The Lithuanian State Supports Only the Rich Sycophants of the So-Called Elite: September is the time to weed out kindergartens

“The alarmingly low birth rate has united the political right and left – everyone is for families, for helping them look after their children. However, it would be good if the glaring paradoxes of the existing support were corrected at the beginning.

 

What is the kindergarten market and social policy towards them? We have a dense network of municipal kindergartens inherited from the Soviet era. It is more complicated only in Vilnius, where the number of young residents is growing. Here, children have the most difficulty fitting into municipal kindergartens, so almost a fifth attend private ones, and about 3-4 percent. children are looked after by nannies who are formally registered. There are no statistics on the scale of informal childcare, i.e. how many children are looked after by unemployed mothers or other relatives. The treatment of all these forms of childcare in social policy is different, and we will hardly find logic in that diversity.

 

Public kindergartens are maintained by municipalities, the central government contributes a subsidy of several hundred euros to cover education costs. Parents usually have to pay about 70-80 euros for their child's meals. But preschoolers (six-year-olds), regardless of family income, are entitled to free lunch, as are first- and second-graders. And for younger children in kindergartens, there is no such universal state guarantee of food. The current government has promised to expand the nutrition of primary school children to the third and fourth grades.

 

But what argument is there for not feeding kindergarteners? I have not heard it. Except that children of one age "belong" to the Ministry of Education, Science and Sports, and the other to the Ministry of Social Security, and the little ones get lost between those two nannies.

 

True, municipalities can cover the costs of feeding children of poor families from their own funds, for example, if the income per person in the family is less than the amount set by the state - 349.50 euros. However, families must prove their poverty until they raise their child to the age of six and the state takes over the burden of feeding him or her in kindergarten.

 

Paradoxically, the state allocates more than this poverty line, i.e. as much as 385 euros, every month to parents who are able to hire a private nanny for their princess or prince. Usually, a nanny costs about 1,300–1,500 euros per month. It would be justified if the state compensated the costs of hiring a nanny in the event that there are no places in kindergarten. Currently, such a condition does not exist and hiring a private nanny is supported, even when it is a luxury, not a necessity. And if there is a necessity for someone due to the lack of places in kindergarten, parents earning at least up to the average salary are unlikely to be able to hire that nanny even with state subsidies. So, the richer ones take the subsidy.

 

What reform is being requested? Provide a subsidy for a nanny only when there are no places in kindergarten and determine its amount depending on the parents' income. Even parents earning the minimum wage should have the opportunity to hire a nanny when there is no place in a kindergarten, so that they are not forced to give up their jobs to care for their child. Well, supporting those who earn high incomes is just a waste of public money.

 

Similarly, taxpayers' money is wasted on private kindergartens. The government provides the same subsidy for education as for municipal kindergartens, and the Vilnius City Municipality also compensates parents for the cost of a private kindergarten by 120 euros. The latter costs about 700-800 euros per month per child on the market.

 

A mother earning a similar amount will also be more likely to stay with her child herself than take him to a private kindergarten, so she will not benefit from the municipal subsidy. And the 120 euros of support are taken by those who earn more, because the aforementioned kindergarten prices are not an obstacle for them.

 

So, in summary, the policy is as follows: parents with low incomes can only use a municipal kindergarten, if there is one in their area of ​​residence. Only in cases of extreme poverty will the municipality cover the cost of feeding their child. If parents manage to earn at least the minimum wage, they will not receive free childcare at all. They will also not benefit from the subsidy for a nanny or a private kindergarten, because they simply will not be able to afford these services. If there is no place in a municipal kindergarten, one of the parents of such a family has to sacrifice their job and “sit” at home with the child. Then the family income drops even more and neither the state nor the municipality will come to their aid. Even social support will not be available, when the only salary in the family is divided among three or four family members, one person will have to pay at least 350 euros per month.

 

Such post-communist chamism, when the state supposedly supports, but support is available only to the strongest, is unknown in Western countries. The logic of support there is the opposite of ours. When childcare services are provided to families through private kindergartens or nannies, the size of the subsidy is linked to the family’s ability to pay. Families earning more are supported less or not at all, and as incomes fall, subsidies are increased to cover real market prices even for those earning the least. This way, the greatest state support goes to the poorest, and it works because it is calculated based on the amount of assistance actually needed to purchase the necessary service.

 

We have our own from poor people. It is praised that the support system works by subsidizing the prices of both private nannies and private kindergartens. However, in reality, those who are already doing well receive this support. And it is also financed by taxes from those who cannot afford these services, and therefore the support is not available.

 

Just like in the fairy tale "The beaten do not bear the unbeaten". Let's leave this fairy tale in the children's nursery, but let's uproot it from the laws.

 

And since it is the beginning of the school year, it is appropriate to end with an academic epilogue. Half a century ago – in 1974 – Richard Titmuss, a professor at the London School of Economics and one of the founders of the academic tradition of social policy, wrote that some social security programs in Latin America act as "hidden inequality multipliers" because they transfer resources from the poor to the rich. He warned that redistributive policies can work in the opposite direction than they should – "redistribute control of material and immaterial resources from the poor to the rich." Therefore, to avoid “hidden inequality multipliers,” we must assess not only how much the government spends on childcare, but also where that money actually goes.”

 

The same order in Latin America produces the same results as in Latin America. Lithuania remains and will continue to remain a poor country of asbestos slate roofs and smelly outdoor toilets.