China is set to implement a 13% value-added tax (VAT) on contraceptive products, including condoms and birth control pills, effective January 1, 2026. This decision ends a tax exemption that has been in place since 1993, when the one-child policy was enforced. The government aims to address declining birth rates amid concerns over an aging population and economic pressures.

In 2024, approximately 9.54 million births were recorded in China, which is about 520,000 more than the previous year; however, the birth rate per 1,000 people remains critically low at 6.77. China's total population has been declining for three consecutive years, with over 1.408 billion inhabitants recorded in 2024—a decrease of roughly 1.39 million from the previous year.

The introduction of this VAT on contraceptives comes alongside other government initiatives aimed at encouraging families to have more children, such as financial incentives for families with multiple children and expanded childcare services. However, experts warn that rising costs associated with raising children are significant barriers to increasing birth rates and that the new tax may disproportionately affect lower-income individuals.

Critics argue that while the cost of contraception will increase due to this tax, it does not address deeper societal issues affecting family planning decisions or alleviate financial burdens related to child-rearing. Concerns have also been raised about potential negative impacts on access to contraceptives for economically disadvantaged populations and possible increases in unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Demographer He Yafu described the elimination of the VAT exemption as largely symbolic and unlikely to produce significant changes regarding national birth rates or family planning decisions. Observers note skepticism about whether taxing contraceptives will effectively encourage higher fertility rates or if it serves primarily as a revenue-generating measure for the government.

Overall, while China seeks to stimulate birth rates through various measures including taxation changes and subsidies for childcare services exempt from personal income tax, challenges remain in addressing underlying factors influencing young people's decisions around marriage and parenthood amidst ongoing economic uncertainty.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

The article discusses the implementation of a 13% value-added tax on contraceptive products in China, which has sparked backlash among consumers. Here’s an evaluation of its usefulness:

**Actionable Information**: The article does not provide clear steps or choices for readers to take. While it highlights the new tax and its implications, it lacks specific guidance on how individuals can navigate these changes or mitigate their financial impact.

**Educational Depth**: The article offers some context regarding the historical background of the tax exemption and its connection to population control policies. However, it does not delve deeply into economic factors influencing family planning decisions beyond surface-level observations. It mentions that high costs of raising children are more significant than small increases in contraceptive prices but fails to provide detailed analysis or statistics that could enhance understanding.

**Personal Relevance**: The information is relevant to a broad audience, particularly those affected by rising costs of contraception and family planning decisions. However, it primarily addresses concerns without providing practical solutions or resources for those feeling financial pressure.

**Public Service Function**: The article lacks a public service element as it does not offer warnings, safety guidance, or actionable advice for readers facing these changes. It recounts consumer reactions but fails to guide them on how to respond effectively.

**Practical Advice**: There are no concrete steps or tips provided that an ordinary reader could realistically follow. The discussion remains at a high level without offering strategies for managing increased costs or accessing affordable contraceptive options.

**Long-Term Impact**: The focus is mainly on immediate reactions to the tax rather than long-term solutions for individuals considering family planning in light of economic pressures. It does not help readers plan ahead or improve their decision-making regarding contraception and child-rearing.

**Emotional and Psychological Impact**: While the article captures consumer frustration effectively, it may also contribute to feelings of helplessness without offering constructive ways forward. Readers may feel overwhelmed by rising costs without any sense of agency over their circumstances.

**Clickbait Language**: There is no overt clickbait language; however, the framing around consumer backlash may sensationalize public sentiment without providing deeper insights into potential resolutions.

In terms of missed opportunities, while the article identifies a problem—the new tax—it fails to suggest practical methods for individuals facing increased costs due to this change.

To add real value that was missing from the original piece, readers can consider several general strategies when faced with rising prices for essential products like contraception:

1. Explore alternative brands or generic options that may be more affordable. 2. Look into local health clinics or organizations that offer subsidized reproductive health services. 3. Consider discussing financial concerns with healthcare providers who might have insights into cost-effective solutions. 4. Stay informed about government programs aimed at supporting families; they might offer assistance beyond what is immediately apparent. 5. Engage in community discussions about shared experiences related to family planning; collective voices can lead to advocacy efforts aimed at addressing such issues at a policy level.

By applying these general principles and seeking out supportive resources within their communities, individuals can better navigate challenges posed by economic changes like new taxes on essential goods.

The text shows a bias against the new tax on contraceptive products by using strong emotional language. Phrases like "significant backlash" and "sparked significant backlash among consumers" suggest that many people are upset about the tax. This choice of words emphasizes negative feelings and makes it seem like there is widespread anger, which could influence readers to feel similarly without providing balanced views from supporters of the tax.

The phrase “disproportionately affect ordinary people” implies that the tax is unfairly targeting those who are not wealthy. This wording suggests a class bias, as it highlights how lower-income individuals may struggle more than others with increased costs. By focusing on this aspect, the text paints a picture of inequality without discussing any potential benefits or reasons for implementing the tax.

When mentioning “many young people cite financial pressures as a primary reason for delaying or opting against having children altogether,” the text presents this claim as an absolute fact without supporting evidence. This framing can lead readers to believe that financial issues are universally accepted as the main reason for declining birth rates, while ignoring other possible factors such as personal choice or lifestyle preferences.

The statement “experts suggest that while the government hopes this adjustment will encourage higher birth rates” uses vague language like “experts suggest.” This wording creates uncertainty and implies that there is no consensus among experts about whether this tax will achieve its intended goal. It downplays any confidence in government policies and shifts focus onto potential failures rather than successes.

By stating “the government aims to address declining birth rates through various incentives and subsidies,” there is an implication that these efforts may not be enough to solve deeper issues related to family planning. The use of "various incentives and subsidies" sounds positive but lacks detail about their effectiveness or reach, which could mislead readers into thinking these measures are sufficient when they might not be.

The text conveys a range of emotions that reflect the societal impact of China's new value-added tax on contraceptive products. One prominent emotion is **anger**, which is expressed through the backlash from consumers regarding the tax increase. Phrases such as "sparked significant backlash" and "users on social media have expressed their anger" highlight this emotion, indicating a strong reaction to what many perceive as an unfair financial burden. This anger serves to create sympathy for those who feel disadvantaged by the new tax, particularly singles who may struggle financially. By emphasizing this emotional response, the text aims to align readers with the frustrations of ordinary people affected by government policies.

Another notable emotion present in the text is **fear**, particularly concerning unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections due to reduced access to contraceptives for lower-income individuals. The mention of these potential consequences evokes concern about public health and personal safety, suggesting that economic factors could lead to serious repercussions beyond mere financial strain. This fear enhances the urgency of addressing not only birth rates but also access to essential health products, guiding readers toward understanding the broader implications of such policy changes.

**Sadness** also permeates parts of the narrative, especially when discussing young people's reluctance to have children due to financial pressures. The phrase "many young people cite financial pressures as a primary reason for delaying or opting against having children altogether" underscores a sense of loss regarding family planning aspirations in light of economic realities. This sadness can foster empathy among readers who may relate personally or recognize similar struggles within society.

The writer employs specific emotional language and rhetorical tools throughout the text to enhance its persuasive power. For instance, words like "disproportionately affect," "struggle," and “financial burdens” evoke strong feelings rather than neutral descriptions, making it easier for readers to connect emotionally with those impacted by these changes. Additionally, presenting expert opinions alongside consumer reactions creates a contrast between individual experiences and governmental intentions, further intensifying emotional responses.

By using repetition—such as reiterating concerns about financial pressures—the writer reinforces key ideas that resonate with readers’ experiences or fears related to family planning in contemporary society. This technique emphasizes how deeply intertwined economic factors are with personal decisions about having children.

Overall, these emotions work together not only to inform but also persuade readers regarding their views on government policies affecting reproductive health and family dynamics in China. The combination of anger at perceived injustices, fear over potential health risks, and sadness over lost opportunities shapes a compelling narrative that encourages critical reflection on how such policies impact everyday lives while urging action or change in public sentiment towards these issues.