MEMO ON TREASURY AND PRESIDENCY PROPOSALS TO REPLACE THE SRD GRANT

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that proposals by the National Treasury (NT) and the Presidency to replace the R350 SRD grant with targeted grants are regressive, unconstitutional, and administratively unworkable. The IEJ contends that these proposals prioritize cost-cutting and the exclusion of poor citizens over the primary goal of combating hunger and poverty. Specifically, the IEJ critiques the 'jobseekers grant' for relying on the false premise that structural unemployment can be solved through job-search facilitation, and the 'household grant' for potentially deepening gender power imbalances and reducing the number of beneficiaries. The memo further challenges the National Treasury's claims of unaffordability, asserting that NT ignores the net cost of grants, available tax surpluses, and progressive financing options like a wealth tax or Social Security Tax. The IEJ advocates for a universal basic income indexed to the Food Poverty Line, arguing that income support should be a survivalist tool rather than a lever for labor market activation.

• The National Treasury's proposals to replace the SRD grant with a jobseekers or household grant are viewed as an attempt to prevent the institutionalization of a basic income grant, despite the SRD grant's success in fighting poverty.
• The proposed jobseekers grant is criticized for being based on the 'fantasy' that structural unemployment in South Africa can be solved by facilitating job searches, and for creating administrative hurdles that would exclude the most vulnerable.
• The reintroduction of a household grant is described as regressive and anti-poor because it allocates one grant per household rather than per individual, which reduces the total number of beneficiaries and may worsen gender-based violence and dependency.
• The National Treasury's proposal for a caregivers grant is criticized for potentially limiting support to only those with children under two years old, which would exclude millions of caregivers currently receiving the SRD grant.
• The National Treasury's claims that extending the SRD grant is unaffordable are challenged on the grounds that they use gross costs instead of net costs and ignore a tax surplus of over R200 billion accrued since 2020.
• The Presidency's proposed targeting mechanisms, such as spousal means tests and using airtime or insurance purchases as proxies for income, are characterized as unworkable and discriminatory.

APA

Institute for Economic Justice (2022). MEMO ON TREASURY AND PRESIDENCY PROPOSALS TO REPLACE THE SRD GRANT. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Memo-on-proposals-to-replace-the-SRD-grant.pdf

Chicago

Institute for Economic Justice. MEMO ON TREASURY AND PRESIDENCY PROPOSALS TO REPLACE THE SRD GRANT. 2022. https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Memo-on-proposals-to-replace-the-SRD-grant.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Institute for Economic Justice |title=MEMO ON TREASURY AND PRESIDENCY PROPOSALS TO REPLACE THE SRD GRANT |date=7 September 2022 |url=https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Memo-on-proposals-to-replace-the-SRD-grant.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{instituteforeconomicjustice2022memo, author = {{Institute for Economic Justice}}, title = {{MEMO ON TREASURY AND PRESIDENCY PROPOSALS TO REPLACE THE SRD GRANT}}, institution = {Institute for Economic Justice}, year = {2022}, month = sep, url = {https://iej.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final-Memo-on-proposals-to-replace-the-SRD-grant.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }