Social Policy V, March - April 2015

First, respondents were asked how they evaluate state efforts in seeking objectives in labour market and employment areas. Next question block to reveal how state is doing in achieving objectives in social equity and social security areas was presented. Next, situation in health care area was assessed.

Respondents were asked how, in their opinion, state is doing in achieving its objectives in family policy and child-rearing areas. Last, question block about state achievements in education and environment protection areas was presented. Further, respondents satisfaction with social security system in Lithuania and their quality of life was analysed.

Respondents were asked if they agree with euro adoption in Lithuania. It was questioned about income taxation of people with different salaries. Respondents were asked if government should increase taxes and appoint more resources for social benefits and services, or lower taxes and appoint less resources for social benefits and services.

It was questioned if abortions should be prohibited in Lithuania and if people of same gender should be allowed to get married in Lithuania. Respondents were asked if people who broke the law should be punished much stricter than now. It was questioned if the right society is that in which people standard of living slightly differs.

Respondents were questioned if state should interfere in economy as little as possible and if huge differences in people's income are justified because it is how people get rewarded for uneven abilities and efforts. Socio-demographic characteristics: gender, age, duration of education, education, employment status of the respondent and his / her husband / wife / permanent partner, profession (occupation), respondent's trade union membership, religion, participation in religious rites, political views, political and social activism, voting in the last Seimas elections, nationality, household size, respondent's average and total average monthly household income, marital status, place of residence, satisfaction with quality of life, change in living conditions, received social benefits, received financial support from abroad living relatives.