While the authorities are considering how to more fervently increase the birth rate, the total alimony debt in Russia is increasing. This fact, of course, looks ugly against the background of wonderful demographic charts of the future. But they decided to pay attention to this problem. By the way, not for the first time. They started talking about us needing child support funds again. So much so that the state pays for abandoned children and then collects this money from neglectful fathers. They say the state has more opportunities for recovery than a stressed mother.
There seems to be some logic. However, the debate started again. And the chasms opened again.
This time, Deputy of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Nina Ostanina proposed opening a special fund for children left without the help of a father (in rare cases, a mother). In his opinion, this could make the work of bailiffs who for some reason do not act more effective. I’m really wondering why? United Russia deputy Sultan Khamzaev immediately categorically opposed the initiative. He argues that such a precedent “justifies fatherlessness and parasitism.” It’s as if a third of families where children grow up with only their mothers no longer justify fatherlessness. And it’s as if being unemployed is now a crime for us.
The debate came to the public’s attention. And according to tradition, people ask at whose expense is the feast? And will the new fund, as usual, interfere with old funds, for example, the pension fund? So who will cover the corruption of the alimony fund, oh excuse me, the organization costs? So will the state really be able to recover the debts of careless fathers? And if the situation is so difficult, what is stopping him now, without any funds, from identifying parents who have run away from their children and forcing bailiffs to work?
Of course, the child support workers themselves raised their heads. Various representatives of the men’s movement introduced themselves once again. Even though no one invited them to the encore, they came out with their famous slogans: “Down with alimony slavery!”, “Alimony work should be banned!” and “All women…”. Well, you get the idea. The usual madness that everyone is used to.
That’s what scares me. Anomaly has long become commonplace in our country. No one really understands what is going on with family and parenting in our country. Family turns into very strange formations.
At first, the situation of raising children in same-sex unions – with mother and grandmother – became common. Now another new format is gaining momentum; It is completely frightening that the state has become the sole father of millions of children. And what? It is the state that expresses a woman’s desire to give birth; It is the state that guarantees that the child will at least not die of hunger. Nowadays, many so-called parents are not even ready to promise this. Our women have long been guided by the rule that they can give birth to as many children as they can raise without a man. Because the probability of the child’s father leaving reaches 70-80%. And a parent lost in the fog is even less likely to provide adequate support to their child.
The average amount of alimony in Russia is about seven thousand rubles. At the same time, more than 1.5 million alimony workers actually pay nothing. According to the FSSP, in 2022 the total alimony debt reached 233 million rubles (about 1.6 million cases).
And now we have a state that consistently pays subsistence levels from half to one for each child of a low-income family or a child raised by a single parent. So, with whom do our women start a family: with a person who has a specific name and surname, but is ready to evaporate at any moment, or with an abstract phenomenon under whose auspices very special funds are distributed. the well-being of the children? Somehow, the fact that most of our women marry the state is becoming more and more evident.
In this context, the controversial idea of \u200b\u200bcreating an alimony fund seems no more strange than other initiatives. In a way, the child support fund can turn the situation into common sense and force biological fathers to be held accountable.
Decide for yourself. For example, there are child benefits available to single or divorced parents who receive no or crumbs of alimony. These benefits are provided from the budget, and the state does not cover these expenses with any income. The question is: Doesn’t such aid legitimize fatherlessness? Think about it: People started experiencing fictitious divorces because of these benefits. After its implementation in 2021, divorce statistics increased sharply even in conservative Muslim regions such as Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. People reject not only traditions, but also the guarantees of spouses, preferring the guarantees of the state.
Maybe an alimony fund is really better than such “support”? What is important here is that the principle of compensation is truly respected. Thus, the money coming from the budget is stopped for a while and is not taken for free. If this condition is met, abandoned children can be helped here and now, fictitious divorces can be prevented (who would want a divorce if they knew that the state would peel off three skins), and real irresponsible citizens could be brought into their own homes. senses.
And the state machine really has a lot of opportunities to collect a debt from a person. And no, it’s not just extreme measures that work. And then they already proposed to send subsistence workers to the front and organize a new Gulag for them. We live in such a wonderful world that literally in two clicks any person can create a reality in which he himself will understand where to go wildly: with a ribbon, with a thorn, or is it enough to throw a courier bag at him? He came back and is still earning money for his child’s bread and milk.
The important thing, of course, is political will. This way, there will be no half-heartedness.
In order not to limit ourselves to closing borders for debtors who are not going anywhere. Not to be afraid to block the cards of malicious defaulters and disconnect the traffickers from the Internet. To return to them the benefits of the “digital concentration camp” only on condition of official employment with a completely white salary and payment of debts to their own children. It seems there is no other way. It is clear that stimulating conversations about traditional family values are of no use.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors.
Dolores Johnson is a voice of reason at “Social Bites”. As an opinion writer, she provides her readers with insightful commentary on the most pressing issues of the day. With her well-informed perspectives and clear writing style, Dolores helps readers navigate the complex world of news and politics, providing a balanced and thoughtful view on the most important topics of the moment.