The question of whether a family’s maternity capital can be used to buy a car has resurfaced, inviting debate about policy goals and practical outcomes. Recently, a document proposed by a leading figure in family policy was added to the electronic records of the parliament, signaling renewed attention to how maternity capital might be applied beyond its original aims.
Experts in public finance caution that using maternity capital for a vehicle may not be financially advantageous. Meri Valishvili, an associate professor in the Department of State and Municipal Finance at PRUE GV Plekhanov and a Master of Law, argues that allocating maternity funds toward an automobile can create more costs than benefits for a family budget. Her assessment rests on the persistent and predictable costs of car ownership, including maintenance, insurance, and fuel, all of which tend to rise over time and can stress household finances in years ahead.
Valishvili notes that a new car typically loses a portion of its value as soon as it leaves the showroom, followed by additional depreciation in the subsequent years. With depreciation and ongoing ownership costs, she suggests that cars do not generally represent a solid investment under the maternity capital program, which is designed to address the fundamental needs of families with children and to help acquire assets that appreciate in value, such as real estate. In her view, real estate and other durable assets tend to support long-term family stability more reliably than a vehicle would.
Her perspective emphasizes the broader policy aim behind maternity capital: to support conditions that improve children’s welfare and future opportunities. Cars, while offering practical mobility, are not typically considered assets that appreciate over time and therefore may not align with the program’s intended purpose of building lasting family wealth. The discussion highlights a tension between daily conveniences and strategic financial planning for families with children, inviting policymakers to weigh short-term needs against long-term security.
The conversation around this topic continues in public forums and media outlets, where readers are invited to reflect on how best to deploy maternity capital to maximize both present well-being and future potential. The debate also touches on the broader question of how state-supported funds should be directed to align with family growth, housing affordability, and sustainable financial planning.
In the larger public discourse, analysts often compare the immediate benefits of a new vehicle against the long-term gains achievable through property ownership and savings. The consensus among many economists is that while transportation is essential, choices that preserve and grow household wealth tend to offer more durable advantages for families with children. This does not dismiss the value of mobility, but it does encourage a careful evaluation of opportunity costs and long-term priorities.
Ultimately, the issue invites a balanced approach: recognizing the practical needs of families while safeguarding the program’s intention to support assets that contribute to enduring financial resilience. The key question remains how maternity capital can be utilized in ways that support daily life without undermining long-term wealth-building objectives. As policy discussions unfold, families are encouraged to consider comprehensive budgeting and to explore asset options that align with both current needs and future security. The dialogue reinforces the idea that prudent financial planning, rather than rapid consumption, best serves households navigating the costs of raising children. In this broader context, the debate on car purchases via maternity capital becomes part of a wider conversation about sustainable family finance and informed decision-making.
Source: Secrets of the Stars