Austria’s Green Party has sharply criticized Chancellor Christian Stocker’s proposed “Future Deposit” savings plan for children, accusing the government of redirecting money from a key family support fund to finance a scheme that primarily benefits wealthier households.
The plan, set to launch in 2027, would allow families to save up to €5,000 per child annually, with the state waiving the 27.5% capital gains tax normally charged on investment returns. Children could withdraw the accumulated funds tax-free at age 18.
Green finance spokesperson Nina Tomaselli claims around €40 million a year will be drawn from the Family Burden Equalization Fund (FLAF), a pool traditionally used for direct family benefits to cover the cost of these tax breaks. Budget documents for 2027 show a new “family policy benefit” line item of exactly €40 million, though the Future Deposit is not explicitly named.
Tomaselli contrasts this with other family support measures: €35 million for a new maintenance guarantee, €22 million for family counseling centers, and €56 million for the Parent-Child Pass. “Family funds are not a subsidy for the golf club,” she said, arguing the plan rewards those who can already afford to save large sums.
Government calculations suggest a family saving the maximum €417 per month could gain around €23,700 in tax exemptions by the child’s 18th birthday. By contrast, a family saving just €15 monthly would see a benefit of only about €815 making the advantage for high savers roughly 29 times greater.
“Those who need every euro for rent, food, and school supplies gain little from this model,” Tomaselli said. She also warned that projected investment returns may be overly optimistic, citing past savings schemes that failed to deliver expected gains.
The Chancellery has confirmed the €40 million figure in response to inquiries, though budget papers do not explicitly link it to the Future Deposit. Critics argue the plan risks widening inequality by tying state support to parents’ ability to set aside significant monthly sums, leaving lower-income families with minimal benefit from a policy marketed as help for all children.
