How could PiS better spend billions instead of 500+ ?

@GefreiterKania, what is "pathetic" are those justifications you and your rich friends are using for taking 500+ :))) Human greed has no limits and knows no shame, clearly.


What you earn is a lot for many people, Kania. Both of my parents together earned less than you do. And since your wife works, she earns some money too.


Why? What giving money to charity has anything to do with our discussion? Are you saying that you're giving an equivalent of what you're getting from 500+ (or more?) to charity each month? That would be "charming", but how will it help suicidal kids in Poland? How will it pay for gasoline used by police, etc?


Really? And all I keep reading is how it increased, increases and will keep increasing inflation:

rp.pl/budzet-i-podatki/art36015231-pan-program-500-nie-zwiekszyl-dzietnosci-tylko-inflacje

money.pl/gospodarka/800-plus-a-wzrost-inflacji-premier-odpowiada-na-zarzuty-6898276976065280a.html

*yaaaaaaawn*

I have already clearly showed in #226 why your idea of income treshold is unreasonable and explained to you (#234) that comparing social benefits for mostly unemployed people to 500+ doesn't make sense because those social transfers are not governed by the same mechanisms as a common benefit like 500+.

Also, even if you introduced your beloved income treshold and it magically worked, without anything that I described in #226 happening (fat chance!), and you succeeded in taking the child benefit from 5% of the highest earners that wouldn't even mean saving 5% of 40 billion pln (well-off people, as well as the rich, usually have fewer children than low income parents) but probably only about 2-3% adjusted for fewer children, so good luck reforming the children healthcare system or disable persons benefits with 220 million euro (rough equivalent of 1 billion pln that you would save). :)

OK, take it away from 10% of richest people - you still only have 440 million euro. That's peanuts money. To have any chance of succeeding, you would have to take the money away from practically everyone and make sure that the government doesn't steal or waste it (good luck with that lol).

You just stated what you think would happen. And even if there were such "Janusze", it would still save a lot of money for the budget :)


No, not just from 5% of the highest earners. From people like you too :))

What I know would happen, and you know it too but won't admit it cause you're a woman, so biologically unable to admit that you were wrong. :)


Very well. Take a look at my post above again - you would still have nowhere near enough for what you hope to achieve, so that would be completely nonsensical. You would merely be taking money away from lovely people like me and giving it back to Sasins, Czarneks and other Suskis. Brilliant idea! :)

I think we would have to start with the basics- what is this programme supposed to accomplish?

1- increase birth rate
2- reduce poverty
3- income top up for parents
4- something else

Quite right. Public money should be spent to provide public services. Instead of giving money to people to pay for private kindergartens, a lot of which are seriously dodgy and of low quality, money should be spent to provide enough state facilities with properly trained and qualified staff.

And that would also be more effective birth rate booster

I don't know, because I'm not a fortune teller. Of course it is likely that for people earning somewhat above the threshold would be profitable to act like that, but only to them. It still would be worth it to make such change in 500+/800+ distribution though, imho.


Sorry, but you're being "nonsensical". What do I hope to achieve, according to you? For me, if even one additional spot in child psychiatric ward was created and in this way some kids were saved - it would be enough. One psychiatric hospital built for kids or one additional ward for kids being created - that would be worth it. Do you understand?


Exactly.

Yes, I understand. You're still using child psychiatric wards as your excuse to hate on child benefits. Pity.

No, you clearly don't :(


No, I don't. What a strange and stupid thing to say. It's sad if you really think that. I don't know if you're projecting or you really don't understand why I feel so strongly about this issue. Maybe one of the articles I've read will help you to understand:

wiadomosci.wp.pl/opowiesc-zza-cienkiej-czerwonej-linii-6827475122543136a

A quote from the article:

"Majority of patients in theory could be saved, but child psychiatry in Polish health system is the absolute peak of human tragedy and systemic mess. It should be the object of our biggest national remorse. We are all guilty: the society, because it allows for it, the politicians, because they don't try to improve the situation. Unfortunately, the health workers aren't without fault either."

(please, read the whole article - especially considering that you have kids yourself...)

@Paulina

Obviously this is a very important issue, but I don't recall you proposing the child psychiatry reform being financed with the money that is being defrauded or wasted on gazzillions of other things by the government and their cronies. Why is it that you singled out the child benefit as the source for it? Why do you insist that the money be taken away from parents and not from somewhere else?

If you said: "let's take a look at Fundusz Kościelny, countless spółki skarbu państwa, spending of Lasy Państwowe funds, or dodgy fundacje - for example - and finance child psychiatric wards instead", then I would be the first to support such idea. You, however, for some reason insist on the children benefit - the one thing that PiS actually got right - to be used for the purpose. That's strange.

I didn't. It's just one example of PiS' mismanaging and wasting of public money (I'm not even mentioning the defrauding part). Another recent example that comes to mind - the airport in Radom...


But they didn't. That's the point. The fact that it's just one of the examples of wasting of public money and not the only one doesn't make it right.


Sorry, but I thought it's obvious... This thread, however, is about 500+ and lately PiS promised to increase it to 800+, because elections are coming - hence this discussion.

Your comment denigrating tried and tested methods of reducing child poverty?


Don't be rude.

You were advocating a means test for child benefit. Something shown over a century ago to be ineffective and a deterrent to claiming benefits.


I understand what you're saying and strongly disagree. The benefits system is not new, and most major economies have far more experience of it than Poland; mistakes have been made, successes have been achieved and above all, it's clear what works and what doesn't. Means-tested (i.e.'income-based') payments are a less effective way to get help to those children who need it most.

Much as I deplore some of the moralistic and religious posturing of PiS, their introduction of Child Benefit has been a success.

I am fine with 500 plus for all kids - it is the unaffordable and inflationary 300 zloty increase I have a problem with. Insane to do this when the country's finances are still recovering from lockdown

Sadly you're right on this and they would do well to delay it. They are however thinking about the forthcoming election. They'll lose it whatever they do, so sensible to delay for now.

The 500+ programme however is a huge advance in tackling poverty.

Times change.

Yes, times change.

Which is why the benefits system started to move away from humiliating means-tested benefits a very long time ago (to the outrage of those who were happy for the poor to remain poor), why Child Benefit was such a success and is why some of the more developed countries are now considering introducing universal basic income.

Let's notice that UK not means tested benefit for 2 kids is worth about 14 hours of work on minimum wage. Polish before the increase was 47 hours and after increase it's 76 hours!!! See the difference?

Second, times change. It means we have technology that would allow giving the money to people who qualify without anybody knowing and send to their account with just their bank knowing

Don't worry. The Tories, who try to undermine any measures to alleviate poverty and raise general living standards, will be out at the next election.


They do. One reason that developed countries are now looking at trialling more universal benefits.


Unfortunately such technology doesn't measure how less responsible adults spend their money. Yet another reason to avoid means-testing.

Making more money won't make them suddenly spend more responsibly, will it?


Still less than half of Polish one: 21 hours in 2008. And that is before the planned increase

@Lenka, it's similar if we compare it to Germany:

money.pl/gospodarka/800-plus-vs-kindergeld-w-niemczech-porownujemy-swiadczenia-6898665298652032a.html

According to this article Polish child benefit is higher in relation to wages than child benefit in Germany!


Good point!


Why do you keep repeating this bullsh1t?


Wow, what kind of bullsh1t is that? :D This is in no way an argument against the means-tested child benefit. There would be "less responsible adults" getting it no matter whether this benefit would depend on income or not. So what on Earth are you talking about?

Of course not and that isn't the point. It will however reduce desperation and increase the likelihood that they have some left to spend on their kids' wellbeing.

Benefits systems are not new. They've existed in the UK for around 200 years in one form or another and in several other major European countries for almost a century. One thing we've all learnt is that Child Benefit paid universally works very well and produces far better outcomes than means-tested welfare payments.

Poland has done the right thing here and it would be a huge mistake to dilute that.


Learn some manners.

Can I see comparison data for that?

You want 'comparison data' for over a century of political and social change?

Tbh any kind of proof that it is better and in what respect.

The thing is I'm quite neutral in that battle.

I believe such high benefits should be means tested.
I also wouldn't mind general child benefit in lower amount to take the sting of getting so much worse of after having kids.

I'm surprised that they didn't introduce it that way, rather than in such a big step.

You keep repeating that, but could you provide some proof for that claim? An article about this? A link to some kind of study or research?


And preferably these days, not in the past, because as Lenka pointed out - we have technology nowadays that would let people get the money without others knowing about it.


Sorry, but I have no patience for demagogic bullsh1ters anymore. You keep disrespecting people's intelligence by bullsh1ting - I won't respect you then in return. So learn some honesty and integrity. Besides, if you write bullsh1t then how am I supposed to comment on that in a "polite" manner? Should I write that you talk "nonsense" instead? That you're "lying"? I bet you'd get "offended" anyway :)

Ooh, snarky!


There are hundreds of them right there in Google.

Here's one of many for you to try and whiningly nitpick about.

cpag.org.uk/news-blogs/news-listings/why-give-money-people-who-'don't-need-it'-case-against-intensive-means

And here's another. One of thousands.

blog.maggies.org/what-is-means-testing-and-why/

And there's always the perennial question about people who are just on either side of the border of the means test to receive benefits. The issues for people on both sides are obvious.

The first link wasn't found.

The other shows pros and cons of both.
It does state ease of access is easier in non means tested which is generally true but I believe could be easier and automatic in today's world. Government has access to all our data so they could join it.

Second point is that it stops people from 'kombinowanie' as they can try to earn more and save more without hitting the threshold for help.

- doesn't feel like charity.

It was balanced by pros for means testing:

- more focus on those who actually need help

- programs being cheaper to run

- being more sustainable and people not feeling like they are being screwed over.

While both have merits I don't see that ' far better results'

Here's the first link again. It's from the Child Poverty Action Group.

cpag.org.uk/news-blogs/news-listings/why-give-money-people-who-'don't-need-it'-case-against-intensive-means

Worth a look.

One huge problem is that for people just below the threshold, there's a disincentive for work whereas for people just the threshold, the system acts like marginal taxation.

The problems of means tested benefits outweigh any perceived advantage they have and the advantages of the very successful universal Child Benefits outweigh any perceived draw backs.

The points against that you mention just look like the waffle from some Tory MP cornered by an interviewer on Newsnight; they don't mean much and don't address why they think the points are relevant or how their ideas are to be realised. Fortunately Poland has taken a more concrete route where far fewer people can slip through a net since the payments are guaranteed and paid regardless of financial status.

Of course a move to universal basic income may well be the way forward anyway, and I gather the system is to be trialled shortly in one of the Scandinavian countries.