In April 2023, I penned an article published right here on The Daily Friend titled “It’s High Time Taxpayers Protested About the Child Grant Programme.“ My argument then was that the programme should be capped to limit its growing burden on taxpayers. While I was critical of the system, I stopped short of advocating its abolition.
Three years later, I have come to the conclusion that I did not go far enough.
The problem with child grants is not merely their cost. The problem is the principle on which they are founded.
The responsibility for raising and providing for a child belongs to the people who choose to bring that child into the world. It does not belong to taxpayers.
This may sound harsh in an age where every social problem is assumed to be government’s responsibility. Yet it is a principle that should be obvious. Parenthood is not an entitlement without obligations. It is one of the most serious responsibilities a person can undertake. The duty to feed, clothe, house, educate, and care for a child rests first and foremost with the parents.
Somewhere along the way, South Africa lost sight of this principle.
Instead of reinforcing parental responsibility, government has steadily expanded a system that transfers a growing share of that responsibility to the public purse. Taxpayers are expected to finance decisions they did not make and obligations that are not theirs. What began as a safety net has evolved into an accepted feature of the social contract, one so entrenched that questioning it is often treated as heresy.
But difficult questions must be asked.
Why should a factory worker, teacher, engineer, nurse, shopkeeper, or small business owner be compelled through taxation to provide for children they did not bring into the world? Why should people who delay having children until they can afford them subsidise those who do not? Why should responsible choices be penalised while irresponsible choices are shielded from their consequences?
These questions are uncomfortable, but they go to the heart of what kind of society we wish to build.
A functioning society depends on a clear relationship between choices and responsibilities. When people make decisions, they must also bear the obligations that flow from those decisions. Once that principle is abandoned, dependency inevitably expands. More and more responsibilities are transferred from individuals to the state, and from the state to taxpayers.
The usual response is that children should not suffer because of the failures of their parents. That is true. No decent person wants to see children go hungry. But it does not follow that taxpayers must therefore become substitute parents.
The state’s role should be to protect children from neglect and abuse, not to relieve parents of their financial obligations. Those who willingly bring children into the world and then fail to provide for them should be held accountable. Child neglect should be treated as a serious breach of parental duty, carrying meaningful legal consequences. A society that excuses parental irresponsibility while taxing others to compensate for it sends precisely the wrong message.
Critics will accuse this position of lacking compassion. I would argue the opposite. There is nothing compassionate about normalising dependency, weakening accountability, and placing an ever-growing burden on a shrinking number of productive citizens. True compassion helps people become self-sufficient. It does not institutionalise reliance on the state.
South Africa’s future will not be secured through larger welfare programmes. It will be secured through stronger families, a culture of responsibility, economic opportunity, and the expectation that adults must provide for the children they choose to have.
That is why I have come to believe that child grants should not merely be reduced, capped, or reformed. They should be phased out entirely.
The burden of raising children belongs to parents. It never belonged to taxpayers in the first place.
[Image: https://www.pexels.com/photo/children-sitting-by-a-brick-wall-in-urban-area-37834824/]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend