Wie hoch darf bzw. muss eine menschenwürdige Mindestsicherung
in Deutschland sein?
Dr.
Klaus Schrader
It is discussed whether the German system of social welfare
benefits fulfils its essential tar-gets: guarantee of a social
minimum income and incentives to reintegrate into the labour
market. The evidence is that living and social participation
of the socially deprived are basically guaranteed. However,
severe shortcomings exist with respect to incentives for the
recipients of social welfare benefits to seek regular jobs.
Calculations of the gap between potential earned income and
the payments for the long-term unemployed (Arbeitslosengeld
II) reveal serious disincentives to work for a considerable
number of characteristic household types. It is referred to
the most relevant policy blueprints discussed in Germany which
offer feasible solutions for these incentive problems.
Steffen J. Roth
The author discusses how economists can imagine a pareto-superior
decision to choose a tax-financed social minimal income. It
is shown that therefore economists come back to the test of
unanimity. Nevertheless, the author strictly argues against
any shortfall of the guarantee of minimum income in favor of
incentives to work. It is shown that the German system currently
has some remarkable shortcomings, which should be amended. In
order to avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water a serious
means test has to be done by placement services, by following
the principle that “Whoever can work must work”
and by monitoring – not by overall cuttings of the social
minimum income.
Dr. Rudolf Martens
What is being outlined, are the basic considerations as to
how the limit for the minimum subsistence level (social welfare)
is arrived at in the German welfare state. Currently the limit
for persons who have been unemployed on the long term who
are recipients of social welfare stands at Euro 351 for a
single-person household plus housing costs (approximately
Euro 650 - 750). For a long time the PARITÄTISCHE has
criticised the social welfare limit as being insufficient.
A further criticism has been that the limit does not fully
take into account the needs of children. Thirdly, it criticises
the annual increase in allocations, which up until now have
remained below market trends. Based on its own calculations,
it considers as imperative a social welfare standard that
ought to be increased by 25 percent for adults (to Euro 440
plus housing costs), so that the cost of living can be covered.
In conclusion, costs and the economic effects of meeting the
demands of a minimum subsistence level are discussed. At the
same time, it points out that the demands of a minimum subsistence
level should be met. This is particularly important for people
who are to a large extent affected by the job market’s
globalisation and flexibilisation, which is forcing them to
make do with poorly paid and uncertain employment conditions.
