Korn elaborated that good policies should not turn tax deduction rights into competitors of the state welfare card. He pointed out the necessity of managing those who falsely claim hardship but emphasized that this must not impose burdens on those genuinely struggling.
On 4 Jun 2026 GMT+7, Mr. Korn Chatikavanich, Deputy Leader of the Democrat Party, posted on Facebook his views regarding the government's announcement that recipients of the state welfare card must not be those whose children claim tax deductions for caring for their parents. He agreed with the opinion stating, “We should not argue about which is more important, tax deductions or state welfare cards, or which should be chosen, because neither should be designed to force citizens to choose from the start.”
Mr. Korn said that tax deductions acknowledge that some children bear the responsibility of caring for their parents, while the state welfare card recognizes that some citizens are still struggling and need basic assistance. These two issues should not conflict, especially in families already striving to sustain their lives today.
“I understand that the government must screen welfare recipients because the budget is limited, and it should prevent those not truly in hardship from using the benefits instead of those more in need. This is understandable and something the state should do. But the question is: are the screening criteria reasonable?” ,
Using tax deduction rights does not mean the parents are not struggling.
In cases where parents' names are used by their children for tax deductions, this should not automatically be interpreted as the parents no longer struggling or that the family has sufficient care. Children who care for their parents do not mean the parents are not in hardship, and children claiming tax deductions do not necessarily have the financial means to bear all burdens. Conversely, the condition for claiming parental tax deductions requires that the parents have an annual income not exceeding 30,000 baht. This figure should reflect vulnerability, not be used as a reason to deny assistance. It must also be remembered that a 30,000 baht tax deduction per parent per year does not mean the state actually provides 30,000 baht to the family, as this amount is only the tax deduction base, with the real value depending on each child's tax bracket.
Questioning why the burden is pushed onto the parents.
The Deputy Leader of the Democrat Party added that the real burden of caring for parents may be much higher—covering food, medicine, transportation to hospitals, daily expenses, emergency costs, and the emotional strain of holding the household together. None of these are fully reflected in the 30,000 baht deduction figure, which cannot be considered sufficient and final.
He invited further reflection: if a child claims a parent's name for tax deduction but does not truly support them, the parent can appeal to reclaim their rights. This implies the state acknowledges that using a parent's name for deduction is not conclusive proof of genuine care. The interesting question is why the burden of proving the truth is placed on the already struggling parents. While having an appeal process is good, appeals are not easy for everyone, especially for elderly people, those lacking digital access, those unaware of procedures, those without proper documents, or those reluctant to say their children do not truly care for them.
There should not be only two options.
Another important point to consider is that currently, rights seem to force a choice between “state care or child care.” But many families' real lives do not have just these two options. Many households survive not solely because children care for them, nor solely because the state does, but because all parties contribute: the state helps a bit, children help a bit, parents economize a bit. The whole family supports each other to prevent life from worsening. Having children help is not proof of lack of hardship. Therefore, families trying to support themselves should not be interpreted as no longer needing state assistance.
Those who falsely claim hardship must be addressed.
Therefore, the state should manage those who falsely claim hardship, distort information, or misuse welfare for unintended purposes. No one should protect such behavior. However, managing these groups must not harm those truly in need. They should not be presumed suspicious, forced to bear greater proof burdens, or excluded from the system due to policy criteria. Good policy design should not make tax deductions compete with the state welfare card, as one right reflects the child's caregiving burden and the other reflects the parents' ongoing hardship. All these should be designed to be complementary, not exclusive choices.