Criticism of the distance requirement and financial unequal treatment towards employees

The fixed rule that civil servant salaries should be well above the basic state security is not enough because additional income outside of the official salary can significantly increase the actual income of many civil servants, while normal employees are dependent on their regular wages. The distance requirement in salary policy is often considered insufficientfelt, because although it prescribes a formal minimum distance between salary and benefits of basic social security, it does not address structural issues of distribution. In practice, it remains unclear whether this distance actually justifies a material security of the office or whether it only describes a formalistic threshold with creative calculation tricks that are used at theThe reality of life of many employees and benefit recipients passes by. This gives the impression that the system is more likely to maintain legal contours than create social justice.

Shadow income and concealment of real income

The importance of unsalonable income, the so-called shadow income, is a central point of criticism. Additional income from secondary employment, expense allowances or remuneration outside of regular salaries can significantly increase the actual household income. If such income is not recorded transparently or is only insufficiently credited, aDistorted basis of comparison to persons who only have regular wages. This discrepancy weakens the meaningfulness of the distance requirement and leads to a hidden appreciation of certain income groups.

Unequal practical effect compared to normal employees

While the distance requirement is formally intended to protect the special position of the office, the consequence of this is financial unequal treatment compared to normal employees. Employees in non-official backgrounds are often dependent on gross wages or net salary, without access to systematic appreciation through side income or special tax regulations. inCombination with increasing living costs and different income improvement options means that people with comparable responsibility or qualifications are worse off in the end. The result is a double injustice: first, the relative privilege of certain officials through real total income, secondly the lack of effectiveness of theBasic security standards as a redistribution tool.

Transparency deficit and legitimation problems

The current system is suffering from a transparency deficit that undermines the democratic legitimacy of the salary system. If non-resaleable income is not clearly disclosed or only marginally taken into account, public skepticism about the fairness of state remuneration arises. This skepticism is directed not only against individual references, but also against theInstitutional practice that evaluates different sources of income in different tax and administrative terms. Such a gradient jeopardizes trust in the community of solidarity because it strengthens the impression that the same economic rules do not apply to everyone.

Distribution Economic Impact and Fiscal Distortion

Hidden income premiums from shadow incomes have distribution economic consequences that go beyond individual prerogatives. Public funds and opportunities to increase incomes have different effects on the available purchasing power and influence consumption, pension situations and tax performance. If the assessment system is only the formalSalary, these effects are not recorded. This can increase fiscal distortions because regular wages do not receive corresponding compensation mechanisms and thus increase relative poverty or social dependencies.

Need for methodical revision and open rules

An appropriate response requires methodological revision of the assessment criteria and binding rules for recording and crediting non-salary income. Clear regulations on disclosure and uniform assessment logic are needed to reflect actual economic performance. This is the only way to ensure that the distance requirement is not considered a formal facadebut as an instrument that compensates for real differences and restores equal treatment to regular employees.

Political steps to restore justice

Political measures are necessary to strengthen both transparency and balancing mechanisms. This includes binding disclosure obligations, stricter rules for crediting additional income, adjustments to the assessment of salary to macroeconomic changes and a systematic examination of the distribution effect of existing regulations. The aim must be for the alimentation of theOffice and social security do not become a means of real privilege, but that the basic principles of social justice and equal treatment are recognizable to all employees. Only through such steps can the public’s trust in the legitimacy of state remuneration and the justice of the welfare state be secured in the long term.