Parental Disputes Emerge Over Use of Children’s Relief Coupons in Korea (Image supported by ChatGPT)
SEOUL, Aug. 7 (Korea Bizwire) — A government-issued consumer relief program aimed at boosting local spending is sparking a lively debate in South Korea—not over its effectiveness, but over who should control the funds when recipients are underage.
The controversy centers on “Livelihood Recovery Coupons” distributed to minors, which are legally collected by the head of household—typically a parent. With children unable to receive the coupons directly due to administrative rules, many parents are choosing to use the funds themselves, prompting backlash and spirited discussion across social media platforms.
Some parents argue the coupons should naturally support household needs like food, tuition, or utility bills—expenses they already cover for their children. Others believe the funds, designated under the child’s name, should be treated as the child’s to use, or at least discussed jointly.
“My son asked for his coupon to use as allowance, and I was honestly taken aback,” said Choi, a 48-year-old office worker. “I had planned to put it toward his academy fees, but now I’m conflicted.”
Across online communities like Threads and X (formerly Twitter), users shared anecdotes of family disputes over who rightfully owns the money. Some teenagers reportedly demanded their coupons only to be rebuffed by parents. Others took a more measured approach, using the opportunity to teach children budgeting and financial literacy.
“I gave it to my child and told them to think carefully about how to use it—it’s a great learning moment,” wrote one user.
Experts say both views hold merit. While minors are still financially dependent and may lack mature spending judgment, empowering them to take part in decisions about the coupon can foster responsibility.
First weekend after consumer relief coupon Issued—Will small businesses bounce back? (Image courtesy of Yonhap)
“Fifteen-year-olds receiving ₩150,000 (about $115) is not a trivial matter,” said Park Myung-sook, a professor of social welfare at Sangji University. “Parental supervision is necessary, but democratic dialogue and agreed-upon rules within the household are the ideal educational outcome.”
The issue has also reignited criticism of the government’s decision to distribute the coupons exclusively through household heads. “What about families where the head of household is unreachable or uninvolved?” one user posted. “This design creates blind spots.”
Still, some economists defend the structure. “The government likely prioritized administrative efficiency and economic impact,” said Yang Jun-ho, a professor of economics at Incheon National University. “Any downsides from proxy collection are minor and can be offset by the policy’s broader stimulus effect.”
As the government weighs the program’s outcomes, the social debate underscores a deeper question: when public aid is issued under a child’s name, where does fiscal responsibility—and ownership—truly lie?
Lina Jang (linajang@koreabizwire.com)
