Praise the stove premium: Why is the care allowance of the CSU justice

In 2007, the care allowance was elected as the “stove bonus” for word of the year, in just over a year, it is to be paid for the first time. The CSU has been advocating for – and is scolded for it. She was behind the times, represent an outdated role model, exaggerating women into a trap by getting them keep in the kitchen and away from the labor market.

It is indisputable: The CSU has prevailed. After years of wrangling, the coalition agreed this month: As of 2013, initially a support of 100 euros a month for children aged two years should be granted if the parents take care of the offspring at home and not be in a day care center. From 2014, the care allowance increasing to 150 euros and will be extended to children aged two and three years.

How is the care allowance to be assessed? Imposed it give people a role model and should therefore be rejected?

First: To understand my liberal society is one image that the state grant the people a high degree of freedom, for example in the private lives as little as possible should be involved. Not with prohibitions, not commandments, not even with incentives. Intervention and control tests must be very accurately established.

Undoubtedly, it needs the state where interests are adversely affect each other. The all night loudly celebrating graduates disturb the lone, seeking sleep, professionals father. The State must draw boundaries here. He must find answers to the question of where the freedom of one ends, so that the freedom of others is not to be severely curtailed.

Not so clearly things are in the grounds of social policy. One of many liberals accepted reasoning is that the state should ensure that his company maintained that it does not become extinct, such as too few births. The increase in the birth rate is therefore a legitimate target welfare state usually accepts.

By that reasoning, there are parental benefits with this reasoning, there are child support, giving this reason Kita places are provided. Now comes the even more money to care.

The latter is seen primarily as a counterpart of government funding of day care places. And in comparison it is clear that there are actually subsidized daycare spaces, which include a steering function that goes beyond the legitimate objective “increase the birth rate” beyond. Because with the state support of Kita places are sent in employment tend to fathers and mothers.

One knows this goal from the times of the defunct GDR. When the government made pressure to put all children as early as possible in a day care center, so that the adults can work on the construction of socialist utopia (and also to characterize the children as early as possible ideologically to).

The financing of daycare places so encourages the earliest possible return to work process. At the social level makes such a steering sense. Those who work that benefits others. Those who they hire, even the society as a whole, because those who work, usually pays taxes.

Should the state therefore draw people in this direction? He is not allowed there. The rights of individuals surpass usually the wishes of the general public. How a free society. Not by subordination of the individual to the objectives of a common cause.

Capitalism is the fairest and most affluent bring all economic forms of cooperation. But he wears the trend of demand for “more and more” in themselves. Because in capitalism always a contract is formed when it is mutually beneficial. It always need at least two. Anyone who wants to build a bridge that needs engineers who can and want to. Who wants to eat bread, needs someone who she bakes. Who does not know who is hiding who indulges in long while, the other brings nothing.

That is why capitalist societies tend to build up pressure. As early as possible to begin the education as early as possible to cope with the study, as much as possible to work. Because indicate who works a lot, not only themselves more worthy, but also other benefit from it.

But the state must not promote this development. He must not punish and reward the workers long while. That is not his job. This is already done by the market. Power of State so well, he represents the social objectives over the individual. This is not liberal, but ideologically.

Promoting Kita places but is just that. It rewards those who give their child as early as possible in other than the parental care and thus get the chance even to get back into the labor market.

Not to be misunderstood: For many, indeed for most parents, such a possibility is desirable. This is shown by the demand for these courses. And yet the state resonates with this promotion on the ideological guide. “Bring your child away from home,” he says, we take care of it, “you go to work quietly.”

A free choice would be different. Here the state would give parents money. So the state would try to influence the birth rate. Money for children. Parents would then decide themselves what they do with the money. You could give it to a daycare center that cared for their child in return. You could also keep and raise the child themselves. That would be freedom.

Critics say that such support would not help many children. Because children go in families sometimes. Because the money does not arrive with the children. No question: Such situations arise. It is a minority. The state has to intervene in the worst case. But should, because of a minority, the majority will be taken in joint liability? If a system of education for all to be established, because it is for a short term, the Better?

Thus, the Kita financing exceeds the legitimate promotion goals of the state. Basically, the care allowance does so well. Charged as the state but only if one parent stays at home. As a counterpart to Kita financing but is a fair balance of the care allowance. It sets the steering effect (educate child away from home, parents work) an incentive contrary.

Whether the steering functions are canceled by more than can be judged empirically. So backward and cranky as the CSU is scolded for her care allowance, it is (at least in the point) but under no circumstances. This is also the see the bigger picture: Similar support funds are available in what social policy is not just lagging behind Scandinavian countries Finland and Norway.

(fits: Der Tagesspiegel quoted today in a nutshell, a study of the parastatal Norwegian Institute of Gender Studies (NIKK), which has been compared in the two countries which care funds.)