Icon: enlarge
It costs money to protect yourself from the virus
Photo: TheAYS / Getty Images
It is no surprise that the combination of a pandemic plus capitalism hits particularly hard on those short on money.
But as little surprising as it is, it is just as scandalous that corporations receive rescue packages dearly put together by the federal government and Hartz IV recipients do not.
The official explanation for this is, of course, that jobs must be saved.
The variant of this declaration that is critical of capitalism is that human sacrifices are made in Germany in order not to endanger profits.
If lockdown measures are set up in such a way that there are still full open-plan offices and subways, then that means nothing other than that the economy of one is more important than the life of the other.
Margarete Stokowski, arrow to the right
Photo:
Rosanna Graf
Born in 1986, was born in Poland and grew up in Berlin.
She studied philosophy and social sciences and has been working as a freelance writer since 2009.
Her feminist bestseller "Bottom Rum Free" was published in 2016 by Rowohlt Verlag.
In 2018, »The Last Days of Patriarchy« followed, a collection of columns from SPIEGEL and »taz«.
Because it costs money to protect yourself from the virus, and that means that people with little money are particularly at risk.
And before anyone arrives here with “It doesn't cost anything to stay at home”, you have to say: Of course it costs something.
Anyone who used offers like the Tafel when it was still possible now has to spend more money on groceries.
Those who want to stock up while shopping have to be able to spend more money at once.
Anyone who previously did not have a WLAN connection at home and used libraries or internet cafés may now have to pay for the connection at home.
Anyone who has to teach the children at home or entertain them more than usual needs equipment and materials.
Policies that aim to keep the unemployed or people on low incomes down are socially weak.
An alliance of social associations is therefore calling for the standard rates of Hartz IV and basic old-age security to be raised to at least 600 euros, as well as additional immediate support for poor people.
Poor people - or as politicians like to say: "socially weak" people, which is absurd, because people with little money are not socially weak.
Policies that aim to keep the unemployed or people on low incomes down are socially weak.
Basic social security - an arbitrary system?
Who is expected to be poor in the pandemic and who is not?
The CDU social politician Peter Weiß criticized the demands for more money for poor people on Deutschlandfunk by and large, arguing that everything is already going as it is.
The standard rate at Hartz IV has only just been increased.
That's right, around a ridiculous 14 euros to 446 euros for people in a so-called single household.
"Unemployment benefit II, the basic security, is not an arbitrary system where you can simply add something," said Weiss.
Arbitrary system, good keyword.
Hartz IV is of course an arbitrary system, in the sense that the people who refer to it have to find their way around a harassing set of rules in which even the smallest mistakes are punished with cuts.
Even without a pandemic, Hartz IV is a system that can easily be described as psychological violence by the state, with a pandemic it is even worse.
People who have money often forget what all costs money.
With regard to Corona, FFP2 masks are often cited as an example of additional costs.
On the one hand, that's true.
Happy whoever the standard size fits.
It doesn't fit me, it's too big, I wear masks that are a bit narrower, but they are less common.
A while ago they cost around two euros each, now six euros plus shipping costs.
In the Hartz IV standard rate, 17.02 euros are provided for health care.
Woe to those who are poor and do not have a standardized broad head.
But of course it's not just the masks.
If you have money, you can protect yourself better in many ways, both against the virus and against stress: If you have money, you can take a taxi instead of the subway.
If you have money, you can get a test in between to meet friends and buy an air purifier for the apartment.
Anyone who has money can afford a larger apartment, in which one does not get on each other's nerves as much in lockdown with the family as in a two-room apartment.
Those who need more peace and quiet and have money can rent an office or buy noise-canceling headphones.
If you want to save money, you need some first
Many so-called tricks with which you can save money require that you have some first.
FFP2 masks are cheaper in packs of 50, but you have to be able to pay for them.
You can deduct the costs for the home office from your tax, but only if you have an extra room for it that you don't use for anything else.
And if none of that works and you want to have a nice drink for yourself, you need alcohol, but Hartz IV recipients do not plan to spend on alcohol.
Peter Weiß from the CDU again: If the Hartz IV rate were to be increased now, he said on Deutschlandfunk, "we would create a lot of uncertainty, especially since this system has to be financed from taxes."
That means: "I always have to make sure that I keep a certain wage gap to those who can go to work and use their money to pay the taxes from which the system is paid." Or to put it another way: It should be those who Hartz IV go noticeably worse than those who have a sufficient income.
Then I happened to think of a book title from last autumn: Anna Mayr, »Die Elenden.
Why our society despises the unemployed and still needs them «.
What uncertainty?
The unemployed and Hartz IV recipients are not exactly the same group, but the theses from Mayr's book still fit the current debate: Our society needs the unemployed, among other things, as a deterrent example.
"By being abnormal, others felt more normal," writes the author, who grew up as a child of long-term unemployed people.
Capitalism needs the fear of decline, which is why the unemployed and Hartz IV recipients must not be too good.
"My antithesis to the poverty that Hartz IV caused was never wealth, but freedom," Mayr writes.
"Freedom from the control of the job center, the freedom to choose where I live and what I do."
What "great uncertainty" would an increase in the Hartz IV rate cause?
Insecurity among poor people as to whether they are not the scum they are treated as?
Or with taxpayers who are also financing the disastrous pandemic policy of the federal government, in which Health Minister Jens Spahn buys completely overpriced masks and other protective equipment for 350 million euros from a dubious company in Switzerland?
If with all the grotesque expenditures made by the government because of the corona pandemic, there was also a little more support for the people who turn over every single euro three times before they buy anything - then my "uncertainty" as a taxpayer would be the only one be that I would consider whether these people, for the federal government, are perhaps after all people who deserve a life with dignity.
I would like to be convinced of that.
Icon: The mirror
