Social Matters in Germany

The so-called welfare state is on the verge of collapse. At least that is the impression one could receive when Hartz IV claimants are publicly denounced from time to time. Has the welfare state failed?

The welfare state is in crisis. That much can be said. And many blame the state for its own woes. It is too generous and spreads its cornucopia of funds too quickly among too many recipients who would just as soon cheat the system anyway. The result is of course wasted money and beneficiaries who lack the motivation to go back to work.

The empirically proven reality is different, however. As political scientist Christoph Butterwegge shows, Germany is not even among the most generous of welfare states. In Europe it lands in the middle of the pack. As far as abuse of the system is concerned, the director of the seminar for social sciences at the University of Cologne insists that all serious studies on the subject indicate “that the alleged abuse of welfare benefits is neither widespread nor does it bleed the state to any significant degree.” What is more, says the professor of politics, is that the allegations of welfare abuses are a misleading diversion from the “much more extensive and costly abuses at higher levels of our society.”

Small fish

According to a recent assessment by the German Tax Union, financial authorities in Germany have received approximately 13,000 amended tax returns sent in by self-admitted tax dodgers. These returns alone were worth “significantly more than a billion Euro” that didn’t reach the state’s coffers, explained Dieter Ondracek, director of the tax union, to the press.

In terms of financing the welfare state, a joint universal flat rate benefit could be a solution. These have the advantage, explains Butterwegge, of providing the social security system with a broad base of support. Until now, only employees were required to pay into the system – up to the maximum insurance contribution of 4,162.50 Euro. “This solidarity limitation for low income citizens is fundamentally contradictory to the system and needs to be replaced with a universal flat rate system,” demands Butterwegge. Ultimately it is an imperative of justice that massive private wealth also contributes to financing the social security system.

What kind of society do we want to live in?

In reality, there is one fundamental question behind the crisis in which the welfare state finds itself: What kind of society do we want to live in? Critics of a welfare state based on redistribution and equalization would say, “in a free society.” But the question is whether there can be freedom without security. In an article in the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), constitutional judge and law professor Udo di Fabio explained the relationship between freedom and security as follows: “Constitutional law cannot be understood based on self-evident premises, as though the individual has an a priori right to demand from society a secure existence. In this scenario, individual freedom becomes just an afterthought.”

Having said that, even the ancient Greeks knew that exercising freedom, and thus the process of becoming a citizen and person, was connected to material wealth. People with nothing could not be free. It is a concept that the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant was also familiar with: “He who is not free from the arbitrary can not truly be a free citizen.”

No freedom without security

One of the great achievements of the welfare state is to have solved this problem. Freedom is (actually) no longer a question of origin, property or income. Liberal critics like di Fabio now want to turn this achievement on its head. By tolerating and even accommodating unemployment, the welfare state is hindering peoples’ return to professional life. The state has to demand more. If you don’t want to work, you will be gradually forced into it. Hartz IV recipient Arno Dübel comes to mind here. He gained a modicum of fame by relishing in 36 years of joblessness. By contrast, however, Mr Zumwinkel was quickly forgotten despite being indicted for tax evasion in the multimillions.

Anyone who challenges the welfare state is also questioning the principles of equality. Not the principle of legal equality, but the egalitarian conviction that all people have the right to develop according to their opportunities, that the child of a laborer can become a concert pianist or a university professor, and that social origin no longer decides what opportunities you have in life.

It is a necessity here to know that the community of solidarity will help you in your time of need, will keep you from becoming homeless. Or should the question of personal development depend on luck alone? In that case, we could eliminate traffic laws and leave safe arrival to luck and a bigger car. Is the welfare state finished? Only if the idea of freedom and equality are also finished.