One-sided obligation to finance: The invisible imbalance of unemployment insurance

The German system of unemployment insurance shows a structural inequality that is rarely openly named, but is constantly effective. Employees and certain self-employed are obliged to pay part of their gross income month after month, without an alternative. Half of these contributions are borne by the employer, but they remain part of theincome of employees. It is not a generous state benefit, but a compulsory tax that, in the case of unemployment, is reduced as a limited benefit. However, this repayment never reaches the level of the funds paid in because a significant proportion is used for administration and labor market policy measures. This does not finance employeesonly their own security, but at the same time tasks that the entire society should actually bear.

The double liberation of officials

Officials, on the other hand, are completely exempt from this obligation to pay, and this exemption is not a coincidence, but the result of a system that also guarantees them a special security. Due to their non-cancellability, they usually do not risk becoming unemployed, and this is exactly what their exemption from contributions is derived from. This logic leads to a doublePrivileged that can hardly be justified. On the one hand, officials enjoy exceptional professional stability, on the other hand they are excluded from financing a central security system. While workers bear the burden, an entire professional group is left out. This construction creates an imbalance that digs deep into the structure of the welfare state.

The misunderstanding of insurance

The basic idea of insurance is not to accurately map individual risks, but to bear them together. This is exactly where the core of solidarity systems lies that do not work according to probability but by belonging. In health insurance, this principle is a matter of course because people, regardless of their risk, have the samepay contribution rate. This principle is also reflected in unemployment insurance within the group of employees, where different realities of life are compensated. A highly qualified skilled worker pays the same proportion as someone who is constantly threatened with unemployment, and this is exactly what makes the system sustainable. It is all the more striking that officialsare completely detached from this principle.

The historical justification and its limits

The officials’ freedom from contributions has its roots at a time when the state regarded its servants as special bodies of state authority. Your loyalty should be guaranteed by special rights and collateral that you have set off from other employees. This historical logic may have had a certain function in past forms of government, but in a modernDemocracy seems to have fallen out of time. The idea that a particular group will be permanently released from common duties is in contradiction to the right to equal treatment. What was once intended as an instrument of stability appears today as a relic that cemented existing inequalities. The lack of adaptation to changed socialConditions make this regulation particularly problematic.

The unequal distribution of security

Workers live in a system that offers them limited protection in the event of unemployment. After a certain time, the service ends and those affected are dependent on their own funds or basic state security. This uncertainty shapes the entire professional life, even in phases of stable employment. Officials, on the other hand, move in a system that gives them aExceptional security guaranteed that goes far beyond what others can achieve. Their professional existence is structurally secure, regardless of economic fluctuations. These differences are not only materially noticeable, but also shape the self-image of the respective groups.

The social symbolism of inequality

The separation between employees who are liable to pay contributions and non-contributory officials creates a picture of two classes within the same company. On the one hand, those who bear risks and have to pay for their protection are on the other hand, those who are largely exempt from these risks. This symbolic division works far beyond the financial level. herinfluences trust in state institutions and the sense of justice in everyday life. If solidarity is demanded only by part of society, it loses its connecting power. Instead of cohesion, the impression of an unequal distribution of responsibility is created.

The political dimension of the debate

The question of whether civil servants should be included in unemployment insurance is not a purely technical question of financing. It touches on the basic principles of the welfare state and focuses on the question of fairness. The support of the unemployed is not a matter for individual groups, but a task for society as a whole. However, if only part of thesociety for this task arises, an imbalance arises that is politically difficult to justify. The exclusion of officials from this system acts as a deliberate exception that eludes the general principle. This exception requires a critical reassessment.

The consequences for the welfare state

A modern welfare state can only be credible if it is based on a common understanding of responsibility. The exemption of an entire professional group from a central social obligation is opposed to this claim. It signals that solidarity does not apply to everyone equally, but is used selectively. This selective application undermines the legitimacy of thesystem and intensifies existing voltages. The demand for an obligation to contribute for civil servants is therefore not a radical idea, but a logical consequence of the basic principle of insurance. Risks must be shared, even if they are unequally distributed, because this is the only way to create a system that actually redeems the right to justice.