HUNGARY’S decision to introduce Europe’s largest tax reduction programme for families, announced this week, has been hailed as a bold initiative to support mothers and encourage childbearing. Starting in October 2025, mothers of three children – and from January 2026, those with two – will benefit from lifelong personal income tax exemptions, while child tax allowances will double, providing significant financial relief.
On the surface, this appears to be a victory for families, especially in a continent grappling with declining birth rates and ageing populations. However, while commendable, this policy positions families primarily as economic contributors rather than as the nurturing heart of communities – a distinction that warrants careful consideration.
The policy’s promise
At its core, Hungary’s initiative encourages women to balance motherhood with paid employment. By linking tax breaks to job retention, the government ensures that mothers remain active in the workforce, thereby strengthening the economy amid labour shortages and uncertainty. This pragmatic approach aligns with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s broader vision of increasing native birth rates to preserve Hungarian identity and reduce dependence on immigration.
For those of us who value national sovereignty, this cultural intent resonates deeply. However, even within this context, the policy connects family support to economic productivity rather than celebrating parenthood as an independent pillar of societal renewal. This raises a fundamental question: should family policy prioritise productivity, or should it aim to create an environment where families can thrive on a single income, as they once did?
The single-income ideal
For many people, the traditional family model – where one parent, often the mother, remained at home while the other earned an income – provided a sense of stability and community that is increasingly elusive today. This arrangement facilitated homeownership, savings, and significant investments in children’s lives without the constant pressure of dual incomes. In the mid – 20th century, for instance, the median home price in the United States was approximately twice the median annual income, making home ownership attainable for single-income families. Today, however, soaring housing costs, stagnant wages and deteriorating social support systems render such a lifestyle unattainable for most families.
While Hungary’s generous tax breaks alleviate certain financial burdens, they fail to address the underlying issues. Instead, these measures reinforce a reality in which both parents must work, subtly diminishing the value of stay-at-home parenting. Many women, and increasingly fathers too, if given the choice, would prefer to spend more time with their families; however, financial pressures often make this impossible.
Recent data underscores an alarming trend: falling Western birth rates are increasingly driven not by smaller families, but by more couples choosing to have no children at all. In the US, the share of women aged 40-44 with no children jumped from 10 per cent in 1980 to 18 per cent in 2019, contributing more to fertility declines than the slight drop in children per mother – from 2.5 to 2.2 – over the same period. This shift toward childlessness reflects economic pressures and shifting priorities, but policies such as Hungary’s, while a start, don’t fully address it. By supporting single-income families with broader tax relief and housing affordability, we could ease these pressures, making parenthood viable again and potentially reversing this trend.
Catherine Hakim’s research on women’s work preferences is particularly relevant here. Her ‘preference theory’ suggests that while a minority of women are either fully home-centred or career-focused, the majority (around 60 per cent) fall into an ‘adaptive’ category. These women seek a balance between work and family, often preferring part-time or flexible work as their children grow older. This research underscores the importance of policies that allow women to choose how they balance earning and caregiving, rather than forcing them into full-time employment to make ends meet.
A conservative vision: practical steps forward
Hakim’s findings provide a blueprint for policy reform that honours women’s diverse preferences rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all approach. To transition toward a model that supports genuine choice – including the viability of single-income families – policymakers should consider adopting a multi-faceted approach. First, they could implement tax relief for single-earner households, acknowledging the financial sacrifices these families make. Second, governments could prioritise housing affordability by incentivising the construction of family-sized homes and capping mortgage interest rates, as Hungary has started to do. Third, providing subsidies for homebuyers, particularly young families, could help close the affordability gap that currently forces many ‘adaptive’ women into full-time work against their preferences.
Cultural change is equally important. Society must shift its perception of stay-at-home parents, valuing their contributions as much as those of wage earners. Public campaigns, educational initiatives and community programmes can all play a role in fostering this shift. For example, media campaigns that celebrate the role of stay-at-home parents or school programmes that teach the value of traditional family structures could help reshape societal attitudes.
Some may argue that single-income family policies are economically unfeasible in today’s globalised economy. However, the long-term benefits – such as higher birth rates, stronger communities, improved outcomes for children and a more stable society – far outweigh the costs.
The hidden social costs of family instability
These benefits become even more compelling when we consider the mounting social challenges facing the next generation. Today, both parents and policymakers are increasingly concerned about the effects of smartphones and social media, and the growing prevalence of mental health issues among young people. These challenges often reflect a more profound problem: the erosion of family stability. In a society where young people are encouraged to believe they can achieve anything and possess everything, many find it difficult to establish their identity. Both boys and girls are left feeling lost, deprived of the guidance and security that robust family structures offer.
Rather than merely addressing the symptoms – whether through stricter regulations on technology or expanded mental health services – we should focus on the root causes. Let’s prioritise investment in our families. By creating conditions that enable parents to spend more time with their children, we can offer young people the stability, values, and sense of belonging they need to navigate an increasingly complex world.
True progress lies not only in supporting working mothers or regulating technology but in empowering families to become the nurturing heart of society. Let us advocate for policies that do more than fund nurseries; we must strive to create a world where a single salary can afford a home and a promising future – a world where families are strong, communities are resilient and young people can thrive.
