Should the state provide benefits for parents and what kind?
July 8, 2013 at 11:03 pm
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2013 at 11:08 pm by Something completely different.)
There was a little scandel here in our little erea of politics last week surrounding the minister for family matters, Kristina Schröder. She was apointed by the conservative party and the long term line taken by this countries conservatives is that the best way to ensure a continous birth rate and good care for kids is "Kindergeld" - financial child benefits payed directly to the parents. Arguing that it would be the best policy because it gave the parents the option of chosing how to care for their children.
As such the conservative party has often increased the number of money which parents get for their children.
The scandel in Germany last week, mainly evolved arround a scientific study, which was ordered by the conservative - liberterian coalition goverment to determine the usefullness of this policy. The study concluded that it was non benefitial. Birthrates would not increase, in alot of cases people at the poverty line would get less than rich parents, alot of women would stay at home and as a result of which found it harder to get back into working life.
Yet the party and the minister ignored the study, falcified certain facts and actualy made public statements in which they claimed that the study confirmed their views.
Yet instead of discussing the scandel. I would really be interested in what you think about state benefits for parents and children?
In recent years I have more and more come to the conclusion that the French system, which has it in the constitution as an undenyable right that every parent can have a place in a nursery for it`s child, is the best.
What use are financial benefits for children if the institutions which provide care for children are not provided or the private ones are to expensive to be bought by parents? I guess providing such institutions through the state and cutting the financial benefits payed to parents directly would be the best solution and I think the scientific studies also suggest that.
The statement "leaving parents the right to chose" seems to me to be more and more a whiny excuse with which one flees social responsibility. What good is choice if one doesn`t even have a choice due to your social situation? As such the current model only keeps a conservative (and for most) unertractive family model upright. Providing child care institutions by the state would also not mean that the parents couldn`t chose - since they could chose to look for their children themselves.
As such the conservative party has often increased the number of money which parents get for their children.
The scandel in Germany last week, mainly evolved arround a scientific study, which was ordered by the conservative - liberterian coalition goverment to determine the usefullness of this policy. The study concluded that it was non benefitial. Birthrates would not increase, in alot of cases people at the poverty line would get less than rich parents, alot of women would stay at home and as a result of which found it harder to get back into working life.
Yet the party and the minister ignored the study, falcified certain facts and actualy made public statements in which they claimed that the study confirmed their views.
Yet instead of discussing the scandel. I would really be interested in what you think about state benefits for parents and children?
In recent years I have more and more come to the conclusion that the French system, which has it in the constitution as an undenyable right that every parent can have a place in a nursery for it`s child, is the best.
What use are financial benefits for children if the institutions which provide care for children are not provided or the private ones are to expensive to be bought by parents? I guess providing such institutions through the state and cutting the financial benefits payed to parents directly would be the best solution and I think the scientific studies also suggest that.
The statement "leaving parents the right to chose" seems to me to be more and more a whiny excuse with which one flees social responsibility. What good is choice if one doesn`t even have a choice due to your social situation? As such the current model only keeps a conservative (and for most) unertractive family model upright. Providing child care institutions by the state would also not mean that the parents couldn`t chose - since they could chose to look for their children themselves.
