Leader: Lower the child allowance for all nuclear families with two children
Should the child allowance be raised? The question was asked to the party leaders in Agenda’s latest party leadership debate (4/5).
Yes, says S, V, MP, L and KD.
No, says C and SD.
The Moderates refrained from responding. But Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (M) said he was prepared to do more about the business cycle, for example by raising the child allowance.
But equally important Like debating levels, is to start discussing how the grant should be constructed.
Today, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency paid out SEK 1,250 each month per child – an amount that is equal for everyone, regardless of the parents’ income. It costs about SEK 30 billion a year in the state budget.
Instead, the money should be distributed to households where they make greater benefit.
Then there is the multi -child allowance, which increases in line with the number of children. A two -child family receives SEK 150 extra, a three -child family 730, a four -child family 1,740 and then it continues upwards. It costs almost SEK 4 billion a year – and it is not well used money.
The waste becomes clear in The OAG’s review From 2020. There it is recommended that the government abolish the multi -child allowance for child number two, but keep it from child number three. So as it was until 2005.
The proposal is based on the fact that the financial standard is generally lower the more children a family has. And according to The Social Insurance Office the multi -child allowance has a very small impact on the two -child families’ finances, since they often have it reasonably without.
Nevertheless, it goes More than a quarter of the total multi -child allowance to just two -child families. Instead, that money should be distributed to households where they make greater use.
It is partly about raising the contribution to parents with at least three children, who more often find it difficult to get the budget together. Partly about introducing an extra contribution to single people, which are over -represented among financially vulnerable, which is found in, for example, Denmark and Finland.
The combination of reducing support for households with two adults and two children – and ear marking the money for single people and parents with many mouths to saturate – is a safe way for the government to strengthen the economy for the hardest pressed families. All without costing state finances a single penny.
Read more:
Leader: When Gaza is leveled with the ground – has Netanyahu won then?
Leaders: Dare to be honest – without higher gasoline price we do not meet the climate goals
