That would introduce a new problem of all of those seniors suddenly becoming more dependent on their younger family members, which is exacerbated by kids moving all over the country in search of greener pastures.

There's not really a solution that doesn't involve heavy restructuring in one place or another.

It's not clear exactly what the number is, but if one observes individuals who manage to climb out of the low and middle classes and accrue a certain amount of wealth (somewhere in the ballpark of $600k-$1m net worth and up, maybe), pretty consistently not long after that achievement they've settled down and started a family.

I think for many the desire is there, but sufficient de-risking is required for them to be comfortable with acting upon it.

I think there's just not enough money in the county to induce more babies. The cost would be a shock. Anyone wealthy enough to shoulder the cost would fight so hard against it, it would never stand a chance. IMO the number is probably something like $10k per year per kid. Foster Care pays somewhere between 8k-12k.

I supported a non-earning spouse for a decade in Canada and it's always been a bit murky. Like in 2014-2015 there was a concept of transferring up to 50k of income to the spouse ("Family Tax Cut"), but Trudeau's Liberal gov't canceled it when they came into power; I think they correctly recognized that it was basically a handout to families privileged enough to be in a position where there was enough spread between the two earners that transferring that sum would be significant.

CRA is even pretty careful about letting a spouse claim capital gains income; it's always attributed back to whoever earned the original principal (outside of inheritance). I think the only way around this is to formally "loan" the spouse their investment money, but you have to charge them interest and the interest is of course income to you.

This discourages people joining the workforce and is open to fraud. You will then get the argument of "why should I be taxed more because I'm single"?

If one spouse makes significant income and the other does not, it can help drop the high-earner into a lower bracket overall. Not a huge boon, but every penny counts in our household.

There are many places in the tax code, e.g. wrt a certain credit, where it simply says that you are not allowed to exercise that option if you elect to file separately. Rarely is it beneficial for a married couple to file separately. It's not unusual to see cases where opting to file separately results in a difference of thousands of dollars—i.e. a refund that's several thousands of dollars lower than the one a couple would receive if they filed jointly, or where one or both spouse actually end up owing.

The main benefit of filing jointly is when one spouse earns more than other, so filing jointly distributes their combined AGI evenly between the two spouses and thus together they fall in the lowest tax bracket possible, whereas if they file separately the one earning more has their income taxed at higher rates not offset by amount that the the lesser-earning spouse "saves". This is especially pronounced if one spouse earns so little that it comes in under the standard deduction or simply doesn't work at all. (That's almost $16,000 of tax-free income.)