5%	18.3%	8.5%
Concerns about the environment, climate change, etc.	11.9%	16.4%	14.9%	3.1%
The cost of paying for their college education	11.7%	12.7%	15.3%	7.3%
The quality of public K-12 education	10.9%	8.6%	16.8%	5.8%
The difficulty of finding a suitable partner	10.1%	7.7%	13.7%	8.1%
Not enough paid maternity/paternity leave	8.2%	10.0%	10.3%	3.1%
The physical pain of child birth	8.2%	9.5%	9.2%	5.4%
I’m too busy working	7.6%	8.6%	5.7%	7.7%
Children would interfere with my career	7.1%	7.3%	8.8%	4.2%
The cost of private K-12 education	6.9%	6.4%	8.8%	4.6%
I prefer adoption	6.0%	10.5%	5.7%	1.5%
I am infertile or have other medical issues	4.9%	3.6%	6.1%	3.5%
Discrimination against parents in the work force	3.5%	3.6%	4.6%	1.2%
My partner doesn’t want to have two or more children	3.1%	5.0%	2.3%	1.9%
Social pressure	2.9%	1.4%	5.3%	1.5%
My relatives already have a lot of children	2.2%	2.3%	1.5%	2.7%
I’m too busy caring for elderly family members	1.4%	0.9%	1.9%	1.2%
Lack of access to affordable surrogacy options	1.0%	0.5%	1.5%	0.4%
Social stigma against surrogacy	0.9%	0.5%	1.1%	0.8%
Other	4.9%	3.6%	6.1%	3.5%

The financial cost of raising children overall garnered the most responses across party lines, with 33.2% of all respondents, 35.9% of Democrats, 38.5% of Independents, and 23.1% of Republicans selecting this option. The cost of good housing was notable at 17.2% of all respondents, 16.8% of Democrats, 21% of Independents, and 11.9% of Republicans, as was the cost of medical care and insurance at 16.3% of all respondents, 17.3% of Democrats, 21% of Independents, and 10% of Republicans.

Concerns about the type of world their children would be born into, doubts about whether they would make a good parent, and children interfering with having fun were also high overall. But these answers were driven by Democrats and Independents, who listed these reasons at roughly double the rate as compared to Republicans. Concerns about the environment, climate change, etc., the cost of paying for their children’s college education, and a preference for adoption were even more highly skewed towards Democrats and Independents.

Interestingly, the difficulty of finding a suitable partner and the quality of K-12 education were much more often chosen by Independents than either Democrats or Republicans. While the government is ill-suited to playing match-maker, a candidate who wants to attract Independent voters may want to consider advocating for better K-12 education either as a stand-alone policy or part of a suite of pro-natalist policies.

Women are an essential part of child bearing and rearing, so we also broke down the responses among women:

Results Among Women		%	%	%
	Total Female %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
N/A, I plan on having or already have two or more children	54.0%	48.3%	50.8%	65.4%
I just don’t want to have children	23.0%	28.0%	30.2%	12.6%
The financial cost of raising children overall	31.7%	32.2%	39.7%	21.3%
I’m worried about the type of world they would be born into	23.8%	28.0%	28.6%	12.6%
Doubts about whether I would make a good parent	18.7%	22.0%	22.2%	8.7%
The cost of paying for their medical care and insurance	15.9%	16.9%	23.8%	6.3%
The cost of good housing	15.6%	15.3%	22.2%	7.9%
Children would interfere with doing fun things like going out, travel, etc.	15.6%	18.6%	22.2%	7.1%
The physical pain of child birth	15.3%	16.1%	18.3%	11.0%
The quality of public K-12 education	13.3%	9.3%	23.8%	6.3%
Concerns about the environment, climate change, etc.	12.8%	14.4%	19.0%	3.1%
The cost of paying for their college education	11.5%	11.9%	19.0%	4.7%
Not enough paid maternity/paternity leave	10.2%	11.9%	15.9%	2.4%
The cost of private K-12 education	9.0%	10.2%	10.3%	6.3%
Children would interfere with my career	8.7%	8.5%	11.1%	4.7%
The difficulty of finding a suitable partner	8.4%	10.2%	11.9%	3.9%
I prefer adoption	8.4%	13.6%	8.7%	2.4%
I’m too busy working	7.9%	9.3%	8.7%	4.7%
I am infertile or have other medical issues	6.4%	6.8%	6.3%	4.7%
Discrimination against parents in the work force	5.1%	3.4%	8.7%	1.6%
Social pressure	3.6%	1.7%	6.3%	2.4%
My partner doesn’t want to have two or more children	3.1%	5.1%	1.6%	2.4%
My relatives already have a lot of children	2.8%	3.4%	2.4%	3.1%
Lack of access to affordable surrogacy options	1.8%	0.0%	3.2%	0.8%
I’m too busy caring for elderly family members	1.5%	1.7%	3.2%	0.0%
Social stigma against surrogacy	1.0%	0.0%	1.6%	0.8%
Other	6.4%	6.8%	6.3%	4.7%

Slightly more women than men of all parties responded that they plan on having or already have two or more children. The number of women who just don’t want to have children was almost the same as for men across party lines. The number of women who answered the financial cost of raising children overall stayed roughly the same across party lines.

10.2% of Democrat and 11.9% of Independent women selected the difficulty of finding a partner, compared to only 3.9% of Republican women. This 3.9% among Republican women was a sharp drop from the 8.1% of Republican men and women who selected the difficulty of finding a suitable partner, which means that there is a high number of white Republican men are having difficulty in finding a partner.

Among Independent women, the quality of K-12 education shot up to 23.8%, as did the cost of paying for their children’s college education to 19%, both numbers of which were higher than Democrat and Republican women.

Doubts about whether respondents would make a good parent slightly decreased among Republican women to 8.7% but spiked to 22% of Democrat women and 22.2% of Independent women.

Children interfering with doing fun things decreased slightly to 18.6% among Democrat women from 19.5% for all Democrats, and also to 7.1% among Republican women from 8.5% of all Republicans, and rose slightly to 22.2% of Independent women from 18.3% of all Independents. This should challenge the notion that women are driving low birth rates by putting off childbearing for frivolous reasons, even if they are louder about it on social media.

There was a slight rise in the number of all women answering concerns about climate change, etc. to 12.8% compared to 11.9% of all respondents, and the world their children would be born into to 23.8% for all women compared to 20.9% of all respondents. In stark contrast, only 3.1% of Republican women listed concerns about climate change, etc., which was exactly the same number for all Republicans combined. Furthermore, 12.6% of Republican women listed concerns about the world their children would be born into, which was almost exactly the same as 12.3% of Republican men and women combined. This shows that white Republican women, like Republican men, are practically immune to the anti-natalist propaganda about climate change and the environment, which is suspiciously almost entirely directed at white countries with low birth rates rather than developing countries with high birth rates. Republican women are also no more easily swayed by dramatic hand wringing about the general state of the world than Republican men.

We next asked what was the single biggest barrier to having two or more children.

Q.4 If you don’t plan on having children or only having one child, which of the following is the SINGLE biggest reason why?

Results by Party		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
N/A, I plan on having or already have two or more children	51.5%	45.4%	45.9%	65.5%
I just don’t want to have children	17.0%	19.9%	23.0%	8.8%
The financial cost of raising children overall	9.0%	9.7%	9.3%	7.6%
I’m worried about the type of world they would be born into	5.9%	7.4%	8.2%	2.4%
The difficulty of finding a suitable partner	4.0%	3.2%	4.3%	4.4%
Doubts about whether I would make a good parent	2.0%	1.9%	1.9%	1.6%
I prefer adoption	2.0%	3.7%	0.8%	0.8%
I am infertile or have other medical issues	1.6%	0.0%	1.9%	2.0%
Children would interfere with doing fun things like going out, travel, etc.	1.3%	1.9%	0.4%	1.2%
The physical pain of child birth	1.3%	0.5%	1.2%	1.6%
The cost of good housing	0.9%	1.4%	0.8%	0.8%
I’m too busy working	0.9%	0.5%	0.8%	1.6%
Children would interfere with my career	0.7%	0.9%	0.8%	0.4%
The cost of paying for their medical care and insurance	0.3%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%
Concerns about the environment, climate change, etc.	0.3%	0.5%	0.4%	0.0%
I’m too busy caring for elderly family members	0.3%	0.0%	0.4%	0.4%
The quality of public K-12 education	0.1%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%
The cost of paying for their college education	0.1%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%
My relatives already have a lot of children	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%
Lack of access to affordable surrogacy options	0.1%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%
The cost of private K-12 education	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Not enough paid maternity/paternity leave	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Discrimination against parents in the work force	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Social pressure	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Social stigma against surrogacy	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Other	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

We also broke the results down for female respondents:

Results Among Women		%	%	%
	Total%	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
N/A, I plan on having or already have two or more children	54.2%	49.6%	48.0%	68.0%
I just don’t want to have children	15.2%	18.3%	20.0%	9.0%
The financial cost of raising children overall	8.6%	10.4%	8.0%	6.6%
I’m worried about the type of world they would be born into	6.8%	7.0%	12.8%	1.6%
I prefer adoption	2.9%	5.2%	1.6%	0.8%
Doubts about whether I would make a good parent	2.4%	0.9%	2.4%	2.5%
The difficulty of finding a suitable partner	2.1%	4.3%	0.0%	2.5%
The physical pain of child birth	1.8%	0.0%	1.6%	2.5%
Children would interfere with doing fun things like going out, travel, etc.	1.6%	2.6%	0.8%	0.8%
I am infertile or have other medical issues	1.6%	0.0%	1.6%	2.5%
The cost of paying for their medical care and insurance	0.5%	0.9%	0.0%	0.0%
The cost of good housing	0.5%	0.0%	0.8%	0.8%
I’m too busy working	0.5%	0.0%	0.8%	0.8%
Concerns about the environment, climate change, etc.	0.5%	0.9%	0.8%	0.0%
Children would interfere with my career	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.8%
I’m too busy caring for elderly family members	0.3%	0.0%	0.8%	0.0%
My relatives already have a lot of children	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.8%
My partner doesn’t want to have two or more children	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
The quality of public K-12 education	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
The cost of private K-12 education	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
The cost of paying for their college education	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Not enough paid maternity/paternity leave	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Discrimination against parents in the work force	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Social pressure	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Lack of access to affordable surrogacy options	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Social stigma against surrogacy	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Other	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

The financial cost of having children overall was the number one reason for 9% for all respondents, 9.7% among Democrats, 9.3% among Independents, and 7.6% of Republicans. Among women this was also the top reason at 8.6% for all female respondents, 10.4% of Democrats, 8% of Independents, and 6.6% of Republicans.

The difficulty of finding a suitable partner was the second top reason for Republicans at 4.4%. Concern about the type of world their children would be born into was the second top reason overall for Democrats at 7.4% and Independents at 8.2%, but for Republicans was the third top reason at only 2.4%. Among Democrat and Independent women this was also second top reason, for Democrats at 7% and Independents at 12.8%. For Republican women, this number dropped even lower to 1.6%.

Among Republican women, doubts about whether they would be a good parent, infertility or other medical issues, and the physical pain of child birth all ranked higher than concern about the general state of the world at 2.5%. While the numbers at this level are very low (6 respondents for 2.5% of Republican women) and thus prone to outliers, they are highly suggestive that Republican women substantially differ from their Democrat and Independent counterparts.

Adoption was unusually high among Democrats at 3.7% of all Democrats and 5.2% of Democrat women, suggesting that liberals and especially liberal women have a strong outgroup preference and/or low ingroup preference.

The other options received very few or no results, including “other” which indicates that our polling covered all major reasons for why people forego having children.

That almost a tenth of respondents at 9% answered the financial cost of raising children overall, as did 0.9% who answered the cost of housing as the top reason for why they don’t have or plan on having two or more children indicates that there is a slim yet promising segment of the population who would respond favorably to financial incentives. But how much of an increase could we expect?

Let’s assume that the respondents who listed the cost of housing and the financial cost overall as the single most important reason for why they currently have or plan on having no children or a single child each had one 1 additional child because they were able to afford to do so. This would result in about a .1 increase in the white American fertility rate from 1.6 to 1.7 and would increase our projected future fertility rate from 1.3 to 1.4. This is a bare minimum projection because it assumes that each respondent in this tenth of the white American population only had one additional child, so the actual increase would probably be slightly more.

We can therefore take .1 as the bare minimum increase from pro-natalist polices as discussed above, and a .3 increase as a maximum increase discussed earlier regarding how many children respondents would have if they could have as many as they could. The actual increase from adopting pro-natalist policies would be somewhere between these two numbers, and it would be reasonable to assume it would be around the average of these two figures at a .2 increase.

Hungary corroborates our projected 0.2 actual increase in the white American birth rate. Hungary was able to increase their 2011 birth rate of 1.23 by .32 to its current rate of 1.55, which is close to our .2 projected increase. While 1.55 is still below replacement level, it is still a marked improvement over 1.23.

Aside from pro-natalist policies, some of these births may have come about because the general mood in Hungary improved and there was more optimism for the future after the post-Soviet malaise finally dissipated. This would correspond to respondents in our poll listing concern about the world their children would be born into as a barrier to having children. Thus, Hungary suggestively corroborates our poll findings.

We still don’t know what the absolute minimum birth rate is before triggering a demographic catastrophe characterized by tyranny of the old, calls for migrant workers, and exploding national debt. South Korea’s birth rate of 0.7 certainly meets that threshold for demographic catastrophe. Japan’s 1.26 probably does as well.

Time will tell what number is enough to avert disaster, but given the stakes, it is best to aim for as big a cushion as possible.

This is especially true given that a natural rebound cannot be relied upon. Edward Dutton has argued that politics is mostly genetic, and because only people who are most genetically predisposed to having children and who tend to be conservative are doing so, then we should expect to see a rebound in birth rates along with a swing towards the Right in political attitudes. However, as discussed by Christian Secor, Japan is much further along the path of demographic decline than the West and has not yet seen a rebound in birth rates and true nationalism. This suggests that a natural rebound is either not inevitable or that it is far from imminent. Due to human biodiversity, Europeans and Japanese may have different thresholds for a rebound. This is a completely unknown factor, however.

Even if state intervention cannot increase the birth rate to a 2.1 replacement level, it must be employed to stave off the catastrophic death spiral that we see in Japan and South Korea.

Relying on a natural rebound brings to mind Oswald Spengler’s maxim that “optimism is cowardice.” State intervention is required.

III. Electoral Viability

But how electorally viable are pro-natalist policies? We next asked “For a population to remain stable in size, each woman needs to have on average 2.1 children. America’s birth rate per woman is currently 1.7. If a politician were to propose policies to address America’s declining birth rate, how likely are you to vote for him or her?” and broke down the respondents by party and also by women.

Results by Party		%	%	%
	%	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
A lot more likely	5.4%	3.2%	7.8%	6.9%
Somewhat more likely	7.6%	4.1%	6.4%	13.8%
A little more likely	13.6%	12.3%	14.2%	16.5%
No effect either way	41.7%	40.9%	50.2%	44.2%
A little less likely	8.6%	10.0%	9.6%	7.3%
Somewhat less likely	6.9%	10.5%	5.9%	5.0%
A lot less likely	16.2%	19.1%	5.9%	6.2%

Results Among Women		%	%	%
	%	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
A lot more likely	2.6%	1.7%	5.0%	2.4%
Somewhat more likely	6.1%	2.5%	5.0%	12.6%
A little more likely	12.8%	10.2%	15.8%	15.7%
No effect either way	37.9%	32.2%	46.5%	46.5%
A little less likely	11.8%	15.3%	11.9%	10.2%
Somewhat less likely	8.2%	12.7%	7.9%	4.7%
A lot less likely	20.7%	25.4%	7.9%	7.9%

Overall, more respondents answered they were at least a little less likely to vote for a candidate who proposed pro-natalist policies than respondents who answered they were at least a little more likely. Women were overall less likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies compared to men. However, pro-natalist policies are still electorally viable for a Republican candidate because hostility towards pro-natalist policies was strongly driven by Democrats.

More Republicans were more likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies at 37.5% than those who were less likely at 18.5%. Most importantly, more Independents were more likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies at 28.4% than those who were less likely at 21.4%.

We also broke the results down by voter registration.

Results by Voter Registration		%	%
	%	Unregistered	Registered
A lot more likely	5.4%	3.6%	5.7%
Somewhat more likely	7.6%	4.5%	8.1%
A little more likely	13.6%	7.1%	14.7%
No effect either way	41.7%	50.9%	40.2%
A little less likely	8.6%	10.7%	8.2%
Somewhat less likely	6.9%	3.6%	7.5%
A lot less likely	16.2%	19.6%	15.6%

More than twice as many unregistered were less likely to vote for a candidate with pro-natalist policies at 33.9% than those who were more likely at 15.2%. However, people who aren’t even registered to vote can’t vote less than they already do. While there is a possibility that at least a few might register to vote against a pro-natalist candidate, there are already ample hot button issues which have so far failed to motivate them to register. Pro-natalist policies should thus be seen as more of an opportunity to attract fresh unregistered voters than a risk of sending them fleeing to the opposition.

Thus, pro-natalist policies may be a way for a populist Republican candidate to rally the base, sway independents, obtain new voters, and perhaps steal a few Democrat votes who normally aren’t up for grabs. The voters most opposed are probably not in the cards anyways.

Additionally, while there is some opposition to pro-natalist policies, that opposition may be less strong than pushback against abortion restrictions. Thus, pro-natalist policies might prove to be a way to rally or at least appease the religious right while not galvanizing the liberal opposition as abortion does, or at least not to the same extent.

This is not speculation. Hungary enacted several aggressive pro-natalist policies in 2011, and by 2021 their abortion rate had dropped by a hefty 41%.[1]

Thus, pro-natalism may offer candidates a new creative way to be pro-life that is electorally viable, and at a time when abortion has become a hot topic after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade in the summer of 2022.

This poll only targeted respondents age 18-35 because the emphasis was on what policies would increase the birth rate over electoral viability. Future polls on this topic may target a broader segment of society so as to explore electoral viability in greater depth.

IV. Specific Policies

We next explored which specific pro-natalist policies would have the most impact on birth rates. To do this, we asked respondents to rate a number of policies in regard to how likely they are to have children, or have at least one more child if they already have children, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very unlikely and 5 being very likely.

There was a clear trend of Republicans being more likely to have children due to these policies. When we repeat this poll in the future, we may experiment with different dollar amounts for some of the financial incentives.

These are the incentives in order of general popularity:

Making it easier to support a family on a single income instead of two:

32% of respondents rated it as 5 and 20.4% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 52.4%.
For Republicans, 39.2% rated this as a 5 and 24.6% as a 4 for a combined total of 63.8%.

Making housing more affordable in general:

24.6% of respondents rated it as 5 and 19.3% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 43.9%.
For Republicans, 31.5% rated this as a 5 and 20.4% as a 4 for a combined total of 51.9%.

A lifetime 50% income tax break for parents of two children, and a 100% lifetime income tax break for parents of three or more children:

21.7% of respondents rated it as 5 and 19.8% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 41.5%.
For Republicans, 26.5% rated this as a 5 and 24.6% as a 4 for a combined total of 51.1%.

Free or subsidized medical care and medical insurance to middle-class families:

22.6% of respondents rated it as 5 and 18.6% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 41.2%.
For Republicans, 24.2% rated this as a 5 and 19.2% as a 4 for a combined total of 43.4%.

Financial help for first time home-buyers for parents of children with a grant or interest free loan:

20.9% of respondents rated it as 5 and 19.3% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 40.2%.
For Republicans, 25% rated this as a 5 and 22.3% as a 4 for a combined total of 47.3%.

Lump sum grants of $10,000 for each child:

22.3% of respondents rated it as 5 and 15.9% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 38.2%.
For Republicans, 26.2% rated this as a 5 and 20.4% as a 4 for a combined total of 46.6%.

Free or subsidized childcare:

18.5% of respondents rated it as 5 and 19.1% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 37.6%.

Free public college tuition:

21.4% of respondents rated it as 5 and 15.9% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 37.3%.

Three months of government parental leave for each child:

18.2% of respondents rated it as 5 and 16.7% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 34.9%.

$150 per month for each child until the age of eighteen:

3% of respondents rated it as 5 and 16.6% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 33.9%.

Student loan forgiveness for parents:

17.3% of respondents rated it as 5 and 10.1% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 29.4%.

Increased legal protection from employer discrimination against parents:

14.2% of respondents rated it as 5 and 12.3% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 26.7%.

Free or affordable fertility clinics and surrogacy:

13.2% of respondents rated it as 5 and 11% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 24.2%.

Free parenting classes, therapy, or support groups:

10.4% of respondents rated it as 5 and 12.7% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 23.1%.

If many of your friends became parents too:

7.8% of respondents rated it as 5 and 10.9% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 18.7%.
For Republicans, 10.4% rated this as a 5 and 12.3% as a 4 for a combined total of 22.7%.

Free parents’ night out programs from a local church, school, YMCA, or similar:

6.9% of respondents rated it as 5 and 10% rated it as 4, for a combined total of 16.9%.

While “if many of your friends became parents too” was second to last, its important because it shows that the other policies would have a small ripple effect. Additionally, some people who may not think their friends having children would influence them could find that it actually does influence them.

For the above-mentioned policies, we also asked which was the single most likely, second most likely, and third most likely to induce respondents to have children or have at least one more child if they already have children.

Q. 22 Out of the following, which one is the single most likely to induce you to have children, or have at least one more child if you already have children?

All Respondents		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
Not Applicable/I don’t want to have children	20.5%	21.4%	27.5%	12.7%
A lifetime 50% income tax break for parents of two children, and a 100% lifetime income tax break for parents of three or more children	22.5%	18.2%	23.7%	26.9%
It was easier to support a family on a single income instead of two	16.2%	13.2%	15.6%	18.5%
The government offered parents a lump sum of $10,000 for each child they had	9.2%	10.5%	8.4%	9.6%
Housing was more affordable in general	7.3%	8.2%	6.1%	6.9%
The government offered parents $150 per month for each child they had until that child turned eighteen years of age	5.4%	4.1%	4.6%	7.7%
Financial help for first time home-buyers for parents of children with a grant or interest free loan	3.1%	4.1%	1.1%	4.2%
The government offered free or subsidized medical care and medical insurance to middle-class families	2.8%	2.7%	1.9%	2.3%
Public college tuition were free	2.7%	5.9%	2.3%	0.8%
The government offered free or subsidized childcare	2.4%	4.5%	1.5%	1.9%
Being able to live in a safe neighborhood with good schools	1.9%	0.5%	3.1%	2.3%
Free or affordable fertility clinics and surrogacy	1.7%	1.8%	1.5%	1.2%
Many of your friends became parents too	1.4%	0.9%	0.4%	2.7%
The government forgave the student loans of parents	1.0%	1.8%	0.8%	0.8%
The government (not employers) offered three months of parental leave to parents for each child they had	0.9%	0.9%	1.1%	0.8%
Increased legal protection from employer discrimination against parents	0.4%	0.5%	0.0%	0.4%
Free parenting classes, therapy, or support groups	0.4%	0.5%	0.4%	0.4%
A free parents’ night out program from a local church, school, YMCA, or similar	0.1%	0.5%	0.0%	0.0%

Q. 23 Out of the following, which one is the second most likely to induce you to have children, or have at least one more child if you already have children?

All Respondents		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
Not Applicable/I don’t want to have children	21.1%	22.7%	27.1%	12.7%
Housing was more affordable in general	11.3%	11.8%	11.8%	10.8%
A lifetime 50% income tax break for parents of two children, and a 100% lifetime income tax break for parents of three or more children	10.5%	8.2%	11.1%	12.7%
The government offered parents a lump sum of $10,000 for each child they had	9.8%	7.3%	7.3%	14.2%
It was easier to support a family on a single income instead of two	9.1%	8.6%	8.4%	9.2%
The government offered parents $150 per month for each child they had until that child turned eighteen years of age	8.2%	9.5%	5.7%	10.0%
Financial help for first time home-buyers for parents of children with a grant or interest free loan	8.1%	8.6%	9.5%	6.5%
The government offered free or subsidized childcare	4.6%	5.5%	5.7%	3.1%
The government offered free or subsidized medical care and medical insurance to middle-class families	3.9%	4.5%	1.9%	4.6%
Public college tuition were free	3.5%	4.1%	2.3%	4.2%
The government forgave the student loans of parents	2.2%	1.4%	2.3%	2.7%
Being able to live in a safe neighborhood with good schools	2.1%	0.9%	2.3%	2.7%
The government (not employers) offered three months of parental leave to parents for each child they had	1.5%	1.8%	1.1%	1.9%
Free or affordable fertility clinics and surrogacy	1.5%	1.8%	1.5%	1.5%
Many of your friends became parents too	1.3%	0.9%	0.8%	1.9%
Free parenting classes, therapy, or support groups	1.0%	1.8%	1.1%	0.4%
Increased legal protection from employer discrimination against parents	0.3%	0.5%	0.0%	0.4%
A free parents’ night out program from a local church, school, YMCA, or similar	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%

Q. 24 Out of the following, which one is the third most likely to induce you to have children, or have at least one more child if you already have children?

All Respondents		%	%	%
	Total %	Democrats	Independents	Republicans
Not Applicable/I don’t want to have children	21.2%	22.3%	27.5%	13.1%
Housing was more affordable in general	9.8%	11.4%	7.6%	10.4%
The government offered parents a lump sum of $10,000 for each child they had	9.4%	8.2%	10.7%	9.6%
The government offered parents $150 per month for each child they had until that child turned eighteen years of age	7.8%	6.4%	8.8%	8.8%
It was easier to support a family on a single income instead of two	7.7%	5.9%	6.9%	10.4%
A lifetime 50% income tax break for parents of two children, and a 100% lifetime income tax break for parents of three or more children	7.1%	5.9%	5.3%	9.2%
Financial help for first time home-buyers for parents of children with a grant or interest free loan	6.9%	7.3%	4.2%	9.2%
The government offered free or subsidized medical care and medical insurance to middle-class families	5.4%	7.3%	6.5%	3.1%
Public college tuition were free	4.9%	6.8%	5.0%	3.5%
The government offered free or subsidized childcare	4.4%	6.8%	2.7%	3.8%
Being able to live in a safe neighborhood with good schools	3.7%	1.4%	3.8%	5.8%
The government (not employers) offered three months of parental leave to parents for each child they had	3.3%	4.1%	2.3%	3.1%
Free or affordable fertility clinics and surrogacy	2.1%	2.3%	1.9%	2.3%
The government forgave the student loans of parents	1.9%	1.4%	1.5%	2.7%
Free parenting classes, therapy, or support groups	1.8%	0.9%	2.3%	1.9%
Many of your friends became parents too	1.4%	0.5%	1.9%	1.5%
Increased legal protection from employer discrimination against parents	1.0%	1.4%	1.1%	0.8%
A free parents’ night out program from a local church, school, YMCA, or similar	0.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.8%

A lifetime 50% income tax break for parents of two children, and a 100% lifetime income tax break for parents of three or more children was by far the most popular policy. 22.5% of all respondents and 26.9% of Republicans ranked it as the single most likely policy to induce them to have children.

16.2% of all respondents and 18.5% of Republicans ranked if it was easier to support a family on a single income instead of two as the single most likely policy to induce them to have children.

9.2% of all respondents ranked a lump sum of $10,000 and 7.3% if housing were more affordable in general for the single most likely policy to induce them to have children.

For the second most likely policy to induce respondents to have children, 11.3% said if housing were more affordable in general, followed by an income tax break at 10.5%. A lump sum of $10,000, if it was easier to support a family on a single income, $150 payments a month for each child, and financial help for parents who are first-time home buyers were also popular choices for being the second most likely to induce respondents to have children. The highest choice among Republican respondents was a lump sum of $10,000 at 14.2%.

The answers began to even out for the third most likely policy to induce respondents to have children. If housing were more affordable was selected by 9.8% of all respondents and a lump sum of $10,000 by 9.4%. An income tax break, $150 payments per month per child, financial help for parents who are first-time home buyers, and being able to support a family on a single income also were highly selected. Significantly more Republicans than other respondents selected if housing were more affordable at 10.4% and if it was easier to support a family on a single income at 10.4%.

There is a clear trend of concrete financial incentives being the most likely to induce people to have more children. Policy makers who are serious about addressing America’s demographic decline will have to tackle how a middle-class family lifestyle has become difficult to afford. There is no cheap or superficial fix for low birth rates.

Policy makers should especially consider an income tax break for parents followed by a lump sum for new parents. Hungary proves that an income tax break for parents has a proven track record of working. Hungary substantially expanded their income tax break in 2011-2012 as the cornerstone of a suite of pro-natalist policies.[2] Hungary’s birthrate was at its lowest of 1.23 births per woman in 2011, and has since then risen to 1.52 as of 2022.[3] While this was expensive and Hungary increased their spending on pro-natalist policies from 3.5% of the GDP to 6.2% in 2022, low birth rates often lead to calls for immigration, and the cost of immigration for the average tax payer is in the long-term even higher due to depressed wages, crime, and social services as explained by Ann Coulter in her book Adios America.

Additionally, an income tax break only rewards productive segments of society which should allay concerns about free riding or dysgenics.

Most states have an income tax in addition to the federal government, and our poll did not differentiate between state and federal income tax. Its logical that a state income tax break would have a smaller effect than a federal income tax break in proportion to its size. This means that we can address low birth rates on a state as well as a national level.

For further comparison, Poland’s flagship pro-natalist policy is a subsidy. Poland began offering parents a child allowance of about $120 euros a month in 2016. However, this seemed to only temporarily raise Poland’s birthrate from 1.4 in 2016 to 1.5 in 2017. The birthrate dopped to 1.3 as of 2021. More time is needed to see if Poland’s policies work better, but it is doubtful as of now. This corroborates our finding that a monthly payment of $150 was much less likely to induce respondents to have more children compared to an income tax break or a single lump sum paid at birth. However, Poland’s child allowance did have a redistributionist effect and halved Poland’s child poverty rate.[4]

The difficulty of raising a family on a single income is also of high importance, but this will invariably clash with several powerful interests: feminism which lauds women in the workplace even if it ultimately makes women miserable, immigration which depresses wages while increasing the cost of housing, and corporate greed. Businessmen who are initially hostile to the idea of single income families should seriously ask if they can truly insulate themselves from collapsing birthrates and its secondary effects. Doing nothing will lead to civilizational collapse. If our options to avoid collapse are reform or revolution, we would be wise to choose reform.

V. Conclusion

To summarize, key takeaways are that:

The current reproductive preferences of white Americans, aged 18 to 35, are overwhelmingly below replacement: 87.3% of Democrats, 85.1% of Independents, and 72.2% of Republicans plan on having 2 or fewer children.
If we do nothing about this, America will face demographic collapse.
Fortunately, we can do something about this.
White Americans, especially Republicans, would have more children if they could afford to do so.
The financial cost of raising children overall was the top barrier to having more children for respondents of all party affiliations.
The number of women who just don’t want to have children is almost the same as for men. However, more Republican men than Republican women report the difficulty of finding a suitable partner as being a barrier to having more children.
Pro-natalist policies are electorally viable for a populist candidate and may attract Independents, previously unregistered voters, and even some Democrats.
Pro-natalist policies may be a creative way for candidates to be pro-life without galvanizing as much opposition from the Left as restricting abortion does.
An income tax break for parents followed by a lump sum of $10,000 would be the most effective pro-natalist policies.
While a monthly stipend for parents would probably decrease child poverty, it would probably have very limited effects on the birth rate.
The difficulty of raising a family on a single income is a problem which policy makers may have to address if they are serious about fixing the birth rate, even if this clashes with powerful interests.