Answer to submitter. The same child allowance to everyone makes you avoid cheating

Of course, there is something basically sympathetic in the Robin-Hood principle « take from the rich and give to the poor ». But the consequences are easily negative for everyone.

That, like Gunnar Johansson proposesabolish child allowances and instead raise housing subsidies, is precisely such a maneuver that quickly counteracts its purpose. Partly because it would provide a sharp increased work for the Social Insurance Office to assess the needs of all applicants. And partly, perhaps even more important, it would reduce the desire or if we say the driving forces for the individual to improve their situation through our own work. Like taking a job offered, instead of waiting for the job you really want. Or to work a little extra. Or to apply for a job that gives better paid, even if it is in another place and brings a little longer journeys.

These driving forces are the basis for all prosperity. Everything that reduces them is negative for everyone. And then a need -tested housing allowance becomes another factor that reduces the desire to earn more – because then the contribution immediately drops.

To this Will the risks of cheating. It becomes so attractive to « forget a little » when you report your income, your partner’s income, their living space and so on. And to prevent it, the Social Insurance Office has to put down even more work on controlling everything.

Therefore, a general child allowance, the same for everyone, is better. Raising the child allowance is in principle as simple as a single button press on the Swedish Social Insurance Agency’s central computer.

Rather do that, so that our children get someone who looks at them when they grow old. And release the thoughts of a raised root deduction, which really benefits those who still have a pretty good.

More about submitter: How do you write on submitter and answer

More submissions: dn.se/insandare