In 2012, the Butterfly Agreement transferred child benefit to the regions. That matched the symbolism. The negotiators were motivated by their calculators. Every billion that the regions took away from the federal government made the Flemish nationalists jump. Only later did the ambition grow to start working on the system themselves.
The Flemish government decided to only partially use the transferred money. Every year the federal government transfers an indexed amount. This year, Flanders will receive just under 5.1 billion euros, of which it will spend only 4.8 billion euros on the “growth package”. That became one trade off with the expensive job bonus.
In this way, the Flemish government de facto saves on having children. There was also discussion about the system itself. With a closed envelope, the government sought a compromise between universality and selectivity. From now on, every child received the same amount, children from poorer families received an allowance.
Specialists judged that the Flemish government missed an opportunity to tackle child poverty more strongly. The new system was neither a deterioration nor an improvement in most cases, but does not sufficiently support truly vulnerable families. The Social and Economic Council of Flanders (Serv) even points to an additional problem. The income limits are too strict. Anyone who suddenly earns a little more may ultimately be worse off.
After five years, it is therefore time to examine the growth package, an excellent topic for the next Flemish formation discussions. By de facto removing child benefit from social security, he became a political plaything. The centre-right government fully opted for the middle groups and limited indexation to flatter the budget.
The growth package partly spreads the financial burden of education across the entire population. That is why the proposals to turn child benefit into a punishment package (if parents step out of line) sound very questionable. The idea of giving part of the child’s allowance to schools so that they can, for example, finance hot meals, also calls the principles into question.
Nor would it be a good idea to treat wealthier families more selectively. As part of social security, child benefit was a collective good for which everyone contributed. Such a system requires reciprocity. Those who are excluded for one reason or another are more likely to see this as a burden in the long term.
