Social security system from the perspective of a low earner

As a low earner, I always face the sobering dilemma of social security: on the one hand, they should be a protective mechanism for difficult life situations, on the other hand, I increasingly see them as a financial burden, which is an additional burden on me in my already tense situation. The contributions are automatically and inevitable from the already modest wageswithdrawn. What remains is the feeling of being paid into a system that is neither fair nor sufficiently responding to the reality of people with low incomes.

Unemployment insurance: high costs, more questionable benefits

A particularly critical point is unemployment insurance. Month after month, considerable sums are deducted from me, which I urgently need elsewhere – for example for rent, groceries or unexpected expenses. But what do I actually get back for it? In an emergency, with unemployment, the state with unemployment benefit I pays just 60% of my lastnet salary. Realistically, this sum is hardly sufficient: Fixed costs continue to increase, the cost of living is increasing and the financial leeway is getting tighter. In addition, the period of subscription for unemployment benefit I is severely limited. After a maximum of one year (or for older employees up to two years old), the deep case follows unemployment benefit II, the so-called Hartz IV.Basic state security is even lower and in many cases it is not even enough for a minimum level of social participation or a decent life. For low earners, this means that after a short time they end up in a situation in which they depend on state-supporting state benefits – even though they have paid contributions for years. theFinancial security from unemployment insurance is basically an illusion.

Pension insurance: A bottomless pit for the future?

My consideration of the statutory pension insurance is no less critical. Here, too, contributions are deducted month after month, which for me as a low earner represent a noticeable cut. However, on closer inspection, the great promise of old-age provision from the pension insurance turns out to be deceptive. The expected pension is for low earnersOften only slightly above the level of basic security in old age, which in most cases means that despite decades of work, one remains threatened with poverty in old age. In plain language, that means: We pay contributions for decades,But on average, a much shorter time pension. The system thus prefers those who are already privileged, while low earners are doubly disadvantaged – they pay more in relative terms and benefit less.

Systematic disadvantage and lack of reforms

In my view, the structural weaknesses and injustices of the social security system are far too seldom discussed openly. Low earners are at a disproportionate risk of being dependent on government support in old age or unemployment. Nevertheless, the existing system is managed rather than reformed. The political decision-makers seem littleInterested in tackling fundamental reforms that would benefit the weakest of society in particular. Instead, the hope of your own initiative remains: It is suggested that one should make private provisions – but how is that supposed to work if, after deducting all compulsory contributions, there is hardly enough to live on? The state security is incomplete, the private provision forLow earners simply unrealistic.

Alternative models: Is personal responsibility the better solution?

In view of this ongoing frustration, the question arises as to whether the state system of social security for low earners still makes sense at all. Maybe it would actually be better if I could create the contributions paid on my own responsibility and make provisions for even times of crisis. Instead of putting large sums in an opaque system, the consideration of whichremains in doubt, I could at least build up a small financial cushion that is really available in emergencies. The principle of compulsory levy also seems questionable when it comes to unemployment insurance. Why should I be forced to pay high contributions when a minimum of support is provided in an emergency? An individual savings modelCould provide more security and flexibility – and also prevent the contributions to seep into a bureaucratic system that is neither efficient nor fair.

Reform backlog and lack of prospects for low earners

The bottom line is a sobering conclusion: The social security system in its current form is neither fair nor sustainable for low earners. The amount of the contribution is disproportionate to the real benefits that are provided in an emergency. Instead of creating security, you are caught in a vicious circle of financial burdens and existential uncertaintiesheld. Without fundamental reforms, the much-vaunted solidarity of the welfare state remains a beautiful illusion – and a bitter disappointment for people with low incomes.