Chairman of the Social Committee of the Riigikogu Ènne Pillak, like the entire coalition, tries to present the reduction of family benefits as the only choice – either children of large families or children with rare diseases. I don’t know a single person in Toompea Castle or outside of it who thinks that seriously ill children, as well as their parents, should not be supported more.
Pillak throws out a demagogic false statement that tries to hide the reality and soften the simple fact – that the money given five months ago is being taken away from children again because of different political choices, not for budget balance, services or sick children.
A person with an income of 3,000 euros is not vulnerable
The appeals spreading on social media to financially support children who are suffering from some serious illness and for whose treatment we need to collect donations, touch each of us. Estonian people are big-hearted and charitable, but of course the question arises – why can’t our country help these children enough? Why do you need to collect donations euro by euro? I understand a politician’s desire to play on their very human feelings, but this is not a meaningful, correct or fair approach to colleagues.
It is interesting that better availability of services, support for children with common diseases, increase in support for single parents, etc., depend on the reduction of family allowances. All options depend on whether family benefits are reduced or not. But why hasn’t any coalition politician thought of a choice where the balance is the elimination of the “tax hump” or children with rare disorders. In my opinion, the most vulnerable person in today’s situation is not a person with an income of 3,000 euros. But he is the one who will get an extra hundred euros per month when the income tax system is changed.
According to various estimates, the abolition of the graduated income tax-free minimum costs 350-500 million euros, and we are looking for a few million here and there to support the most vulnerable in society. Really?!
Also: I don’t know that the money saved by cutting family benefits would go to sick children or services. The explanatory letter of the draft also says instead that the goal is a more balanced budget and fairer support for families with children. It is also not clear how it will become fairer, because the support for the first or second child does not increase. Additionally, there is no concrete plan as to what services or to what extent will be offered as a result of this cut.
I would like to work, but I can’t
The mother of a large family recently gave an interview in the media, who explained that she would be happy to go to work, but her family cannot find a support person for a child with special needs. Will the cut in family benefits bring this supporter closer to the family? I do not dare to give such a promissory note. However, the income of this family decreases.
Every mother or father knows how difficult it is to be a parent and go to work. It is even more difficult if there are many children and even more difficult if the child has special needs. So, of course, better services and support system development are needed. All this also needs extra money. But the use of money results from political choices, and there are far more of them than children of large families or sick children. It’s that simple.
At the public session of the Social Committee, the involved stakeholders were asked: if there is a choice between child benefits or eliminating the tax hump, which would you choose? None of the unions that dared to answer said that the biggest goal of the Estonian state must be to give 100 extra euros to people earning 3,000 euros. On the contrary, the realization that our biggest goal must be to support our families and children was repeatedly heard in the hall. Don’t let it fool you into thinking that politicians and you, good voters, have only one choice. No it is not! In the elections, this narrative was already passed once, it helps.
