An important part of the message of Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly this year was devoted to supporting families with children. The state in the person of the president not only explicitly announced the expansion of measures of social support for families - it was announced about specific mechanisms for their financial support and the distribution of maternal capital to families that gave birth to their first child.

Of course, there is no such, even absolutely good, initiative of Vladimir Putin that would not find its critics. Detractors, for the most part, either live in prosperous Moscow and are not the target audience of support measures, or they are looking for cons in any initiatives of the president from abroad by the methodology. The problem of the separation of the so-called intelligentsia from ordinary people is a historical incident. The nobles have been gone for a hundred years, and the “blue blood” still flows in the veins of those who call power the “regime” and a priori give it no chance with any initiative.

“They will give birth for a million,” “maternity capital does not affect the birth rate,” “money goes to scammers” - these are the three most popular arguments that critics of maternal capital are armed with. The extension of maternal capital to the first child has already been called an incentive for the appearance of children with only one child.

Cynicism and idiocy on the same Twitter reaches its climax:

“The poor say they will multiply, and as you know, the poor do not know how to love children and their main goal is to give birth. TO CASH MONEY AND SPEND YOURSELF, I think maternal capital needs to be urgently canceled. He didn’t help anyone, he makes people drunk out of people, and they leave children in an orphanage ".

“It’s better to create decent jobs with further growth on the career ladder with high pay so that people don’t have to survive, and then they somehow figure out whether to create families or give birth to children.”

“To give birth for the sake of mother capital ... The authorities instill cynicism even in this. Well, they gave birth, well, they got the capital, well, they spent ... And then? And then you need to raise a child, raise, dress, feed, treat, educate him and release a worthy person into life. Power is not for us! ” (Authors style, spelling and punctuation saved. - RT)

I will not answer those who are biased to criticize any initiative in advance and are full of hatred. It is surprising to me that such statements collect thousands of likes, and I will not explain this phenomenon with anything other than cheating.

For everyone else, I would like to give fairly simple and convincing figures.

First, the size and significance of maternal capital cannot be judged in Moscow. Here, the average cost per square meter of housing is 260 thousand rubles, and in the same Krasnodar - only 57 thousand.

Secondly, 95-98% of maternal capital spending is a mortgage. It is important that after receiving a loan, the income of a family of two with one, two or three children remains above the subsistence level in the region. The proposal of Vladimir Putin, coupled with the support of families whose incomes are below this limit, solve this problem.

As a result, we get a family where, after the birth of the first child, one average salary is spent on mortgage payments, and maternity capital allows you to add the cost of about a sixth of a good apartment, and after the birth of a second and, especially, third child, the state subsidizes a third of the apartment. This is not counting the preferential mortgage rate for young families.

Of course, there are people who give birth for money. But most give birth to children, being confident in their future. The fact that in difficult times the state will support the family. So in the planning of a large family, state assistance, and maternal capital in particular, are fully integrated. About the second child is much easier to think when you have your own home.

Well, Muscovites can pay for maternal capital with educational services for their children, and this is also not extra money for them. So the criticism here is clearly inappropriate.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.