As of: March 1, 2024, 6:01 p.m
By: Lisa Mayerhofer
Comments
Press
Split
The debate about social spending always comes back to citizens' money.
The outgoing President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, sharply criticizes the Hartz IV successor.
Berlin - In view of the weakening economy, a debate about the government's social spending is flaring up again - fueled by Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP), who is calling for a social moratorium due to high military spending.
The outgoing President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, also asks whether it is realistic that the welfare state can continue to be expanded - “or whether we have a phase ahead of us in which we ask ourselves what we really need and what you could do without,” said Schlegel in an interview with the
Tagesspiegel
.
Debate about the welfare state and social spending is heating up
Finance Minister Lindner recently caused an uproar by suggesting a multi-year moratorium on social spending and subsidies in order to invest more money in defense.
“The most important thing is that there are not always new subsidies, new social spending, new standards,” said the FDP leader on the ZDF program “Maybrit Illner”.
If we could manage to get by with “what we have” for three years, that would be a big step.
Rainer Schlegel, President of the Federal Social Court, in the Ludwigskirche in Saarbrücken.
(Archive image) © BeckerBredel/Imago
Criticism of his proposal came from the SPD social politician Martin Rosemann.
“It unnecessarily spreads fears and concerns among people who rely on the welfare state,” said the social policy spokesman for the SPD parliamentary group on WDR 5. “I would like a three-year moratorium on half-baked proposals.” Instead, Rosemann suggested additional contributions from those “who have a particularly large amount of income and, in particular, a particularly large amount of assets”.
Citizen’s money: “You first have to explain this to someone who goes to work every day”
But critics complain that social spending will soon outgrow the German state - the pension subsidies and the increase in citizens' allowance at the beginning of the year serve as negative examples.
The outgoing President of the Federal Social Court, Rainer Schlegel, also speaks out in the welfare state debate - and does not skimp on criticism.
He is not only concerned about his pension at 63, but also basic child security and citizen's benefit.
According to Schlegel, the regulations of the Hartz IV successor are too generous, for example when it comes to allowances for assets.
“In this case, the bow was probably overstretched.
A family of four can keep a 130 square meter condominium for the long term, with savings of 85,000 euros in the first year.
Every adult who is able to work is allowed to have a car in front of their door,” he said in the
Tagesspiegel
.
“You have to explain that to someone who goes to work every day and can barely make ends meet.”
No rule set for “total objectors”: “That doesn’t make sense to me”
Schlegel also criticizes the fact that Labor Minister Hubertus Heil (SPD) soon wants to remove the standard rate for “total refusers” for two months.
That's not enough for him: “Everything else will continue to be covered, especially the costs of accommodation and additional needs.
So I ask myself: why?
That doesn’t make sense to me.”
My news
Traffic light plans for pensions are presented: Read what we know about Pension Package II
Over 600 euros more: Read criticism of record diet increase for MPs
Auto supplier from southern Germany is insolvent: 5,000 jobs at risk
Traditional company has to close and lays off all employees
Taxpayers fork out 23.3 million euros per month for citizen's money rents
Company from Baden-Württemberg lands largest order in company history read
The vast majority of people who receive basic security would not abuse the system, Schlegel further clarifies.
“They are out of work and have a variety of problems.
Whether they are all properly cared for in the citizen’s benefit system is another question,” he told the newspaper.
It is justified for the state to help these people, “but always on the condition that they cannot help themselves - not that they do not want to help themselves.
That’s the categorical difference that some people don’t want to acknowledge.”
With material from dpa