Social law – when there is an obligation to exist in an existential burden

Social assistance shows with particular harshness how much an administration can move away from the reality of life of those affected if they order measures without seriously considering the practical side of the costs. Dates are set, ways are specified, participation is required, and all this often happens in a way that a person in need of help only has towork, but not life. The person concerned should appear, participate, prove, submit and place himself in a system of measures that does not belong to him and on whose design he has hardly any influence. While the authority treats the process as normal and regular, a chain of additional expenses, uncertainties and dependencies often begins for the person behind it.Even the mere assignment generates costs, not as a by-product, but as a direct consequence of the official order. Travel costs, meal costs, childcare costs and other small, but decisive, everyday expenses are not incurred at random, but precisely because the state specifies the way and requires participation. This quickly becomes a state in which helpis no longer experienced as support, but as a further pressure point in already narrow life.

The load stays with those who can bear the least

The actually outrageous thing is that the financial risk is almost completely passed on to those entitled to benefits. Anyone who has to get by with a tight standard requirement anyway will not be relieved by a measure, but will be additionally charged. In many cases, the standard requirement is already too tight for daily life. It is enough for rent, food, electricity, clothing and theUnforeseeable small emergencies often just or usually not at all. If the costs of an officially ordered measure are then added, a difficult situation becomes an existential imbalance. Those affected should pre-finance from an amount that is hardly sufficient for the bare minimum. The risk shifts from the public sector to those whohave the least leeway. This is not only unreasonable, it is socially cold and its effect deeply unfair.

Duty despite full sanction

It is particularly strange that this obligation can continue to apply even if no ongoing cash benefits are paid at all. A person who was deprived of support should still appear on appointments, take on paths, be on time, show performance and adhere to specifications as if he still has the means of fulfilling all of this without any problems. in trutha financial emptiness is covered with a duty. The state demands availability while at the same time depriving the material basis. This is a grotesque form of official logic: If you don’t get anything anymore, you should still work as if everything was fine. It is precisely in such situations that it becomes apparent how far administration and reality of life have moved away from each other. theDuty remains, even if the funds are missing. This not only puts a strain on the person, but pushes them into a situation in which obeying the order itself becomes a financial problem.

The pre-financing as a hidden imposition

The real hardship lies in the expectation that those affected should initially wear everything themselves and then, at some point and with reservations, should take care of a refund. Pre-financing sounds harmless in the language of the administration, but is a massive impertinence in everyday life. If you don’t have money, you can’t just interpret what was caused by the measure. Even small amounts can be inbecome obstacles to this situation. And if the administration then refers to later billing, this is not a concession, but a shift in responsibility. The damage occurs immediately, the possible repayment is in an uncertain future. In this way, the person concerned is forced to bear the burden while the authority is moving away from the acute situation. That’s not helpWith accompanying cost clarification, but a form of obligation, the material consequences of which the administration elegantly transfers to the weaker part.

The Escape of the Authorities from Responsibility

The way authorities are out of responsibility is almost typical. As soon as the question of costs is asked, reference to other procedures, responsibilities, later clarifications, individual checks and evidence begins. The authority that ordered the measure suddenly declares itself incapable of noting the consequences of this orderwear or at least clearly regulate. This behavior is not just disturbing, but structurally wrong. Because if you justify a duty, you cannot simply hide the costs and leave those affected alone with the consequences. The administration creates the pressure, but the citizen should bear the burden. This is exactly what creates the feeling that the public sector enjoys its power, itsBut you are happy to shed responsibility as soon as it would cost money.

The way to the dispute instead of help

For those affected, this attitude often means the beginning of a long and grueling way of dispute. What should actually be regulated on site, in advance and clearly, is outsourced into forms, contradictions and separate procedures. People then have to fight their way through an administration that pulls apart even the simplest connection until nobody keeps an overview. meanwhilethe costs have long since arisen. A legal dispute can drag on, and time is often the decisive factor, especially in social welfare law. If you don’t have the money for the trip today, a theoretical reimbursement in the distant future is hardly of any use. Anyone who is dependent on care today cannot wait months for a formal clarification. In such moments, the system acts like a machine thatPay attention to one’s own rhythm, but not to the individual’s state of emergency. This is how law enforcement becomes a test of patience, although it should be about securing the subsistence level.

Inflation increases harshness

The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many people’s living expenses have long since risen faster than their means can keep up. If the standard requirement is already scarce, inflation eats up every bit of mobility. It is precisely then that additional costs incurred by official measures will become particularly unbearable. A few rides, a few meals on the way,A care allowance or just recurring little things can be enough to destroy the small balance of a household. Anyone who struggles for the bare minimum every month can not also be charged with advance payments that arise from state orders. In such a situation, administration becomes no protection, but an amplifier of scarcity.

The questionable nature of many measures

In addition, there is a serious suspicion that some measures hardly bring anything in terms of content, but still regularly cause costs. If a measure has no comprehensible benefit, but feeds supporting companies, fills rooms, employs staff and triggers funding, the impression quickly arises that a system is being kept up and running here that is self-sustaining. Then she isMeasure no longer primarily a means of funding, but also an economic building block for the bodies involved. For the person concerned, this feels like a hidden redistribution of public money in structures that have little to do with real help. The suspicion of inefficiency is not just an academic objection, but also hits the core of theProblems: If, in the end, administration, providers and processes are particularly beneficial if people hardly ever benefit, then something is fundamentally wrong.

Suspicion of hidden work

It gets even more annoying where the measure takes on the character of a hidden free work. Activities that would have to be awarded on the free market are placed under the label of the supposed education. The person concerned should participate, perform, carry out, fit in and be as grateful as possible. But the consideration is often low, unclear or only inform of a certified participation. If an office uses labor in this way, without honestly saying that it actually needs a service, a very dirty aftertaste is created. Then help to the facade and economic benefit becomes the actual goal. This is not only morally doubtful, but also gives the impression that public funds are soare used to support external companies, providers or institutions in the end, while the person who has to participate bears the burden.

The power diffuser as a basic problem

In essence, there is a destructive power gap in all of this. The authority determines that the person concerned obeys. The authority orders that the person concerned pays in advance. The authority refers, the person concerned applies, explains, contradicts and waits. This distribution of roles is all the more problematic because it takes place in the area of social assistance, i.e. exactly where people are in avulnerable situation. Those who need support can fight back hard, especially not immediately and with full force. Therefore, special care would be necessary here, special transparency and special consideration. Instead, many experience the opposite. This not only creates frustration, but also shame, anger and fainting. And this emotional burden is part of the damage that such orders aredress up.

A state that says help and means stress

In the end, the image of a system that promises help remains, but organized stress. It orders measures, postpones costs, refers to later clarifications and leaves the person concerned with a confusion of expenses, duties and uncertainty. The administration calls this participation, integration or promotion. In the experience of many of those affected, however, it is above all coercion underCost risk, supported by an authority that likes to end its responsibility where the citizen would have to pay. This is exactly where the real hardness lies: The aid is not experienced as a supporting support, but as a further form of control, which binds people even more deeply in their weakness and forces them to stand up for state-ordered processes with the little money that is beingis enough for survival.