Maternity capital definition. Expert: Maternity capital turned out to be effective
The White House is considering possible measures to reduce government spending. The head of the Ministry of Economic Development, Alexei Ulyukaev, proposed to refuse the payment of maternity capital. The authorities found out how effective the program for stimulating demographic growth turned out to be.
On August 26, by order of the Prime Minister, a commission was established to optimize and increase efficiency budget spending. Within this commission, the minister economic development Alexei Ulyukaev sent a letter to its chairman, Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, proposing to abandon the even reduction of all state programs. Instead, targeted cuts are proposed, in particular, the completion of the maternity capital program, which, according to the ministry, will save up to 300 billion rubles. in year. In the opinion of the Ministry of Economic Development, the program only shifts the calendar of births - it encourages families to give birth to a second and subsequent children earlier than they would have done without additional state support measures.
The All-Russian People's Front, through the co-chairman of the central headquarters, Olga Timofeeva, accused the ministry of being unsuitable for the profession. In the media, the proposal of the Ministry of Economic Development quickly evolved into "Ulyukaev demanded." Deputy Prime Minister for Social Affairs Olga Golodets announced the extension of the issuance of maternity capital after December 31, 2016, when the program ends. In a long-standing discussion, Golodets proposed expanding the list of purposes for using capital, adding to the three existing "investments in the agricultural business or in the employment of mothers." In an absentee dispute with the minister, the Deputy Prime Minister was supported by the press secretary of the Russian Prime Minister, Natalya Timakova: "Currently, the issue of abolishing mother capital is not on the government's agenda. The Prime Minister considers it inappropriate and untimely to propose a possible reduction in this program." The discussion died down for a while.
The era of maternity capital in Russia began at the very end of 2006. On New Year's Eve, the State Duma, the Federation Council and President Putin adopted, approved and signed the 286th federal law, which established measures for additional state support for the family. The law introduced the term "maternal (family) capital" - state budget funds, which the country, through a pension fund in the form of a certificate, issued to several categories of citizens. First, women who gave birth to their second child after January 1, 2007. Secondly, women who gave birth to the third and subsequent children in the new year, if they did not receive a certificate earlier. The same measures applied to adopted children. In the law, "family" was written in brackets, since not only women can receive a certificate. In addition to women, men who were the only adopters of the second and subsequent children can become owners of long money. Moreover, not necessarily citizens of Russia: a father or adoptive parent in the event of termination of the rights to receive materkapital by a citizen of the Russian Federation (death, deprivation of parental rights, committing a crime against a child) can receive a certificate instead of her, regardless of the color of his passport. In the event of termination of rights also by the father, a child under 23 years of age receives a certificate himself.
It is allowed to spend money on improving housing conditions, educating children and the funded part of mothers' pensions. The same law established the size of the mother's capital - 250 thousand rubles, as well as the need for its annual indexation. This year, for the first time, the state indexed capital with an accuracy of half a ruble. Its size is now 429,408 rubles. 50 kop.
In many societies, the birth rate, having reached some critical minimum point, began to rise again.
At first glance, the introduction of maternity capital did not become a turning point in the demographic situation in our country. In the 21st century, it was not as pessimistic as it seemed before. Since 2000, the birth rate in Russia has been steadily growing, having increased over the past 14 years, according to Rosstat, from 1215 thousand to 1901 thousand births per year, by as much as 56%. If we take into account that the population of Russia, despite the positive dynamics of the 2000s, continued to decline until 2010 (the deep demographic failure of the nineties was not immediately overcome), then the total birth rate, that is, the number of births per 1 thousand inhabitants, reveals an even more significant increase - almost 60%. What is the reason for such an impressive growth, and is it connected with the emergence of maternity capital?
It is widely believed that as material and technical progress progresses, the birth rate naturally decreases, and developed countries are literally doomed to depopulation. This view is justified, but only to some extent. In many societies that pioneered depopulation (France, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries), the birth rate, having reached some critical minimum point, began to rise again, gradually approaching the replacement level of generations (just over two children per woman). The experience of this kind of partial demographic restoration has already been accumulated by a significant number of developed countries. However, it is Russia that stands out among them with the highest rates of maternal renaissance.
In addition to the pace, Russia can also boast of the duration of the observed rise - with minor fluctuations, the birth rate has been growing in our country for the fifteenth year in a row. This year, as the results of January-August published by Rosstat show, the positive trend continues.
It is curious that the majority of Western European nations that entered the stage of such restoration stumbled over the global financial and economic crisis, as a result of which the level reached by 2008-2010 still remains unsurpassed. In contrast to them, the crisis in the post-Soviet space, although it had more severe economic consequences, practically did not affect demography. Apparently, our people, accustomed to more cruel blows of fate, did not take seriously the fluctuations in the world situation and did not begin to correct their parental plans.
Russia demonstrates an unprecedented high rate of demographic recovery
If in England, France or Sweden the birth rate approached its minimum in a smooth, evolutionary way, then in our country the decline acquired a revolutionary character due to the shock of radical social changes. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the post-Soviet nations, after a deeper failure, rise more steeply. We assume that our sociocultural stereotypes could not change much in the short period of reforms, but were only crushed by the severity of economic and psychological circumstances. Therefore, it is more correct to compare the pace of Russia's demographic restoration with Ukraine or Belarus than with countries Western Europe. However, here, too, the comparison confirms the phenomenal nature of Russian growth. If you do not take into account the jumps in the birth rate that took place after difficult wars, when husbands returned to their families, then a 60 percent increase in the birth rate in peacetime is a figure that claims to be a world record.
In modern Russian society, there is a popular stereotype that the growth in the birth rate observed in Russia, if not entirely, then to a very large extent, is provided by migrants. However, it must be taken into account that the largest centers of immigration to Russia - Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan - have long ceased to be distinguished by high demographic indicators. The modern birth rate in these countries is approaching simple reproduction and is less than a quarter higher than in Russia. The birth rate of the Chinese, another nation that appears in the migration phobias of compatriots, has recently become lower than the domestic one (we emphasize: we are talking, of course, about comparing relative figures - births per 1 thousand population, and not about an absolute comparison of more than a billion people in China and 143 millionth RF). Even in the case of an absolutely incredible complete replacement of the indigenous population of Russia with newcomers from these states, it is not only impossible to ensure a 60% growth, unique in world practice, but in general it is rather difficult to guarantee any noticeable increase in the birth rate. After all, it must be taken into account that, due to the labor nature of migration, men in this environment significantly predominate over women, which does not contribute to a high birth rate per 1 thousand people.
Contrary to stereotypical phobias, we can safely say that the driving force behind the demographic revival of the 2000s and 10s is by no means migrants, but Russians and peoples close to Russians in terms of sociocultural stereotypes. This is indirectly, but very eloquently evidenced by the regional analysis of the changes that have taken place (see map).
In groups where the birth rate has grown at a rate above the average, regions with a predominantly Russian population absolutely predominate (with the exception of Mari El and Tuva). Such obvious epicenters of migration attraction as Moscow and the Krasnodar Territory are in the lagging group, and the Moscow Region, although it has crossed the middle line, looks rather modest.
The birth rate grew at the slowest pace in the North Caucasus. Contrary to popular belief, this region also experienced the demographic crisis of the nineties, although in a much less acute form than central and northern Russia. Today we are witnessing the process of convergence of family guidelines between the Slavic and Caucasian peoples. If in the group of regions with a predominantly Russian population, the average birth rate has already exceeded the level of the pre-reform 1990, then in the group of the republics of the North Caucasus, traditionally distinguished by large families, the total birth rates range from 70 to 95% of the 1990 level. The differences between the sizes of Russian and Caucasian families are no longer as contrasting as they used to be. The total fertility rate between the respective regions now differs by about one and a half times (in contrast to the more than double gap in favor of the North Caucasus in the early 1990s).
There was no decrease to 97% of the 1999 level in 2013, because not only the number of women changed, but also the intensity of births
Again, we emphasize: we are comparing growth rates, not achieved level fertility. In terms of the number of births per 1,000 people, the North Caucasian republics are still ahead of the central regions, which, nevertheless, are closing the gap with them today. A more accurate picture would be given by comparing not general, but total fertility rates, that is, not the number of newborns per 1 thousand inhabitants, but the number of children per woman, but the authors do not have such data broken down by region.
Thus, Russia is demonstrating an unprecedentedly high rate of demographic revival, which cannot be attributed to migration or to the contribution of regions with a traditionally high birth rate - regions with a predominantly Russian population are the locomotive of the maternal renaissance.
The entire period of the demographic revival in Russia can be divided into two equal time intervals of seven years: before the introduction of maternity capital (2000-2006) and after (2007-2013). The objective conditions for demographic growth during these periods were not the same. In 2000-2006, the number of women of childbearing age increased in the country, as the children of the last Soviet demographic boom of 1982-1988 entered adulthood. In 2007-2013, the number of potential mothers began to decline, as a small generation of girls born at the end of perestroika and at the height of "shock therapy" (1989-1995) reached adulthood.
On the basis of these data, demographers of various schools and directions predicted that from about 2010, a drop in the birth rate will begin in Russia. This was written by the head of the Center for the Study of Population Problems of Moscow State University Valery Elizarov, director of the Institute of Demography of the Higher School of Economics Anatoly Vishnevsky, his deputy Sergey Zakharov, associate professor of the Department of Family Sociology and Demography of the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University Viktor Medkov and others.
Several conclusions can be drawn from the data of the All-Russian censuses of 2001 and 2010, as well as the age-specific fertility rates of 2000 published by Rosstat. If the birth rate per woman had remained unchanged throughout the entire period under consideration, and only the number of potential women in childbirth had changed, then in 2006 the number of children born would have reached the level of 106% of the starting bar in 1999 (about 1290 thousand people). Such an increase would be explained by an increase in the number of potential mothers from the Soviet baby boom generation of the mid-80s. However, by 2013 the number of children born would have been reduced to 97% of the 1999 level (1180 thousand) - this is 20-25 years later we would hear the echo of the demographic failure as a result of the collapse of the USSR.
However, the actual birth rate depends not only on the extensive factor (the number of women of childbearing age), but also on the intensive factor, that is, on the frequency of births per woman. If a shift occurs in society from the ideal of a one-child family to the ideal of a two-child family, or vice versa, this will radically affect the birth rate.
In fact, there was no decline to 97% of the 1999 level in 2013, because not only the number of women changed, but also the intensity of births. Our “woulds” regarding the number of births have been discarded by reality. As we now know, neither in 2010 nor in 2012 did demographers' pessimistic forecasts come true. On the contrary, the Russian birth rate continued to grow, and in 2013, for the first time in the entire post-reform era, it exceeded the death rate, ensuring our country's natural population growth.
In 2006, the birth rate in the country increased by 22% compared to 1999. 6% of this growth is provided by an extensive factor - an increase in the number of women. The remaining 16% are accounted for by the intensive factor, that is, the increased frequency of births, in other words, the desire not to be limited to one, but to give birth to a second and third child.
In 2013, we expected a decrease in the number of births due to a decrease in the number of women. But the birth rate, on the contrary, rose sharply - by 56%. It turns out that the increased intensity of births not only provided a 56% increase compared to 1999, but also compensated for the predicted 3% decline. In total, the frequency of births per woman compared to 1999 reached 159% in 2013. An additional 59% compared to the year of the historical minimum is provided exclusively by the growth in intensity, and not by quantitative factors. In 2006, the role of the intensive factor was expressed only in a 16% increase. It turns out that the sum of factors that increase the frequency of births (in everyday language - increase the number of children in our families) in 2013 acted about four times stronger than in 2006.
Obviously, after the introduction of maternity capital, the intensity of births increased significantly. Moreover, the role of the intensive factor at that time turned out to be almost four times more significant than in the period without maternity capital. As a result, in 2007-2013, the birth rate grew even faster than in the previous seven-year period, despite the reduction in the maternal generation. This is a serious preliminary argument in favor of maintaining the social measure we are discussing.
Of course, on the basis of what has been said, it cannot be argued that the introduction of maternity capital was the only or at least the main reason for the growth in the birth rate in 2007-2013. But it is even more reckless to say that economic stimulus did not bring the expected effect, expressed only in a shift in the calendar of births. Those who reduce the effect of maternity capital to a shift in the calendar mean that the children who were born should have been born anyway, only a little later, so we won’t get any real growth in the birth rate, and from the point of view of the demographic future, the issue of almost 430 thousand . rub. family is a waste of money.
The share of second and subsequent births, judging by the estimates of "Demoscope weekly" and the Ministry of Labor, only from 2006 to 2012 increased from about 42.3% to 51.5% in the total number of births. In absolute terms, this means an increase from 625 thousand to 980 thousand, or more than one and a half times. Let's assume that the experts of the Ministry of Economic Development are right, explaining this increase in the birth rate by a shift in the calendar. In this case, in almost eight years of the demographic program for maternity capital payments, repeated visits to maternity hospitals should have made more than one and a half times more women. That is, to the eight expected annual groups of women in labor (who would still decide to give birth on the designated dates, even if there was no maternity capital), more than four of the same groups should be added, made up of those who, without maternity capital, would postpone the second birth for later. To complete more than four such cohorts would require more than a four-year shift in plans for having second children across the country! But this is physically impossible, since the difference between the average age of the birth of the first and second child at the time of the introduction of maternity capital was a little less than five years and, for physiological reasons, could not be reduced by more than three to four years. Even if, thanks to the incentive family capital the second children were born after the first in a conveyor order, already in the sixth year of the program, the resource of one and a half growth would have been exhausted (six planned annual cohorts would have visited the maternity hospitals, plus three overplanned ones, which appeared there as a result of the maximum physiologically possible compaction of the birth calendar). Consequently, from 2012 growth would be replaced by a rapid decline in the birth rate, because all the desired second children have already been born ahead of schedule. However, we do not observe any reduction this year and cannot even predict for the next one. This means that maternity capital stimulated "original", "extra-planned" births, and did not bring the planned ones closer, as the Ministry of Economic Development believes. And consequently, 300 billion rubles. a year are not sent to fun with a wall calendar, but really allow maternity capital to be converted into human capital.
Moreover, a shift in the calendar would inevitably lead to a rejuvenation of the period of the average birth. In fact, the opposite picture is observed: women in labor in Russia are aging. According to the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation, during the period of maternity capital, the average age of mothers increased from 26.6 to 28.2 years. In the 35 to 40 age group, fertility is growing twice as fast as the average for the entire maternal cohort. This suggests that there is not a shift in the calendar forward, not premature births ahead of schedule, but the implementation of long-awaited and constantly postponed plans that has finally begun, which has allowed many mothers to jump on the last car of the outgoing train under the curtain of their fertile age. If not for improvement social conditions without support from the state, these deferred hopes would never come true.
Sociological studies conducted in 2013 by Rosstat also allow us to assess the role of maternity capital in these changes. In a survey of Russian families of all ages, 6% of all married couples surveyed reported that the issue of this allowance had a decisive influence on their decision to have a child. The share of 6% looks insignificant, but in absolute figures nationwide it grows to 1,800 thousand people. By approximately this number of children, the total birth rate in 2007-2013 exceeded the level reached in 2006. Approximately the same number of children ensured Russia's preponderance in the pace of maternal renaissance over its sisters - Belarus and Ukraine.
After the introduction of maternity capital, the birth rate accelerated in the country. And this happened not due to a shift in the calendar of births, but due to a real increase in the number of children born per woman. For the first time in the past 20 years, the model of a two-child family has received a significant advantage over a one-child family, the total number of second and subsequent births has surpassed the number of first ones. In the excess of the number of second and subsequent births over the first, the role of maternity capital is obvious.
We fundamentally did not consider the issues of the ethics of this cancellation and the very ethics of posing the question. But even a rational view shows that maternity capital turned out to be an effective social measure.
Vladimir Timakov, Alexey Tokarev
Push. By Sverdlovsk region there are a lot of Tajik migrants. multiply strongly, all or citizens, or have a residence permit. stupid statistic, IMHO.
According to this program, women who gave birth (adopted) a second child or subsequent children after January 1, 2007 are entitled to additional financial support from federal budget. These funds (maternity capital) are provided to the mother in the form of a certificate when the second (or subsequent) child reaches the age of three. According to legislators, a woman can use this certificate in a strictly defined way - to invest in housing construction, in the education of one of her children, or in the funded part of her own pension.
Everything would be fine, but in reality it is not so easy to get this capital. The outgoing year was marked by several major scandals in the regions. So, in the Ulyanovsk region, officials did not warn mothers about their right to state money or disrupted the deadlines for issuing a certificate. Employees in Tatarstan pension fund forced the parents to bring not only certificates from the registry office, but also the birth certificate of the applicant herself, which many no longer kept. In addition, maternity capital ceases to be indexed at the time of receipt of the certificate. The family received it in 2010 - instead of 250 thousand rubles there will be 310 thousand. But no more. So it’s unlikely that there will be enough for preparatory courses at the institute for a baby: in a few years inflation will leave a penny of wealth. And now the amount is enough only for country house 200 kilometers from Moscow. Little nasties
In 2010, children for whose birth families are entitled to maternal (family) capital have reached the age of three. This means that the reform, which at one time caused a great public outcry, is beginning to become a reality. And of particular relevance is the question of how the expected effects of the maternity capital program correlate with the practical results of the initial operation of this project.
In the summer of 2011, the program "Gender Studies" (European University in St. Petersburg) with the support of the Foundation. Heinrich Böll conducted a sociological study on this issue. During the study, 19 interviews were collected with mothers and married couples who have the right to use maternity (family) capital. Interviews were conducted in Volgograd, St. Petersburg, Moscow and Leningrad regions. The study involved people with a different number of children in the family (from 2 to 4 children), with different levels of education (from secondary to higher) and income. This article is devoted to a discussion of the results of the described project.
Maternal capital: content and criticism
The starting point for the introduction of the maternity capital program was the message of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to the Federal Assembly on May 10, 2006. In this speech, the president identified the demographic problem (population decline) as the country's most acute problem. Putin connected her decision, first of all, with the stimulation of the birth rate, namely, with the introduction of state support measures for young families (primarily women) who decide to have a child.
Maternal capital and child benefits somehow stimulate a woman to become a mother? - Maternity capital had little effect on a woman's decision to give birth. However, in the regions there may be significant assistance at a time when a woman must devote all her strength to caring for a child and cannot earn money on her own. This is when the baby is from one and a half to two years old. Therefore, an increase in child care allowance at this age can be a positive factor, and in some cases a decisive one. The fact is that there are cases when women, even after a caesarean section, were forced to look for work, because they could not feed the child on benefits. Other measures, such as lump sums, have not been very effective in our experience. Svetlana Rudneva: “Only one woman out of ten refuses to have an abortion”
The President declared the need for an integrated approach to state assistance to families. The set of innovations he proposed included an increase in benefits for caring for a child up to 1.5 years, compensation for the costs of preschool education of children, and the development of reproductive health care. At the same time, maternity capital was named as the main measure designed to encourage women to have at least two children.
The essence of the proposed measure was as follows: a woman who gave birth to a second (or subsequent) child in the period from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016, receives a certificate for “maternity capital” from the state. The amount of this capital in 2006 was equal to 250 thousand rubles, and by 2011 it was indexed to 365,700 rubles. When the child reaches three years old, the mother can use this certificate strictly in accordance with the legislatively defined areas of spending (for improving their own living conditions, for the education of children or for the funded part of their own pension). Although in normative documents this measure of state support was defined as a family one (the official name of the program sounds like a program of “maternity (family) capital”), its actual recipients were women mothers. The father, however, received the right to dispose of maternity capital only in exceptional circumstances - in the event of the death of the mother, the deprivation of her parental rights, or the commission of a crime against the child by her.
Shortly after its introduction, this reform was at the center of public debate. The fears of liberal-minded experts were related to the fact that monetary payments in the stated amount are not sufficient to stimulate middle-class families to have children. Already at the time of the start of the program, two hundred and fifty thousand maternity capital could not serve as a significant support for the purchase of an apartment (in Moscow, this amount could buy about 5 square meters of housing) or pay for the education of a child. Economists warned that the aid promised by the state would only be attractive to low-income segments of the population, and that an increase in the number of births in this group of families would eventually lead to a number of social problems.
Another, feminist-oriented, line of criticism focused on the gender aspects of the ongoing reform. Its supporters emphasized that by addressing its programs primarily to mothers, the state thereby reinforces the traditions of Soviet social policy, when a woman was presented as the main agent of child care and a passive object of guardianship on the part of the paternalistic state. The fact was also problematized that, by giving priority to monetary measures to support parents (including maternity capital), the authorities thereby avoid solving more pressing issues of family policy - reforming children's health care, access to preschool educational institutions and so on.
In 2008-2009, under the influence of criticism, as well as in the context of economic changes, a number of additions were made to the maternity (family) capital program. In connection with the global financial crisis families faced with the need to pay mortgage loans, it was allowed to use maternity capital to cover the mortgage immediately after the birth of a second or subsequent child. Citizens were also given the right to lump sum payment in the amount of 12,000 rubles at the expense of maternity capital. In addition, fathers received the right to use maternity capital to improve their living conditions if they have a loan agreement and they are married to a woman who has the right to maternity capital.
These innovations, however, did not remove the claims previously made against the program: the main addressee and manager of funds, as before, remained the mother of the child; the list of areas in which maternity capital can be spent has not been expanded; its amount remained incomparable with market prices for housing. Next, we will consider what role the maternity capital program actually played for families with children, as well as how justified the criticism against it turned out to be.
What are they spending on?
When analyzing the attitude of families to the maternity capital program, we were interested in two main questions: what choice do citizens make within the framework of the opportunities offered by the state and how this measure of state support correlates with the reproductive and economic strategies of parents.
The answer to the first of these questions in a general form can be found in the statistical materials concerning the use of maternity capital funds. Thus, according to official data of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, for the period from January to September 2010, the Pension Fund accepted 27,000 applications for the transfer of maternity capital funds to consumer accounts. Most of these funds (about 24 thousand applications) were spent on the purchase of housing and the improvement of living conditions. Another 2.8 thousand applicants decided to use the certificate for maternity (family) capital to pay for the education of their children, only 210 applications were submitted regarding the transfer of certificate funds to the funded part of the mother's pension.
In addition, two interesting trends can be traced in the report of the ministry: 1) the demand among the population for “anti-crisis” changes in the maternity capital program (in 2009-2010, 239 thousand applications for repayment of mortgage loans were submitted; 90% of families with a certificate received payments at his expense); 2) the overall low level of use of the funds of this program (by the fall of 2010, a little more than 11% of the total number of families with the corresponding certificates used maternity capital funds for the main areas of spending). Referring to the interviews collected during our project, we will try to clarify the observed distribution.
So, the most significant direction of spending maternity capital for citizens is the improvement of living conditions. The “housing issue”, in general, is characterized by them as one of the leading factors that young families weigh when deciding whether to have children. At the same time, the participants in our study say that they have certain (rather high) standards for housing. The ideal is an apartment with several rooms (a separate room for each family member), located in a “good” area with developed infrastructure (a kindergarten and a clinic located next to the house). In order to achieve this ideal, citizens are ready to accumulate all the resources available to them - support from their families of origin, other relatives, friends; help at work; bank loans; government support programs.
Maternity capital is one of the elements (usually not the most significant) of such a complex scheme aimed at improving housing conditions. At the same time, due to the presence of bureaucratic barriers and frequent changes in social policy, state support is the most difficult resource to count on and the use of which is the most difficult to control. So, for some families, the maternity capital program appeared as a happy occasion that allowed them to pay the balance mortgage loan. For other families, who tried to include it in advance in their plans to purchase a home, she acted as the weakest and most unpredictable link in the financial chain, the link that jeopardized the transaction for buying an apartment. For example, one interviewed Petersburger (Konstantin, 43 years old) spoke about how, due to a delay in the transfer of maternity capital, his family was suspended from receiving another, larger social payment, through which it was planned to buy an apartment. As a result, Konstantin, who applied to the prosecutor's office to resolve this issue, came to the conclusion that "this certificate, it is just a piece of paper, (...) it does not go for money."
Thus, the ability to use maternity capital to improve housing conditions gives rise to the following actions of its owners:
1) the use of maternity capital as a fluke that allows you to cover part of the mortgage. It is important that this, the most common, way of using maternity capital is not strategic (and was not originally provided for in the law). Mortgages in the overwhelming majority of cases were issued by families before the introduction of the maternity capital program. Accordingly, although the new state support measure eased the financial burden of the family, it did not play any significant role in the decision to purchase housing and the related decision to have a child.
2) the planned use of maternity capital for the purchase of a house / apartment. This situation is characterized by the perception of MK as one of the types of resources involved in the purchase of housing. Although, compared with the support of the parental family or credit loans, this resource is the least significant, accessing it is usually described by our citizens as the most problematic. The lack of clear legislative mechanisms for action in a number of difficult situations and bureaucratic delays often violate the plans of families to use MC to improve their living conditions. The way out of such difficult situations is often to turn to "shadow" schemes (for example, paying bribes to officials). It should be noted here that many families who are considering spending maternity capital on improving their living conditions, after weighing the possible obstacles and costs, ultimately decide not to do this.
The second most popular area of using maternity capital funds (in terms of volume - less common) is the education of children. Middle-class families view the development of their children's cultural and social capital as one of the most important aspects of the parenting role. In this context, education is a priority for family spending. However, while many of the parents in our study invest heavily own funds in the preschool education of the child (visiting her / him circles, sections, classes with tutors), they do not plan to use maternity capital for these purposes. There are two main explanations for this.
Firstly, parents reject the option of using maternity capital for higher education of their children due to the fact that the instability of the ongoing social policy and current changes in the education system do not allow them to make long-term plans. Secondly, citizens who themselves studied for free, in general, expect their children to receive free education. In the case of its complete transition to a paid basis, families do not consider maternity capital as a possible means to solve the problem.
Those of the respondents who nevertheless used maternity capital for the education of their children invested it in the child's preschool education ( kindergarten, creative circles, etc.). Choice this option was determined for them by their lack of confidence in the stability of the policy pursued by the state and the desire to receive the promised support "here and now". Families who have chosen this path note the presence of a number of difficulties that arise when trying to spend maternity capital for educational purposes. First of all, such difficulties are related to the insufficient development (sometimes simply the absence) of institutional mechanisms for using certificate funds in this vein. As a result, citizens are faced with the need to independently collect information about the features of legal procedures, as well as overcome bureaucratic barriers. Here is what one of the women who managed to use MK funds to pay for a commercial kindergarten tells us:
“I don’t even know who came up with the idea that we can pay for kindergarten in this way. I asked this question to this commission. They said, "Yes, but we don't know anything yet." Then they found out about it somewhere. And even before me, one mother from our kindergarten managed to arrange it. That is, my documents were sent repeatedly, and it was easier to demand the necessary documents for this” (Galina, 37 years old, St. Petersburg).
The third direction in the use of maternity capital is associated with the investment of these funds in the funded part of the mother's pension. However, this path is usually not taken seriously by families - the previously noted distrust in the stability of the social policy being pursued and a series of changes in the pension system prevent citizens from making such long-term plans.
In continuation of the topic, it should be noted that the liberal criticism expressed during the introduction of the reform was justified. For a significant part of the citizens, the amount provided under this program, indeed, turns out to be too small to improve their living conditions or pay for the education of their children. According to one of the interviewed mothers, based on real market prices, maternity capital funds can be used to purchase 5 square meters of housing. Since the eldest daughter of our interlocutor did not enter the university at the budget department, the woman thought about investing maternity capital in the education of her child. However, according to her calculations, the amount of the certificate would only be enough for two and a half years of study at one of the universities in St. Petersburg.
As a result, parents who do not have sufficient additional resources and who do not trust the opportunity to invest maternity capital in retirement choose the “deferred use” strategy. Maternity capital turns into a “piece of paper” for them, which is poorly taken into account when forming economic plans family and can only be used in case of a favorable combination of circumstances. “This is not capital - this is a piece of paper about capital!” - this is how a young mother from the Moscow region described this situation.
Citizens in a similar situation note that they would be happy to spend maternity capital funds on other urgent family needs that are not provided in the law on additional measures of state support - apartment renovation, purchase land plot, payment for the treatment of the child. The existence of such a need, as well as doubts about the stability of state support, make them think about ways to illegally cash out maternity capital. Although none of the respondents themselves resorted to "shadow" schemes for the use of maternity capital, this practice is usually well known to them from the experience of acquaintances or from the media. Often it is associated with obtaining a loan from a bank secured by maternity capital and the subsequent fictitious “purchase” of dilapidated housing for this money (in our country, a sufficient number of companies have appeared to help carry out this operation, however, citizens often carry it out on their own - “buying” housing relatives or friends).
Summarizing the above, we can distinguish the following main strategies for using maternity capital:
1) to improve housing conditions, which is available only for families with additional sources of financial support;
2) to cover a mortgage - a situational measure added to the law for a certain period and not of strategic importance;
3) for the education of children; moreover, in most cases, avoiding long-term planning, parents invest capital in the child's preschool education;
4) “delayed use”, in which families doubt the feasibility of one direction of spending declared by the state, but at the same time do not have additional resources to use MK for other legitimate needs;
5) "deception of the state" - attempts to illegally cash out maternity capital, associated with the desire to solve pressing problems and distrust of public policy.
In this situation, the most popular and, in fact, not a strategic way to use maternity capital is to receive a lump-sum cash payment (12,000 rubles) at its expense. These actions correlate with the general perception of social policy by families, which can be summarized in the phrase "take everything you can from the state, here and now." The following words sound like a refrain in the interview: “It seems like they introduced us to withdraw twelve thousand. Of course, we immediately removed it, because, as they say, there is at least a tuft of wool from a black sheep” (Polina, 35 years old, Volgograd). However, it is obvious that the resulting "tuft of wool" is not a significant increase in family budget. This money, disproportionate to the cost of raising a child, "goes to diapers," according to most parents.
The described difficulties in the use of maternity capital, the small amount of this measure of state support, disbelief in the stability of the ongoing social policy lead to the fact that families do not take maternity capital into account when discussing decisions about the birth of children and their number. In general, citizens approve of the support of motherhood and parenthood as principles of social policy. However, our study shows that the horizon of citizens' orientation towards assistance from the state is significantly limited. The respondents are aware of the variability of the existing family policy and cannot rely on it in the long term, so they try to “take everything while they give” (in the short term). For the rest, citizens prefer to rely on themselves and their families, on all kinds of available resources, including their own skills, personal and professional experience, the ability to individually "fight" the system in the interests of the family and the child, overcoming numerous barriers in formal and informal ways.
The material was prepared within the framework of the program "Gender Democracy" of the Foundation. Heinrich Böll.
By the way, we have launched a channel in Telegram, where we publish the most interesting news about real estate and real estate technologies. If you want to be one of the first to read these materials, then subscribe: t.me/ners_news .
Subscription for updates
MATERIAL CAPITAL AS AN INSTITUTION: PROBLEMS OF FORMATION AND PROSPECTS FOR ITS USE
Korobkova Natalya Aleksandrovna 1 , Alimova Daria Alekseevna 1
1 Penza State University of Architecture and Construction
annotation
The article substantiates the relevance of the problem of improving maternity capital as an institution for stimulating the birth rate. Maternal capital was analyzed from the standpoint of the institutional relations that form it. Formal relations within the framework of maternity capital involve actions limited by the relevant law Russian Federation. At the same time, the institution of maternity capital presupposes the existence of informal relations. For example, actions to "cash out" it. Based on the analysis of various points of view, an assessment of the effectiveness of maternity capital in terms of stimulating the birth rate is carried out. Represented alternatives use of maternity capital.
MATERNITY CAPITAL AS AN INSTITUTION: PROBLEMS OF FORMATION AND PROSPECTS OF ITS USE
Korobkova Natalia Aleksandrovna 1 , Alimova Darya Alekseevna 1
1 Penza State University of architecture and construction
Abstract
In this article the urgent of the problem of improving maternal capital as an institution to stimulate fertility. Maternity capital has been analyzed from the perspective of institutional relations his formative. Formal relations within the parent capital suggest actions limited by applicable law of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the Institute of maternity capital presupposes the existence of informal relations. For example, the actions of his "cashing". Based on the analysis of different points of view to assess the effectiveness of the parent capital in terms of stimulating the birth rate. Presented alternatives of the parent capital.
Bibliographic link to the article:
Korobkova N.A., Alimova D.A. Maternal capital as an institution: problems of formation and prospects for its use // Modern Scientific research and innovation. 2015. No. 3. Part 4 [Electronic resource]..03.2019).
In February 2015, the Ministry of Labor of Russia published a draft action plan for the first stage of the implementation of the Concept of State Family Policy in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025 for 2015-2018. This draft plan provides for the improvement of the mechanisms for using maternity (family) capital funds and the preparation of proposals for the extension of the maternity capital program after 2016.
Initially, the Maternity Capital birth support program was planned to be completed by the end of 2016. In particular, the Ministry of Economic Development, in order to save budgetary funds, proposed its completion.
The need to extend the maternity capital and identify areas for improving this institution determined the relevance of this article.
Maternal (family) capital is a form of state support for Russian families raising children. This support is provided from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016 at the birth or adoption of a second, third or subsequent child with Russian citizenship, provided that the parents have not exercised the right to additional state support measures. Maternity capital is currently a significant element of social policy.
Social policy is a universal tool for influencing the behavior of society as a whole and individual citizens in particular; it is a response to the social processes taking place in the country and, at the same time, shapes them. Family policy deserves special attention, since its goal is to regulate such a finely organized, private social sphere as family relationships, namely parenthood. Parenthood has been and remains the most important family function, at the same time being at the center of Russian family policy.
Under the maternal, or, as it is also called family capital, are understood cash allocated by the state within the framework of the law "On additional measures of state support for families with children" from the federal budget to provide financial support to citizens who have (planning) two or more children. These funds do not bring a large material benefit to the family, as they are provided in a non-cash form (certificate) credited to the accounts of the Pension Fund of the region or city in which the parents and the child who submitted the documents are registered. This is a kind of reward for families who have decided to improve the demographics in the country.
The relevant Federal Law No. 256-FZ “On Additional Measures of State Support for Families with Children” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 256-FZ) entered into force on January 1, 2007, in which the legislator established a list of permissible areas for the use of maternity (family) capital, and exactly:
1) improvement of living conditions;
2) receiving education by the child (children);
3) formation of the funded part of the labor pension for women.
In the law, capital is called maternal (family) - these terms are used as synonyms, but these are two independent social institutions. In fact, it is not the family that has the right to receive a certificate, but the woman - the mother of the child, and only in the absence of her - the father of the child, the adoptive parent (or other official representative of the child) and the minor child.
The main body regulating the receipt of maternity capital is the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (Pension Fund of the Russian Federation) and its territorial bodies. To obtain a state certificate for maternity (family) capital (hereinafter referred to as the certificate), you must contact the territorial body of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (PFR) by submitting an appropriate application with all necessary documents(their copies, the fidelity of which is certified in the manner prescribed by law).
The form of the certificate, the rules for filing an application for issuing a certificate and the rules for issuing a certificate (its duplicate) were approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 30, 2006 No. 873 “On the procedure for issuing a state certificate for maternity (family) capital”.
The disposal of funds (part of the funds) of the maternity (family) capital is carried out by persons who have received a certificate by submitting to the territorial body of the PFR an application for the disposal of the funds of the maternity (family) capital (hereinafter referred to as the application for disposal), which indicates the direction of use of the maternity (family) capital in accordance with Law No. 256-FZ. At the same time, an application for disposal may be submitted at any time after the expiration of three years from the date of birth (adoption) of the second, third child or subsequent children.
Within the framework of the institution of maternity capital, informal rules can also be distinguished. Severe restrictions on the spending of maternity (family) capital have already become grounds for fraud. In some Russian cities, scammers, taking advantage of the illiteracy of citizens and low awareness in this matter, offer assistance for a fee in converting a maternity capital certificate into cash.
According to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation, the number of certificate holders in respect of whom the transfer of maternity capital funds has been suspended at the request of law enforcement agencies is 312 people. Simply put, this is how many Russian citizens have been convicted during the operation of the Maternity Capital program in an attempt to violate its conditions.
Since a total of 3.45 million "mother" certificates have been issued across the country to date, the number of offenses looks negligible. But any criminologist will explain that the detection rate for any type of crime is never one hundred percent. So, some of the unscrupulous recipients managed to stay with the money.
So, in the search engine “Google” for the query “cash out”, the hint “maternity capital” pops up first, and there are no number of sites explaining how to do this. This means that crime is in high demand. Let us clarify that, within the legal framework, the maximum that can be received in cash from maternity capital is 12 thousand rubles.
The schemes involve certain losses - up to 25% for the services of intermediaries and approximately look like this. The first is to find housing that is larger than what the owner of the maternity capital certificate has. To buy this housing with the involvement of MSC funds, thus - "improve living conditions", and then simply sell it, remaining to live in the original apartment. At first glance, it seems that not everyone can afford such a deal, but no one obliges the purchaser to focus on buying in their region. There are enough cities in the country where the amount of MSCs will be almost enough to purchase quickly liquid real estate. And, by the way, this scheme, unlike others, does not violate the laws.
According to the second scheme, there is a relative (ideally grandparents) with their own housing and a different surname. After the transaction is registered, the certificate is redeemed, and the money is transferred to the “seller”, who, in turn, returns this amount already former owner certificate.
The third option involves, by collusion between the buyer and the seller, the overpricing of the acquisition. The violator arrives in a distant village, chooses an extreme hut, the price of which is a penny, and "officially" pays "in full". Further, the seller, taking the real cost and the percentage for the work, returns the bulk of the amount.
There is a fourth and other schemes, and all are based on collusion. In the contract one price, in fact - another.
Some regions are less active in the fight against cashing out, others are literally on a rampage. So, in October of the past year, the prosecutor's office of the Nizhny Novgorod region reported that it had received 66 appeals on this issue from the FIU. As a result of the checks, criminal cases were initiated against two intermediary firms and eighteen families. And in the Volgograd region, at the request of the prosecutor's office, this January it is forbidden to place advertisements in the local newspaper commercial organization offering the issuance of cash for maternity capital.
That is, both administrative and criminal cases are initiated on violations. Another thing is that so far no one has been imprisoned for fraud with maternity capital. Real sanction - the court can oblige the guilty person to reimburse the state for the amount used from the certificate illegally.
Initially, payments amounted to 250 thousand rubles, and by now the amount of maternity capital has increased to 408 thousand rubles. Over the years, maternity capital, in the minds of Russian citizens, has become one of the most notable examples of the state's responsible approach to social policy issues. Nevertheless, the stated goal was precisely to increase the birth rate, and here only specialists can assess the situation on the merits.
After the catastrophic decline of 1999, the birth rate did grow, moreover, a significant shift in this area occurred precisely in 2007. Nevertheless, when discussing the specifics of these processes, experts often do not fix a rigid connection here with measures public policy or find the effect of these efforts somewhat exaggerated.
Vladimir Arkhangelsky, a leading researcher at the Center for the Study of Population at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, says that it is simply illiterate to deny the influence of maternity capital on positive processes in Russian demography. The scientist believes that two grounds allow us to link the increase in birth rates with the effect of maternity capital: “Firstly, the coincidence in terms of 2007 sudden jump was just then), and secondly, this jump was precisely for the second and third births, and our maternity capital is issued for the second and subsequent child.
Arkhangelsky does not give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether the jump in fertility was only “timing” (that is, children would still be born, but only a little later), or whether we are talking about real changes in the structure of fertility due to a more complete realization of the need in children. According to the expert, this will be unequivocally clarified only when the age cohorts of women who have received maternity capital end their positive period. Arkhangelsky's position is that, by stopping the payment of maternity capital after 2016, the state, on the one hand, will not put itself in the best light before the citizens of the country, showing that before that they were dealing not with a well-thought-out policy, but with another "campaign", and on the other hand enhance the effect of demographic hole late 1980s-early 1990s - after all, women born during this period are just now entering the active reproductive age, and there are very few of them.
Director of the Independent Institute for Social Policy Lilia Ovcharova divides the effects of "maternity capital" into three groups: economic, social and political. Unlike Arkhangelsky, Ovcharova is sure that the demographic consequences of the introduction of maternity capital were minimal, and even this potential has already been exhausted. At the same time, Ovcharova highly appreciates the social “welfare” and political effects of this measure. This form of state support turned out to be not only an “effective”, but also a “spectacular” instrument of social policy. The expert notes that the program was initially introduced as a temporary one and will not be able to exist unchanged after 2016. That is why the concept of maternity capital should be rethought in order for the program to be implemented in the future on new grounds: “In its current form, maternity capital cannot be preserved, it must be transformed into a permanent tool to support families with children, the purpose of which is precisely to increase welfare and opportunities well-being, rather than stimulating the birth rate.
Mikhail Denisenko, Deputy Director of the HSE Institute of Demography, agrees with Ovcharova. He is also skeptical about the demographic effects of the introduction of maternity capital, but at the same time highly appreciates it as a tool to combat poverty. The expert says that in the event of termination of the program, the state should develop alternative mechanisms to support families with children.
In turn, the experts of the Center for Political Analysis agree with the opinion of colleagues from Moscow University. We believe that the maternity capital program should continue beyond 2016. It is possible that this program needs to be clarified, however, it is necessary to take into account the possible social consequences of the abolition of "maternity capital", since 77% of the country's citizens, according to the Superjob.ru research center, believe that the program should be preserved.
Thus, the institution of maternity capital has, although insignificant, but a positive impact on the birth rate of the population, which indicates the effectiveness of the demographic policy pursued by the states, but still a number of problems remain unresolved. Therefore, the demographic policy pursued by the states requires improvement.
In our opinion, there is a lack of another area of MSC use - treatment and health care to kid. Today in Russia there are very low indicators of children's health, high infant mortality. And, despite the fact that our medicine is free, but not unlimited, this direction of spending is very necessary. With the same success, one can answer that our education is free, but after all, such an expense item is laid down in the law.
Opinions are expressed in the media regarding the targeted use of maternity (family) capital.
It is proposed to use it as start-up capital to open your own small business, which could help start your own business in conditions of high unemployment; for the treatment of children, including children with disabilities; to pay off a loan to buy a car, etc.
In any of the above cases, we are talking about expanding the list of purposes for which maternity capital funds can be spent. And it is clear that, given the difficulties that one has to face, the issue of changing the Law on maternity capital is acute, although one cannot even say about its full application.
The institution of maternity capital is, of course, not the only measure aimed at stimulating the birth rate. This is just an additional incentive, the purpose of which is to remove barriers and increase social security for families who want children. Nevertheless, the expectations associated with obtaining the right to maternity (family) capital, along with other measures to support motherhood and childhood, are justified.
Maternal (family) capital: the concept and its meaning
The concept of maternal (family) capital and its legal regulation
Maternal (family) capital is a form of state support for Russian families raising children. This support is provided from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016 at the birth or adoption of a second, third or subsequent child with Russian citizenship, provided that the parents have not exercised the right to additional state support measures.
Maternal capital - as a legal concept appeared in Russian legislation after the adoption of the Federal Law of December 29, 2006 No. 256-FZ (as amended on July 28, 2012) “On additional measures of state support for families with children” (hereinafter referred to as the Family Support Law).
State support is provided to women who have given birth (adopted) a second child since January 1, 2007; women who have given birth (adopted) a third and subsequent children since January 1, 2007, if they have not previously exercised the right to additional measures of state support; men who are the sole adopters of the second, third or subsequent children who have not previously exercised the right to additional measures of state support, if the court decision on adoption entered into force on January 1, 2007. If these persons have died or their right to additional measures of state support terminated on other grounds, then the right to receive additional measures of state support arises respectively from the father (adoptive parent) of the child or from the child (children in equal shares).
It should be noted that in the Family Support Law, the right to additional measures of state support arises at the birth (adoption) of a child (children) not only for women, but also for men. In particular, men who are the sole adopters of the second, third and subsequent children have such a right, if the court decision on adoption has entered into force on January 1, 2007. In the event of the death of the mother, her declaration of death, deprivation of parental rights, in the event of cancellation of adoption, the corresponding right to receive additional measures of state support arises from the father (adoptive parent) of the child. Thus, both a man and a woman, in principle, have equal rights in this area.
The emergence of the maternity capital program in our country could not but have an impact on legal system. Considering maternity capital through the prism of the branch of social security law, it is necessary to determine its place in the system of types of social security, how much it fits into the existing system of social security. At the same time, one should proceed from the fact that any branch of law basically has fundamental principles that determine the structure of the entire branch and determine the content of its norms. The regulation of social security relations is carried out on the basis of the principles of universality of social security; differentiation of types, conditions and level of support depending on the labor contribution, reasons, needs and other socially significant circumstances; guaranteeing social assistance in cases where a person needs it due to circumstances recognized as socially significant.
T.S. Guseva points to the influence of the demographic function of social security law on the structure of the industry. New guidelines entail a change in the institutional structure of the branch of law: the emergence of new institutions, a significant renewal of the old ones. At the same time, the existing institutions of the system of social security law, which had already taken shape at the time of the actualization of the demographic function - pensions, benefits, social services, state social assistance, become more complicated. Changes in the demographic function entail structural transformations in the branch of legislation. The introduction by the legislator of additional measures to support families with children led to “the appearance in the structure of the institution of benefits and social payments of a new sub-institution - maternity (family) capital” (we emphasize that one should not confuse maternity capital and payments at the birth of a child, child benefits, children's compensation).
Some researchers (A.N. Akhmedshina, Yu.B. Korsanenkova) are of the opinion that maternity (family) capital is a new type of social security: “... this measure is a completely new type of security both in terms of content and terms of provision. In particular, until now, social security has been provided in the form of cash payments (pensions, benefits) or in-kind services (prosthetics), and maternity capital cannot be obtained in money, although it is expressed in rubles.
But there is another opinion. So, T.S. Guseva substantiated that the targeted nature of the use of this cash payment brings maternity (family) capital closer to such a type of social payments as subsidies, similar features are non-cash form provision and financing of social payments from budgetary funds, it would be more correct to use the concept of “multi-purpose subsidy” to refer to this payment.
T.S. Guseva determines the place of the norms governing relations regarding the provision of maternity (family) capital in the system of the branch of social security law, believing that they are "united into a sub-institution, which is an integral part of the institution of social payments" .
It seems important to consider some legal relations arising in connection with maternity capital. For example, the ratio of the payment of maternity capital funds from the budget to repay a mortgage loan. It can be considered as a simple legal relationship, the subjects of which are the state represented by the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (PFR) and the bank that receives maternity (family) capital in repayment of the loan. The grounds for its occurrence will be the legal composition: a loan agreement for the purchase of housing, the presence of debt under a loan agreement, the presence of a state certificate for maternity (family capital), presentation of a certificate to the bodies of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation in order to repay loan agreement, the right of ownership to the acquired residential premises from the person who owns the certificate, the obligation of the person who owns the residential premises to issue the specified residential premises in common property. However, in expanded form, such a legal relationship will be a complex of a number of simple legal relationships, in particular:
Relationships for obtaining a certificate,
Real estate loan relations
Relations on the repayment of a loan for real estate by means of maternity capital.
Today, this measure to stimulate the process of increasing the birth rate (maternity capital) is largely criticized. Indeed, maternity capital as a measure of social support for families with children has some aspects that significantly reduce its effectiveness.
Maternal capital conflicts with strong discrimination against desired reproductive behavior: “Families with many children are given negative labels that do not always coincide with the real state of affairs: such families are often associated with poverty, low social status, and low intellectual development. ... Maternity capital stimulates the development of a traditional, patriarchal, children's or even a large family, since its use is effective in most cases if there is a male breadwinner in the family.
It states that "this measure is not supported state support equal opportunities in the upbringing of children. In addition, “it is not built into the general neoliberal institutional design of social policy, which involves minimizing state support and targeted assistance to vulnerable groups. As a result, maternity capital is increasingly perceived as an ideology (or even a slogan)…” .
The provision of measures of additional state support to families with children in the form of the right to maternity (family) capital is based on two circumstances:
Birth (adoption) of the second and subsequent child;
The period of time during which this happened is from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016.
The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation expressed its position on this issue: citizen G., who gave birth to her third child in 2004, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Family Support Law, incl. and the application of the Family Support Law to legal relations arising in connection with the birth (adoption) of a child (children) in the period from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2016. ) capital is not objectively justified and violates the principle of equality of all before the law, which is inconsistent with Art. 19, 38, 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation refused to accept the complaint for consideration due to the lack of jurisdiction of the issue raised in it. In his opinion, the decision on the effect of the law in time, including giving it retroactive effect, is the prerogative of the legislator, and specific measures of social support for families and children in accordance with Art. 39 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are established by federal laws and laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
But in judicial practice there are examples when the actual birth of a child took place before January 1, 2007. Thus, by the Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases Supreme Court The Russian Federation dated 03.06.2011 No. 4-B11-15 recognized the right of a citizen to receive a certificate, even if her child was born before January 1, 2007. The citizen was denied the issuance of a state certificate for maternity (family) capital. The reason is that her second child was born before January 1, 2007. The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases considered that there were no grounds for refusal, and explained the following: “The law on additional measures of state support for families with children provides that the right to such measures occurs in women who have given birth (adopted) a second child since January 1, 2007. Meanwhile, in the case under consideration, it was necessary to take into account that the second child of the plaintiff was born prematurely (due to emergency medical indications), i.e. for reasons beyond her control. In the event of a favorable pregnancy outcome, the child should have been born after January 1, 2007.” Taking this into account, in the opinion of the board, there were no grounds to deprive the plaintiff of the right to receive a state certificate for maternity (family) capital.
We also note that at the moment the question of the fate of maternity capital in the event of a family breakup has not been determined in any way. For example, spouses have divorced, questions arise about who the children will live with and about the division of jointly acquired property. In particular, the certificate is issued to the mother of the children, and the children, according to the agreement, either judgment will live with their father.
There may be at least such ways to solve the problem:
When establishing the regime of maternity capital funds as a measure to support a woman, the spouse cannot claim them,
If, however, they are considered as a means of supporting the family, then he can raise the question of his share, in particular when channeling capital to improve housing conditions.
There may be a third solution to the problem: “the right to family capital follows children, i.e. with whom the children live, the right to dispose of them belongs to him.
The right to additional measures of state support arises for a woman who gave birth (adopted) a 2nd child starting from January 1, 2007, and can be realized no earlier than after 3 years from the date of birth (adoption) of the 2nd child. It follows from this that the right to maternity capital depends only on the number of births (adoptions) of children, and not on the actual number of living children. In practice, this can lead to situations where families are supported who, for the purposes of the Family Support Act, should not be eligible for support.
For example, a woman gave birth to two children, but one of them died, nevertheless, at the birth of a second child and three years after his birth, she is included in the circle of persons entitled to maternity capital. Despite the exclusivity of such cases, we consider it unjustified to "tie" the right to receive maternity capital to the number of births of children. A similar situation may also arise when the adoption is canceled if the woman has already received a certificate, or maybe she has exercised this right. The right to maternity capital should be recognized only if there are living children by the time the right to dispose of capital is exercised. At the same time, in relation to the second (subsequent) child, provision must be made for them to reach the age of three or another age, which must be determined based on the purpose of the adoption of the Family Support Law.
At the same time, despite the existing criticism of certain provisions of the Law on Support for Families, nevertheless, after the message of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin that the effect of maternity capital will last only until 2016, the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation thought about the newly discovered problems of the demographic crisis. Many deputies believe that the lack of maternity capital will seriously affect the demographic situation in the country, since from 2017, in the absence of financial assistance, Russian women will again begin to give birth less.
According to I. Sokolova, deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on Family, Women and Children, the abolition of maternity capital will again put Russia in a difficult demographic situation. In view of this, in State Duma The Russian Federation is currently developing a proposal to extend the maternity capital for at least another 9 years, until 2025. I. Sokolova does not deny that the funds allocated for maternity capital cause significant damage to regional budgets, therefore she ordered the preparation of alternative ways to stimulate birth 2- th and 3rd child.
The draft federal budget for 2014 did not bypass the indexation of maternity capital. For 2014, the budget includes more than 140 billion rubles for these purposes.
Today, in many subjects of the Russian Federation, laws have been enacted that regulate the right to receive regional maternity capital. It is provided only to citizens of the Russian Federation who are registered at the place of residence on the territory of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation that pays regional maternity capital. The amount of capital in each region is different, as well as the purposes for which this capital can be spent. "The number of children in the family also varies, for the birth (adoption) of which a certificate for regional maternity capital is issued, in some regions already for the birth (adoption) of a second child, in some - a third" .
Regional maternity capital in the Republic of Mordovia is paid in case of birth in the family after January 1, 2012 of the third and subsequent child. The size of the regional capital is 40,789 rubles. The regional maternity capital will be paid in the form of a lump-sum payment upon reaching the third or subsequent child of two years of age.
Benefits will be indexed annually. The family can use the regional maternity capital at its discretion. In this case, the regional administration did not impose restrictions on the scope of the regional birth certificate. In the regional budget for 2012 - 2013. an amount of 181,608.6 thousand rubles was laid down for the payment of benefits and regional maternity capital, a similar amount is planned for 2014, this year the first payments of regional maternity capital in the Volgograd region will fall.
We note, however, that at a meeting with the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, devoted to the issues of demographic policy, the Republic of Mordovia sounded among those regions where the regional authorities have established an insignificant amount of maternity capital. According to Vysota 102 news agency with reference to the transcript of the meeting, we are talking about regional maternity capital, which is paid in addition to the federal one.
In particular, Vladimir Putin stated that “regional maternity capital has been introduced in most subjects of the Federation, while its size, unfortunately, differs from region to region - and differs significantly, at times ... Given the effectiveness of such a measure as maternity capital, I asked heads of regions should think about what can be done additionally in this direction.
So, maternity (family) capital is federal budget funds transferred to the budget of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation for the implementation of additional state support measures established by the Law on Support for Families. This is a form of state support for families with children. It has been carried out since 2007 at the birth (adoption) of the 2nd (3rd or subsequent - only if they have not previously exercised the right to additional measures of state support) of a child in the period from 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2016, having Russian citizenship. In accordance with the current legislation, the following have the right to receive maternity capital: a woman who has citizenship of the Russian Federation who has given birth (adopted) the 2nd or subsequent children starting from 01/01/2007; a man with citizenship of the Russian Federation, who is the sole adopter of the 2nd or subsequent children, if the court decision on adoption has entered into force since 01/01/2007; the father (adoptive parent) of the child, regardless of the citizenship of the Russian Federation, in the event of termination of the right to additional measures of state support for a woman who has given birth (adopted) children, due, for example, to death, deprivation of parental rights in relation to a child, in connection with the birth (adoption) of which the right arose to receive maternity capital, to commit an intentional crime against a child (children); a minor child (children in equal shares) or a child studying full-time education until he reaches the age of 23, upon termination of the right to additional measures of state support for the father (adoptive parent) or the woman who is the only parent (adoptive parent). In confirmation of the right to receive maternity capital funds, a state certificate is issued.
In 2015, for the third time in a row, natural population growth was again registered, a significant role in achieving which the Government assigns to the maternity capital program.
What is maternity capital, how to use it and how to spend it, what are its benefits and benefits - these are the most common questions that parents ask. Let's figure it out.
"Maternal capital" is a form of state support for Russian families in which a second child was born or adopted from 2007 to 2018 inclusive.
As a maternity capital project, it was developed based on the impending demographic catastrophe. For a number of reasons, young parents did not want to have children and often limited themselves to just one child in the family. At the same time, mortality / birth rate statistics forced the authorities to take urgent decisions to strengthen the prestige of the institution of the family, and at the same time encourage parents to have as many children as possible. Thus, in 2007, a project of state incentives and support was developed and implemented - maternity capital.
The size of the maternity capital
The size of the “cash reward” should have increased from year to year, but as can be seen from the table, unlike all previous years that have passed since 2007, the size of the certificate for maternity capital in 2016 has not changed and is still 453 thousand 026 rub, as in 2015. That is. its size has stopped growing. The reasons are simple. But first, let's analyze the 2 most necessary terms, the meaning and knowledge of which will help to understand the following question - in connection with what the amount of maternity capital is growing or suspended?
1. Inflation- an excessive increase in the number of applicants in the country paper money causing them to depreciate. The word comes from lat. words inflatio - bloating. If in simple words Inflation is an increase in the prices of goods and services. This means that for the same amount of money, after some time, it will be possible to buy fewer goods and services than before.
2. Indexing- increase by the state of incomes and savings of citizens in accordance with the rise in prices during the period of inflation. Indexation (income reimbursement) is continuously linked to inflation (rising prices).
But back to maternity capital.
Its size, taking into account inflation, was supposed to increase in 2016, but this did not happen, allegedly due to the high budget deficit that arose against the backdrop of a sharp drop in oil prices.
But this does not mean that there is no inflation in the country - it exists and, according to the annual forecast, is 7.21% (this figure may change by the end of the year). In 2015, inflation was 12.91%.
Until what year is the support program valid?
In 2015, news about the abolition of maternity capital was leaked to the media, and the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Anton Siluanov commented on this rumor:
“Sometimes they say that the Ministry of Finance is going to terminate the maternity capital. No, we in the government have not yet made a decision, we have not put an end to it, we have not discussed this issue. This was the point of the experts, which, in general, we consider it reasonable. But the final decision will be made by the government.”
But in December 2015, Vladimir Putin instructed to extend the maternity capital program for another 2 years - until 12/31/2018. federal law dated December 30, 2015 No. 433-FZ, the extension of the program was enshrined in law.
Purposes of spending maternity capital:
Improvement of living conditions
Repayment of a mortgage loan;
Reconstruction and repair of a residential building with an increase in living space;
Compensation for building a house;
Repair and construction of the house on their own;
Share building;
Participation in housing cooperatives.
Getting an education
Student accommodation in a hostel of an educational institution
Payment for the services of an educational institution
Facts to Know
The right to receive maternity (family) capital is granted only once.
Maternity capital cannot be deposited or spent, for example, on a car or repayment current debts on loans and public services. This is a kind of protection of capital from unjustified waste by parents,
In case of loss of the certificate, you can get its duplicate;
Maternity capital funds can only be received by bank transfer. Any cashing schemes for these funds are illegal. At the same time, the owner of the certificate for maternity capital, who agrees to take part in cash-out schemes, commits an unlawful act and can be recognized as an accomplice in a crime on the fact of misuse of public funds.
Use of maternity capital for disabled children
January 1, 2016 - for the first time in the long years of the program, changes were made in the directions for using the certificate. Now maternity capital can officially be directed to the social rehabilitation of disabled children.
However, in reality, this direction did not fully work either from January 1, or during the entire first half of 2016 - this possibility only works “on paper”, and the Pension Fund branches cannot even start accepting applications from citizens.
The reason for this was the sluggishness of the Government, which has not yet approved 2 by-laws, without which work in the new main direction is impossible:
- a special list of goods and services for which maternity capital can be used within the new direction;
- rules for using the certificate for the purchase of goods and services according to the above list.
In addition, a complete disappointment for parents was the mechanism provided for in the law for the use of materiel in a new direction - only in the form of compensation for the costs incurred!
This means that parents must first find the necessary funds on their own and use them in the intended direction, in order to then receive compensation from the Pension Fund within two months according to payment documents and contracts confirming the intended use! And then - the actual availability of the goods and services purchased according to the documents will still need to be confirmed by the inspection report obtained from specialists of social services bodies at the place of residence.
Such is the bureaucracy.
And one more small detail, reminiscent of the inscription on the packaging of some product, specially printed in small print, which is very difficult to read:
According to the current rules, it is possible to use the funds of the state subsidy only after 3 years from the date of birth of the second or subsequent child (as well as 3 years after the entry into force of the court decision if the child is accepted for upbringing in a family under the adoption scheme).
In this regard, for children (second, third and subsequent), born or adopted in 2016, payments for general rule will only be implemented in 2019.
It looks something like this: give birth now, and we will reward you later!
An exception, as before, will be cases of using maternity capital for a mortgage:
- in repayment of a previously taken loan or loan for the purchase or construction of housing;
- as down payment for a new home loan or loan.
The opinion of the child psychologist Irina Chesnova:
Irina Chesnova I really like this way of putting the question: you give birth to a second child now. And we will reward you for it. After. May be. If you want. First you yourself for childbirth, cribs, strollers, diapers, toys, scrape up money, starve for two or three years, being content only with dad's salary, and only then you will be happy! But how? We must make sure that you have the most serious intentions, that you will not refuse a child and will not “hang” him on the fragile shoulders of the state, and that you did not give birth to him in order to rob the budget of three hundred thousand rubles (such cash!).
Do you know what it's called? "Presumption of Guilt". Each family is seen as marginal, planning to profit from the budget money by giving birth/adoption of a second child. And so that no one would have the opportunity to get money and leave the baby, drink it up and go on a spree, spend “for the wrong thing”, and this whole scheme was invented with three years of “delay” and a certificate instead of “live” money, which can only be used in stipulated options.
I perfectly understand the logic of the authors of this scheme. Wonderful. There are too many such marginal comrades in our country, in whose drunken heads the idea will immediately be born to do business on the birth / adoption of children. But! What is the fault of the rest of the families (which, by the way, are the majority)? Why was it because of an alcoholic neighbor that normal parents were not given the opportunity to spend four hundred thousand on diapers, a breastfeeding consultant, a massage and an early development school? To treat a child? For a good repair in the apartment? For a car for the whole family? Or a garage? After all, every cell in society has its own needs.
And if the state gave this money “in a human way”, each family, deciding on a second child, knew that they could spend it on what they needed. That would be an incentive!
Very, very many families want a second child, and either give birth to him, not hoping for help from the state, or do not give birth, because they are afraid of the prospect of poverty. Why do they need savings for retirement when they need money “here and now” – for a million different little things that a baby needs?
Conclusion:
The idea itself to solve the demographic problem in the country at the expense of maternity capital was a great breakthrough and hope for most citizens of modern Russia. In practice, several major shortcomings were identified both in the whole program of "maternity capital" and in the idea itself:
1 . No matter how many children you give birth to in your entire life, you receive a certificate for receiving maternity capital once in your life.
2. In Russia, inflation and indexation interact with a serious delay. Prices for food or goods rise much faster than the official rate of inflation.
3. To spend "maternity capital" on housing is a thought that causes a smile. In cities with a population of 400 thousand rubles, it is impossible to solve the “housing problem”. It is possible to buy real estate on a mortgage, and this amount will be spent on a down payment or on paying off interest on a loan. This financial support looks much more significant in regions where real estate prices are noticeably lower. Nevertheless, this item is one of the most popular in Russia.
It is clear that the problem of demography cannot be solved only at the expense of mother capital. This is a big help. But, alas, NOT an incentive. So far, it does not draw on a powerful birth rate engine and an effective demographic program. What do you think? What factors will play a major role in your decision to have a second (third) child?