You wish I was making that up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml
Holy crap! Bureaucracy gone amok.
I recall the story of the brothel taking action to be allowed to use the Job centre to advertise vacancies but I guess I (nor anyone else by the looks of it) hand’t followed it through to its logical conclusion.
Yeah, this is an… unexpected consequence of the reform of prostitution, as mentioned in the article (it had been legal before but now it’s a properly regulated profession).
However, I haven’t heard yet that women were actually threatened with cutting their benefits if they didn’t accept such jobs. On the contrary, the taz report on the Berlin case says that there weren’t, and wouldn’t be, any negative consequences.
But I do think the cited lawyer is correct that the law does not provide for such situations. Sounds like an amendment that clarifies acceptable jobs is in order…
So what happens if you are a Jew or Muslim and are offered a placement at a non Kosher/Halal butcher/slaughterhouse at the moment?
It’s pretty typical of the Torygraph with its agenda to potray a"eurobonkers" mentality in the EU that it would present the story in such a dishonest way. The more I read articles from that rag, the more I hate it. I can’t believe I used to have a subscription. Murdoch has turned it into a low grade tabloid.
It’s also a complete fabrication.
She wasn’t forced to anything. After a year at the highest benefit, she had to get a job or have one assigned to her. She could still refuse that job, but would then drop to a lower level of unemployment benefits.
The job she was asked to take, was that as a bartender in a table dancing bar - still against some peoples morals, but not on the level of prostitution.
And taking money from the state for doing nothing is also against some peoples morals.
But germanys laws regarding unemployment benefits have just been changed. Before people could refuse a job “beneath them” - like a high school teacher refusing a bartending position. Now they have a year to find a job, or the state will step in and either assign them one, they have to take, or give them less money while they continue their search.
Pretty fair in a country with 5.000.000 unemployed.
I suppose people choose the SHIT BONERZ! option on that one. Seriously, like the prostitution thing none of this is legally covered yet, as far as I know. Unemployment benefits weren’t previously tied to having accept a job offered by the agency, and as of yet there are no guidelines on “unacceptable” jobs. Legislation will have to provide them eventually.
Interesting, tightening up the unemployment regulations? What else has changed recently?
The Autobahn toll for trucks. Followed closely I bet with a general toll (if Red/Green stays in power long enough, wich is very likely given Bush’s reelection).
The latest reform package is called “Hartz IV”, fourth in a series of reforms that have yet to produce any positive effects…
You can find a German rundown here. Welfare recipients and the long-term unemployed now both receive the same benefits, called “Arbeitslosengeld II” (Schröder likes his Roman numerals). Applicants must accept any legal work (hence this thread) and use up most of their own money before they get any benefits. Previously, jobless benefits were higher and more easily obtained.
That’s the most significant change. The rest are minor adjustments along the same lines – higher taxes, fewer benefits. Plus, more rights for homosexual couples, and food producers must be able to prove where all their ingredients come from. No idea how that got lumped in with Hartz IV.
Meanwhile, economics minister Clement said that Hartz IV would add 200,000 welfare recipients to the number of recorded unemployed (via Arbeitslosengeld II), thereby increasing the total number to about 5 million. The current statistics are to be presented on Wednesday.
Applicants must accept any legal work (hence this thread) and use up most of their own money before they get any benefits.
Whoa, even the US doesn’t make you spend down your bank account before you can get unemployment benefits. Freaky.
I imagine that it is similar in Germany as it is in England, that if you have tens of thousands in the bank as cash, then you won’t get benefits until you are deemed “in need”. This is only reasonable, to prevent the filthy rich claiming unemployment benefit in addition to living on the interest from their substantial cash reserves.
Tim, do you have any concept of money whatsoever? Someone with “tens of thousands in the bank” is neither “filthy rich” nor capable of “living on interest”. Annual interests on, say, €50k at a reasonable rate of 4% are a mere €2000, and the whole sum itself barely covers one lengthy hospital stay plus recovery time!
The actual limits on property are described in a PDF file provided by the federal Arbeitsagentur. (This is the renamed Arbeitsamt. Schröder likes renaming things even more than Roman numerals.) You may keep an apartment or house of up to 130 m², a car or motorcycle, and an amount of cash that depends on the applicant’s age, up to a maximum of €13,000.
But all of this only concerns long-term unemployment. You still get regular benefits (no questions asked) which depend on how long you’ve been paying into the insurance. It’s usually a couple of months or maybe a year.
Compared to the people that the unemployment safety net was designed to protect, anyone with tens of thousands saved up is filthy rich. In the UK with 50,000 pounds in the bank, and a 5.35% (one of the better penalty free interest rates - you can get 7-8% if you are prepared to give notice before withdrawing) you can earn as much in interest as you would get paid by the basic British income support. A friend of mine inherited about 40 thousand a few years back from a rich aunt, and after sticking that in a high interest account he was able to travel around the world for a year (admittedly on a budget) spending just the interest alone. I’m happy to pay for people who are in dire need, but I don’t think my tax money should go to support people who can afford to travel around the world.
$10,000 is an absurdly low amount of money for this context; technically, you should have almost that much in the easily accessible form for emergencies. I can see for $100,000, but wtf.
The welfare system is supposed to be an emergency safety net to catch those who do not have enough money to support themselves, not a way of funding those who already have enough money to pay their way. There are problems with a system that penalises those who save their money, because it also rewards those who spend all their money instead. You have to draw the line somewhere, though, unless you support your tax money going to rich kids and royalty, and as most people with tens of thousands in the bank are very adept at shuffling it around so it appears they have much less, a lower amount probably makes the most sense.
I thought the unemployment system was supposed to tide you over until can get a new job.
Jason: Again, and in Germany at least, this is for the long-term unemployed. Many of the recipients had previously received welfare. As I already wrote, there are no such limits during the first several months of unemployment.
That’s simply untrue, at least in the case of Germany. Unemployment benefits here were designed as an insurance that would protect anyone who paid into it, not just the poor. And initial benefits still work like that.
In the UK with 50,000 pounds in the bank, and a 5.35% (one of the better penalty free interest rates - you can get 7-8% if you are prepared to give notice before withdrawing) you can earn as much in interest as you would get paid by the basic British income support.
I don’t believe a word of that. First of all, 7-8% interest on cash is impossible unless you have something like 4% inflation. If you do know a bank that pays that much kindly give me a link, and I’ll instantly transfer all my money there!
Next, let’s take another try at that math of yours. Using your 8% for the sake of argument, that would come out to 4,000 pounds per year, or 333 pounds per month.
You’re going to tell me that someone can live in Britain on 333 pounds a month? Keep in mind that this person would be cut off from all benefits since they’re “filthy rich”, according to you… no free housing or heating.
A friend of mine inherited about 40 thousand a few years back from a rich aunt, and after sticking that in a high interest account he was able to travel around the world for a year (admittedly on a budget) spending just the interest alone. I’m happy to pay for people who are in dire need, but I don’t think my tax money should go to support people who can afford to travel around the world.
Now you talke like some medieval pesant, marvelling at them rich folks who travel to strange and exotic shores. If this guy travelled “on a budget” he likely stayed at youth hostels where you can lodge for next to nothing, thanks to taxpayer support. He probably used the cheapest tickets to get around, sleeping on the airplane, train, or ship as much as possible.
The kind of money you need for that is hardly enough to support a regular First World citizen (perhaps a London resident!) for a full year – and that would be necessary if you were to get by on interests alone. Besides, you didn’t say how many years of interest your friend had accumulated…
I don’t believe that. The British welfare system was strongly modelled on the German one, which is why we have similar barriers to claimants with large savings. It was envisaged as a safety-net for those who could not afford to survive without help, not a assurance system for everyone from single-parent mothers to the sons and daughters of fat-cats and royalty. If you have a paid for house, and tens of thousands in the bank, then you don’t need help from the government, and you don’t need my tax money. I don’t feel bad about people in that situation not getting my money. If you do, then please feel free to go and donate a percentage of your earnings to rich people without a job.
I don’t believe a word of that. First of all, 7-8% interest on cash is impossible unless you have something like 4% inflation. If you do know a bank that pays that much kindly give me a link, and I’ll instantly transfer all my money there!
You don’t earn any interest on cash - duh! I know you are German and probably don’t always appreciate such subtle differences in language, but I thought I’d engage in the hyper-patronising style you enjoy, as it seems to be your only means of communicating with other human beings. Continuing in that vein, let me show you a new tool for finding information: GOOGLE! Type in “high interest account” and see what you get. You know what I found? WOW! This is an investment account which pays 7.75%, but it charges penalties on unplanned withdrawals.
You’re going to tell me that someone can live in Britain on 333 pounds a month? Keep in mind that this person would be cut off from all benefits since they’re “filthy rich”, according to you… no free housing or heating.
I never actually said that someone with ten thousand pounds is “filthy rich”, but don’t let that stop you. I simply said that we needed a means of preventing the filthy rich from freeloading off unemployment benefit: not working because they don’t need to and then claiming money because they aren’t working. It’s very easy to disguise how much liquid capital you have. My father, for example, had several hundred thousand in savings and investment accounts. When he was made redundant after 40+ years doing the same job, he felt he was entitled to something from the government, and simply shuffled the money around until he was able to make a claim. That’s just another example of how the system doesn’t work, but what do you suggest instead, that we just pay out money even to those who inherited a fortune from their parents?
Now you talke like some medieval pesant, marvelling at them rich folks who travel to strange and exotic shores. If this guy travelled “on a budget” he likely stayed at youth hostels where you can lodge for next to nothing, thanks to taxpayer support. He probably used the cheapest tickets to get around, sleeping on the airplane, train, or ship as much as possible.
The kind of money you need for that is hardly enough to support a regular First World citizen (perhaps a London resident!) for a full year – and that would be necessary if you were to get by on interests alone. Besides, you didn’t say how many years of interest your friend had accumulated…
It’s “peasant” you silly German! And “those” rich folk, not “them”. Dear oh dear, you sound like a simpleton! (I hope the level of patronising is up to your standards).
Now you are starting to sound like a peasant. Have you ever been abroad? You talk about youth hostels and air tickets like they are some strange thing that other people use. I don’t know if you have seen the prices of youth hostels in Germany recently, but they don’t cost “next to nothing”. Also the cheap hotels of India and South East Asia aren’t supported by tax payers money, so I don’t know what you are talking about there. Perhaps if you left your bedroom and went to these countries you’d understand better.
In England, that country just across the North Sea from you, it is quite possible to live on 330 pounds per month. In fact that is nearly twice what most people get on basic income support. I don’t imagine it is a comfortable life to have to exist on such a small income for long periods of time, but it isn’t meant to keep people in luxury, but to simply tide them over until they can get another job. And if you have to spend some of your savings because you don’t have the foresight to invest it in a house, then I’m not going to cry a river for you.
If you want to help out these impoverished people who have to spend some of their 50,000 pounds while they are unemployed, then please set up a charity for them. You can call it “Society to Assist those who aren’t Filthy Rich but have a Lot of Money Saved to whom the Evil Government Won’t Pay Unemployment Benefit To.” I’m sure you will get millions of sympathetic donations. :roll: