Child benefit – the great self-deception of a caring state

The impression of a state is created that, with a self-satisfied expression, is staged as a generous protector of the families and is celebrated for his supposed support. Everywhere it is emphasized how much you help parents, how much the child is at the center of it, how responsibly the state is. But behind this smoothly polished facade is oneUncomfortable truth, which is consistently concealed in public presentation. In its legal construction, child benefit is not a gesture of generosity, but only a technical correction of a previously committed mistake. The state returns what it has taken before and boldly sells this simple return as a blessing.

The constitutional minimum disguised as an act of grace

The minimum subsistence level of a child is constitutionally protected and must not be taxed, no way around it leads. This principle is not a voluntary niceness, but a mandatory duty, which results from the basics of the constitution. Nevertheless, the state treats the everyday life of families as if this minimum is a negotiable variable. He charges taxesExpenses that serve the basic supply collects with every purchase and proves the bare minimum burdens. Subsequently, part of what should never have been touched is returned as child benefit, as if it were a particularly social benefit. This self-portrayal is not only misleading, it is cynical.

The hidden interest-free credit of families

The construction is convenient for the state and expensive for the families. They must first fully pre-finance the costs of the subsistence level of their children, while the state is amicably amicable to its expenses. He collects with every everyday purchase and behaves as if he were of course entitled to this share. Only later, about the child benefit, does he move oneout of that money. In the meantime, he has actually obtained an interest-free loan without ever opening up the fact that this is exactly what is happening. For families this means: They carry the burden immediately, the state only corrects its own encroachment afterwards and pretends to be an act of state welfare.

The legal truth behind the social fairy tale lesson

From a legal point of view, it is not a question of support, but the partial withdrawal of an impermissible tax access. The constitutional obligation to set the subsistence level tax-free is transformed into an alleged funding instrument with complicated regulations and deceptive formulations. In fact, the authorities do nothing more than the absoluteMinimum of what they are forced to do. Nevertheless, brochures, speeches and campaigns pretend that child benefit is a gift from the state to the families. This presentation conceals that there is not goodwill here, but rather correcting a deficit that the state itself has created.

The manipulated public perception

The communication of the state is designed to create a picture of generosity. Families should be grateful, feel supported and believe that they are held in difficult times. The sober legal reality is deliberately kept in the background, instead an emotionally charged narrative is spread. There are pictures of happy children,responsible parents and caring institutions to conceal that the performance is essentially a constitutionally enforced compensation. This is how the public’s perception is manipulated. A mere duty becomes an alleged gift, a refund is an alleged funding.

The refusal to honestly name

Anyone who would openly say that child benefit is largely nothing more than the return of constitutionally inadmissible means of being absent would shake the state’s entire self-image. That is exactly why such clarity is avoided. Instead of reimbursement, funding is referred to, instead of the minimum constitutional obligation of social performance. thisConscious shifting of terms is not a random inaccuracy, but a targeted strategy. The state wants to appear as a benefactor, not as a proofreader of its own assaults. Anyone who gets involved in this staging accepts that the role of the grateful recipient is attributed to them, although in fact they only get back part of what they are entitled to anyway.

Families as paymaster in the background

For families, this system means a permanent double role. On the one hand, they are rhetorically celebrated as the foundation of society, as the future of the country, as particularly worthy of protection. On the other hand, they are treated financially like a shiftable size in the household, which can be easily rotated when it seems politically opportune. You pay with every issue, with every purchaseFor your children, with every month in which the money is missing in the front and back. In this context, child benefit looks like a patch on a wound that the state itself has struck. Instead of not allowing the burden to arise in the first place, it is accepted and later minimally corrected.

The perfidious reinterpretation of duty into generosity

The actually scandalous lies in the moral reinterpretation. A constitutional duty is transfigured into a generous gesture in the public presentation. The state presents itself as a socially committed actor who supports families while at the same time concealing that he has previously withdrawn from them that should never have been taken away from them. This discrepancyBetween legal duty and political staging is a slap in the face of all those who struggle for their financial stability month after month. They are the ones who carry the system while they are being persuaded that they are recipients of a special benefit.

The moral declaration of bankruptcy of the political presentation

Whoever looks at this system honestly does not recognize a caring hand, but a state who has learned to pack up his own misconstructions in a communicative manner. Instead of implementing the constitutional requirements cleanly and consistently keeping the subsistence level free from the outset, a bureaucratic construct is maintained that burdens families and only partiallyrelieved. Political communication is nothing more than a moral declaration of bankruptcy. It reveals the willingness to deceive people instead of enlightening them. The state celebrates itself for the bare essentials and sells the pure fulfillment of its duty as an act of humanity.

A system of structured irresponsibility

At the end there is a bitter impression: It is a system of structured irresponsibility. Nobody in political responsibility clearly states that child benefit is largely just the reduction of an impermissible burden. Nobody openly speaks about the fact that families actually act as lenders without ever receiving compensation for this advance payment.Instead, there is celebration, euphemism and trivialization. The discrepancy between what is constitutionally required and what is sold politically as a great deed exposes an attitude that is not characterized by honesty but by self-satisfaction. A state that is being celebrated to correct its own attacks does not show care, but arrogance.