Hartz IV and the traffic light: abolish it

Enlarge image

Job center (symbol)

Photo: Oliver Berg / dpa

First euphoria, then perplexity.

In the minutes after the SPD, Greens and FDP published their exploratory paper this Friday, the keyword "Abolition of Hartz IV" was often found on Twitter - mostly with great approval.

Only a little later, however, many users asked themselves what this new "citizens' allowance" was supposed to be, which is being named as a replacement for the previous basic security.

That's a good question indeed.

Because the explorers haven't written down too much on this topic, and what little sounds very abstract at first:

That is in the exploratory paper on basic security

Open the section on the »Abolition« of Hartz IV

Instead of the previous basic security, we will introduce a

. Citizens' money should

respect

the

of the individual,

enable them

to

and be

accessible.

It aims

focus on

.

During the corona crisis, there were generous regulations on safe

and checking the

the

. We check which of these rules we want to continue.

At

, we maintain and consider how we can cutting red tape here.

the

We want to improve opportunities for

with the aim of increasing incentives for employment.

AreaGeneral paragraph on the welfare state expand

We want to break new ground so that everyone has concrete opportunities for participation and professional prospects and that life's work is recognized.

We stand for a

that supports citizens in the stages of their lives,

,

against

and

against

.

This commitment is an important basis for encouraging citizens to dare to try new things.

Nevertheless, even these few sentences contain some clues that make it clear what the possible traffic light coalitionists are up to.

Or rather: what they are

planning to do.

No basic income

The new "citizens' money", which, according to the paper, is to be introduced "instead of the previous basic

," will

, and certainly not an unconditional basic income.

The latter would be paid out to all citizens, regardless of their income or assets.

But even a so-called means-tested basic income in the traditional sense is hardly in mind of the possible traffic light: In general, this would mean a uniform euro amount for all entitled persons, from which they can earn their living including housing costs. In return, with a basic income - with exceptions in cases of hardship - all other social benefits, some of which are very bureaucratic, could be omitted.

Obviously, however, the housing costs should continue to be taken into account separately from the - graded uniform - standard rates. Otherwise the announcement in the paper would make no sense to want to check whether the "generous regulations" should remain in place permanently during the corona crisis for "checking the apartment size". Anyone who receives the “citizens' allowance” in the future will therefore still have to prove their housing costs and have them reimbursed - and may still be forced to look for cheaper accommodation.

In any case, the social benefit would de facto still be different for two singles if they pay different amounts of rent.

And of course it would also be a means

, i.e. the control of how much someone earns and how high the wealth is - i.e. the need to largely disclose his financial situation to the state.

Higher rule sets - not sure

The paper is largely silent on one of the two biggest points of criticism of the current Hartz IV system: the very low, deliberately small standard rates.

The traffic light negotiators only admit that the citizens' money should »enable social participation«, »respect the dignity of the individual«, protect against poverty and secure life risks.

However, these are exactly the criteria that the existing basic security system - Hartz IV - already fulfills according to the relevant rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court.

There is no commitment in the paper to reform the calculation method, which has so far been very restrictive, or to increase the level of basic security across the board.

No end to the sanctions

The second of the two major criticisms of Hartz IV will probably not be abolished with a new citizen's money: the sanctions.

"We are sticking to our duties to cooperate," write the three parties and just want to check how these duties can be made less bureaucratic.

more on the subject

• Judgment on sanctions: What the state can expect Hartz IV recipients by Florian Diekmann

• Constitutional judge on sanctions: Punishment has no place at Hartz IV By Florian Diekmann

But where there is an obligation to cooperate, there must also be some instrument to punish a violation of this obligation - a sanction.

Whether these sanctions will continue to consist of withholding up to 30 percent of the due amount of money - the Constitutional Court does not allow any more - is an open question.

But also the variant once brought into play by Robert Habeck, not to give the breachers less money, but more money through a bonus to those who fulfill the obligations, comes out of the same: Those who do not participate get less money than the others.

Of course, other sanctions would also be conceivable, such as withholding further training or qualifications, but that would contradict the explorers' next declared goal, which in turn is already known from Hartz IV:

The goal is still: work

The new citizens' allowance is also primarily geared towards getting its recipients out of the system - by earning their livelihood through gainful employment.

This is already indicated by a sentence on the explorers' understanding of the welfare state: "We stand for a reliable and activating welfare state".

"Activating" is a signal word that implicitly conveys the idea of ​​unemployed people who do too little themselves to get out of their situation.

more on the subject

• Social and financial policy in the SPD program: Promote and challenge - now with a new recipe by David Böcking and Florian Diekmann

• New system or just a new name?: That is how far the SPD moves away from Hartz IV from Florian Diekmann

The thrust is made even more explicit by the goal that the citizens' allowance should "focus on helping people return to the labor market."

That is at least a new tone, here the declared attitude of the SPD from its welfare state concept resonates, to counter recipients of basic security at eye level, to offer them qualifications or further training rather than to prescribe them.

In connection with the aforementioned duties to cooperate, however, it becomes clear that the new "citizens' money" is not intended for life artists who accept living on the subsistence level in order to be able to do their thing without being forced to work.

Citizens' benefits without a job center: unlikely

The exploratory paper does not speak of a new authority that checks and pays out citizens' money - the FDP had proposed such a "state authority" in its election manifesto, and the Liberals probably thought of the tax offices as a possibility.

Instead, there are many indications that the »citizens' money« is also administered by the job centers.

Ultimately, the aforementioned aids to return to the labor market and the associated obligations to cooperate remain core elements.

Then what's new?

The paper is largely silent about this.

The new citizens' allowance should be "digitally and easily accessible", the obligations to cooperate should be "unbureaucratised" and the housing cost and asset limits, which were significantly defused during the corona pandemic, should possibly be permanently established.

more on the subject

Social benefits and low-wage earners: How the state punishes the hard-working by Florian Diekmann

But there is a more concrete reform idea: "We want to improve the opportunities for additional income with the aim of increasing incentives for gainful employment." At the end of the additional earnings, there is hardly anything left - or in rare cases they even have less money available.

Such a reform is very sensible - but not trivial and can also be very expensive for the state.

(You can find a detailed analysis here.)

It remains to be seen how the traffic light parties will concretize the vague words of the exploratory paper in the coalition negotiations.

It is conceivable that there will be more lump-sum cash benefits instead of the previously extremely small-scale calculations, more trust instead of strict controls, simpler online applications instead of thick forms with threatening legal German.

Maybe in the end there will even be a little more money for the couple.

But the previous system of basic security with such a citizen's benefit would certainly not be abolished.