Pixaby stock image
このページを で読む
Japan's latest birthrate debate has become tangled in one phrase: "singles tax." The term has spread online as criticism of the government's child-rearing support fund, a new financing mechanism intended to help pay for expanded child and family policies.
The fund is not collected as a separate income tax. It is being added to public medical insurance premiums in fiscal 2026, meaning company employees, self-employed workers, pensioners, and other insured people contribute through the health insurance system. The amount will vary by income and insurance plan. Still, the government estimates the average burden will be several hundred yen (a few US dollars) per person per month, rising gradually as the program expands.
The criticism is easy to understand. Many young people already face stagnant wages, unstable employment, rising living costs, and anxiety about marriage and family formation. Asking them to pay more, even gradually, has triggered resentment. To some critics, the policy appears to punish people without children to support those who have them.
Who Should Bear the Cost?
Shigeki Matsuda, a professor at Chukyo University who specializes in family sociology and birthrate issues, says the phrase itself is misleading.
"I don't think the term is appropriate," Matsuda told Japan Forward. "It is not something paid only by single people."
Matsuda said the system's design is precisely why the "single tax" label is inaccurate. The burden is spread across society in relatively small amounts, and the revenue is intended to support children and families.
Still, he said, the frustration is understandable. Young people are already under pressure, and many feel they are being asked to shoulder part of the cost before they have been given the stability needed to marry or raise children themselves.
"If child and family support could be expanded without raising taxes, that would be ideal," he said. "But the costs still have to be borne by someone."
According to Matsuda, the larger problem is that the controversy has obscured a more important question: why Japan's birthrate remains so low, and whether current policy is addressing the causes.
Marriage Is the Central Problem
Japan's declining birthrate is often discussed as if married couples are simply having fewer children. That is part of the problem, but Matsuda says it is not the main one. "Academically speaking, the impact of non-marriage is far larger," Matsuda said.
According to demographic research, he said, the overwhelming driver of Japan's fertility decline since the 1970s has been the rise in non-marriage. About 80% or more of that decline is due to fewer people marrying, while only about 20% or less is due to married couples having fewer children.
He does not believe this is mainly because Japanese people have rejected marriage as an idea. Rather, he argues that more young people want to marry but find it difficult to do so.
The first reason is economic. Since the collapse of the bubble economy in the 1990s, many young people have faced unstable employment and weak wage growth. Japan, he noted, has been unusual among G7 countries in the long stagnation of wages.
The second reason is more culturally specific: meeting potential long-term partners has become harder. In the past, many Japanese couples met through the workplace. This was known as shokuen kekkon, or workplace-linked marriage. As workplace relationships changed, that route declined, but other forms of meeting partners did not fully replace it.
Japan also once had a stronger culture of omiai, or arranged introductions. Matsuda noted that among the baby-boomer generation, around half of marriages were arranged or semi-arranged. Today, that share has fallen to below 10%. Workplace marriage partly replaced omiai for a time, but that too has weakened.
Support Before Marriage
Government policy has expanded support for families after children are born. But Matsuda said Japan also needs stronger measures before people reach marriage and childbirth.
The government has begun moving in that direction, he said, through employment support for young people, wage policies, subsidies for local governments that run marriage-support or matchmaking programs, and "life design" education to help young people think about work, marriage, and family.
Still, Matsuda said the support remains too limited to change the underlying problem. "Financial support before childbirth remains limited," he said. In his view, measures such as helping young nonregular workers move into stable employment, raising younger workers' incomes, expanding opportunities to meet partners, and easing the housing and living costs of starting married life need to be strengthened.
If non-marriage is the largest driver of the decline, policy also has to make marriage and family formation more realistic before childbirth.
Money Alone Will Not Fix It
Matsuda does not dismiss financial support. In fact, he says birthrates are unlikely to recover without it. But he is equally clear that money alone is not enough. Singapore shows how hard the problem is. Even after years of heavy family-policy spending, including a Marriage and Parenthood Package budgeted at S$2 billion annually in 2010, Singapore's fertility rate fell to a preliminary rate of 0.87 in 2025, according to official data.
Japan's low birthrate, Matsuda said, "cannot be traced to a single cause." Economic insecurity, long working hours, difficulty balancing work and child-rearing, workplaces that still make it hard for women to continue their careers, and the isolation or burden faced even by stay-at-home mothers are all intertwined. Together, he said, they make it harder for young people in Japan "to marry, have children, and raise them."
A Blind Spot in Childcare Support
Another blind spot is who benefits from current support. Matsuda said Japan's childcare and parental leave systems have become world-class in some respects. But they mainly serve dual-income couples in which both spouses are regular full-time employees.
Part-time and non-regular workers still struggle to take childcare leave. Stay-at-home mother households often have limited access to childcare support for children aged zero to two.
The government is beginning to address this through measures such as the upcoming universal childcare access system, which will allow young children to use childcare services for limited hours even when their parents are not working. But Matsuda said support for these overlooked groups remains weak.
Different Problems in Cities and Regions
Matsuda explained that Japan also needs to distinguish between rural and urban birthrate problems.
In regional areas, the biggest issue is the outflow of young people to Tokyo and other large cities. When young adults leave, the number of potential parents declines. Regional areas also face weaker job opportunities and lower wages.
For regional communities, Matsuda said, the priority is to create local employment with sufficient wages so that young people can remain.
Urban areas face different obstacles. In densely populated cities, childcare services are often insufficient. Housing is also expensive, making it difficult for young couples to buy or rent homes suitable for raising children.
The Need to Explain
Asked what the government most needs to change to reduce backlash against birthrate policy, Matsuda's answer was direct: communication.
Japan's child and family policies have expanded considerably, he said, but many people do not know what support is available. Young people cannot feel reassured by systems they do not understand.
The government also needs to explain why society as a whole is being asked to support children.
"Without the next generation, Japanese society cannot sustain its social security system or its economy," Matsuda said. "Children are a treasure for society as a whole, and this is a system for everyone to support them together."
RELATED:
Takaichi Addresses Calls to Dismantle Children and Families Agency
Author: Daniel Manning
このページを で読む
