Basic security instead of citizens’ money: That’s how tough the new rules are

With so many new names, one can get dizzy: First there was what many called “Hartz IV”, which the previous traffic light government changed to “citizen’s money”, now the Union and SPD want to turn it into something different: the “basic security for job seekers”. This always refers to the benefit that people receive who cannot support themselves from their own income.

The Union spent considerable parts of its election campaign criticizing the citizens’ money introduced by the SPD, Greens and FDP in the last legislative period as too lax. It seduces people who are actually able to work to rest in the social hammock, at the expense of all those who go to work hard. Many people quickly get caught up in this, after all it touches on fundamental questions of justice, i.e. how much help is appropriate in an emergency situation. But also what to expect from those who receive this help.

It is all the more important for the Union to be able to say: “Citizens’ money is now history” (original sound Markus Söder). But is this primarily a change to the unfortunate “citizen’s money” term, which to many sounded like a kind of unconditional basic income? Or does basic security actually mean a different system with tougher requirements for the unemployed?

In the political sphere, interpretations vary widely. “Practically nothing will change in terms of citizen’s money,” says Alice Weidelchairwoman of the AfD. The Greens and the Left, on the other hand, complain about changes that went far too far. Green parliamentary group leader Britta Haßelmann describes the coalition plans as “humanly hard and cold”. Time to take a closer look.

Basically, the following applies: People who show themselves to be uncooperative with employment agencies, for example by not going to appointments Job center appear should be punished more quickly and more comprehensively in the future. If a first appointment is missed, you should be invited to a second appointment “immediately,” according to the agreement paper from the Union and the SPD.

If this date is not kept either, the benefit should be reduced by 30 percent instead of the previous 10 percent. If the appointment is missed for the third time, the cash benefits should be stopped completely, and then, if the beneficiary does not show up in the following month, “all benefits including the costs of accommodation would be stopped completely”. Hardship cases should be taken into account, the paper says, for example if there are health or other serious reasons for not appearing.

In particular, the fact that sanctions could be completely “zero” in the future represents a significant tightening compared to the previous rules for citizens’ money. The Federal Audit Office recently offered argumentation support to all those who called for tougher sanctions. He looked at cases of long-term unemployed people who, from the point of view of the job centers, were not sufficiently involved. The conclusion: the previous sanctions were too low and “not effective”. As an example, the report quoted a file from a job center, reports the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”: “Customers basically don’t come to any appointments. Unfortunately, there is no option to stop services completely. Sanctions of up to 30 percent are not successful – the customer doesn’t care.”

The person quoted should no longer care about the new rules. But it is still unclear whether this will ultimately be compatible with the Basic Law. The Greens, for example, don’t believe that. A ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court from 2019 states that the legislature must guarantee a humane minimum subsistence level. However, the highest judges at the time also argued that – if there was no willingness to contribute to securing one’s livelihood – in extreme cases, a complete withdrawal of benefits could be justified. The leaders of the Union and SPD are now apparently referring to this.

But even in the SPD, these tightening measures go too far for some people. “Cutting off all services, including rent and heating, can ultimately lead to homelessness,” warns Jan Dieren, chairman of the SPD left party “DL21”. star. “I think that’s wrong.” The member of the Bundestag, a member of the Labor and Social Affairs Committee, clearly sees a need for clarification here.

But one thing is also clear: all of these tightening measures will only affect a fraction of the current recipients of citizens’ benefit. Almost everyone actually takes their obligations seriously and helps them find work. There is no exact number of the so-called total refusers. However, experts assume that it is less than one percent of the approximately 3.9 million employable citizens’ benefit recipients.

Therefore, the new regulations will not result in any significant cost savings, which the Union had promised during the election campaign. But the stricter rules can ideally help to increase society’s acceptance of basic social security benefits again. Because of the few who took advantage of the system in the past, a discussion developed that also caused prejudices against all other recipients of citizen’s benefit to grow.

For them, one of the most important points will be that an approach based on citizens’ money is at least not completely reversed: relying on qualification. Despite the so-called “placement priority in employment” that has now been established, not all job seekers should be directly forced to take up any position.

Where further training appears more promising, especially for those under 30, qualification should continue to have priority in the future, the paper says. Experts have promised the most in the long term from this logic of the now almost old citizen’s money – in order to counteract a “revolving door effect” in which people are initially placed in a job, but shortly afterwards become unemployed again.