However, I would like to see (for the future) the issue in a broader perspective: Child should not

The sixth state reform makes the regions responsible for the child. An excellent time to send, according to most political parties. Involved in Families with three or more children at risk soon get a lot less child support according to Rekening14 the screening project of De Standaard, De Tijd, VRT and KULeuven. Bieke Purnelle
A family with one child receives an average of 45 to 73 euros per month extra. For a family law with two children, the advantage is smaller. However, families with three or four children lose 135 and 200 euros per month respectively. Single parents and poor families with a replacement income law fall by the wayside.
Since most large families in the lowest income categories are who least deserve it, so most will deteriorate. Only the parties to the left of the spectrum situate, make an effort in favor of low earners.
"A Flemish child will have to redistribute. Indeed The argument of some parties that redistribution only be done through taxation law or other branches of social security is in our opinion not on the agenda, "said Frederic Vanhauwaert coordinator of the Network Against Poverty.
"That is to defend as taxation, child support or other components of social security at the same power level there. But now that the child is Flemish, the redistributive character must continue and even strengthened. Flanders has its own responsibility in the area of poverty reduction and this must also be realized within the child itself. Move on to the federal law level that contract for us. We do not want a back and forth between policy levels at which families fall into poverty between two chairs. "
"For the Network Against Poverty is a stronger focus on poverty reduction in the first place in the strengthening of social allowances. Increase that still provide the most vulnerable families and also looking for additional solutions for target groups for whom the current price increases in child benefit insufficient protection: working poor, the unemployed who have been removed from their unemployment benefit, homeless children, some teen mothers ... "
"The aim should be that child benefit and tax burden reductions along the entire cost for children set with families in poverty or at risk of poverty. Today, this Flanders clearly not the case, even though law we also bring any school grants will be. "No social carnage, please
"The importance of the basic amount of the child, including the age and grade supplements in the household should not forget. The higher amounts from the third child just roads monitored for all major families paid as now in many proposals seems to happen is for us. This would be no more or less than a social massacre mean, as many of the large families as families in poverty law or flirting with the poverty line.
"Even at the age supplements fumble we find no idea exists -. Scientifically - no discussion about that older children spend greater law costs so should also be in that area poor families and families at risk of poverty adequately protected.." To take or to have
"The extent to which all political parties have already made their homework thoroughly is not always clear us. In any case, we dare hope that not everything posited today just take it or leave it, and that thought with any reforms, cautious work is done. "
Presented as a "gesture" from employers who wanted to do something extra for personnel with dependent children, the child was also an instrument to mitigate. Ask for pay rise For employees with dependent children increased income was indirectly paid. Later, the system was regulated by law and generalized. It is good that the system is tested and adjusted. However, the internal efficiency of the system remains disregarded. law I mean: the organization through employer-linked funds, an important part of "the employer's society." Also whether child belongs in the occupational social security is not asked. The Belgian constellation law is a handy screen for those who prefer to see no change in this. It's always about the rights and obligations of the receiving party, never or almost never to the funding source (social security contributions) or the organization of the system.
However, I would like to see (for the future) the issue in a broader perspective: Child should not encouragement can be (continue) to want many children. law Rather it should be arranged so that the number of children being held back and for the simple reason that so