Risparmiare nichel danneggiando le famiglie numerose. Sembra un ottimo piano.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20225391
di Sub-Zero-942
Risparmiare nichel danneggiando le famiglie numerose. Sembra un ottimo piano.
https://yle.fi/a/74-20225391
di Sub-Zero-942
9 commenti
I’m generally against cuts, and I’m not saying I’m supporting this, but what was the justification for a system that gave more for each subsequent child? It’s not more expensive to feed or clothe the second, third or fourth child than the first.
Was it to encourage people to have more children? That I’d understand.
Why should there be social aid that isn’t need based? I don’t need this and I shouldn’t get it for any number of kids. Spend the money on people who provably need it.
If this goal is to pump the birthrate, 100 a month is the wrong way to do it. Kids are more expensive than that so it only incentivizes reproduction by people who are terrible at personal finance.
They did say they want to increase benefit for first kid like year ago (first suggested article under this).
Bit funny the proposal comes with barely 6€ up while cutting down everyone else by a lot.
The government: “We need more babies!”
Also the government:
This will proportionally hurt more the people who need it the most. For those of you who say that you don’t need it, just give it away to charities.
If they want to encourage birthrate increase, they need to bring family related tax reduction. By raising kids parents are partially subsidizing everybody’s future benefits, on top of their own personal contribution, and also particularly in Finland raising future defense personnel.
Alternatively I would create a special tax for biologically capable people with less than 3 kids./s
I mean I never understood why having more kids turns more expensive than having less. Food for example is cheaper in bulk than for single people. I don’t think this is a bad decision tbh. Only extension for benefit I got was when you as a single parent had a kid. Now let’s cut the pensions already.
I just wish the government(s) could make up their minds whether they want the citizens to make more babies or less babies. This far governments of any hue have been a little worried about the inverted population pyramid: who is going to work and pay the taxes needed to look after all the oldies ? So the fashion has been to – if not actually encourage procreation – at least take off some of the sting of having more than a single child. Now this new plan is a u turn. How is this going to work ? Cul the oldies ? Go on super recruitment drive to get more young immigrants into the country ?
You know the two groups with big families? Yeah, laestadians and Somalis. Of course this would affect anyone but I think it’s interesting to see what will happen with those groups.
If this country really wants more babies I think that the best solution I’ve heard is to give let’s say 10-20k€ per child (not for free use but as an investment) so that the parents don’t have to worry about the future of the child.
Anything but decreasing eläkkeet