Opinion | Improving social security with very precise measures is a patronizing recipe for misery

Now that more than a million people in our wealthy country are at risk of falling below the poverty line, almost all political parties are suddenly flirting with the concept of social security. They are less clear about what exactly they mean by that. The independent Social Minimum Commission established in 2022 by Ministers Schouten and Van Gennip is. But whoever reads the ideas that this committee develops in its latest report A secure existence IIthe hairs must stand on end.

Nothing seems to have been learned at all from the long series of failures and scandals of the Rutte years – from the deterioration of the tax authorities, from the benefits drama, from throwing national tasks at the municipalities without a budget and from the disaster that sloppy, entailed overly complex regulations. As a result, for example, it is stated in the published by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations State of implementation 2022 read, “UWV employees (…) are no longer always able to understand, let alone explain, how the amount of a benefit was determined.”

But the committee continues on the path of hyper-complex and ineffective regulations. For example, children must have a legal right to hot water and energy. That would strengthen their position. But if things do go wrong (and that’s when the law comes out), you don’t turn on the heating with a law book; At most you start a cold legal procedure. Such a “right” is more of an empty phrase than a concrete contribution to someone’s social security.

The committee also wants to legally establish that the social minimum is reassessed every four years. Why? NIBUD and SCP have been doing something like this for years. But without a rock-solid guarantee that all incomes are actually adjusted, it means very little. Furthermore, according to the committee, the central government should arrange matters such as protective guardianship, supplementary health insurance, “school laptop facilities” and a number of other things centrally, so that municipalities can focus on “individual tailor-made solutions”.

Haute couture

It is right that the central government should get back to doing its job, but all those precision measures are a patronizing recipe for misery. Because the road to hell is not so much paved with good intentions, as with customization: everyone has his own down to the last cent, at all costs.

People are not interested in fussy micro-justice

But customization is for tailors, not for executive officers. It is also way too expensive. Haute couture is beautiful, but only for the wealthy happy few. The majority of the wealthy also benefit much more from good clothing. Even cheaper is one-size-fits-all. It is no different in social security. The administration costs of benefits increase enormously as a benefit applies to fewer people. The same applies to complexity: the simpler and more uniform a scheme, the lower the implementation costs. But also: the more satisfied the rights holders.

Also read
‘To participate in society without shame requires more than food and a roof over your head’

The latter shows that people are not looking for finicky micro-justice, but rather for a fast and smoothly running, understandable system of social services. Knowing where you stand is a core characteristic of social security. It is therefore important to give the highest priority to simplicity – a revolutionary turnaround in thinking in The Hague. The confusing array of benefits, from child benefit to state pension, must largely be replaced by one minimum but rock-solid income guarantee for everyone. Without costly and frustrating ifs and buts. With some good will, this is easily affordable and easily implementable. Moreover, it gradually seems to be the only way to escape from the quicksand in which the government and legislature have sunk. Because as the childcare allowance affair shows par excellence: it is no longer possible to fix things by sticking a band-aid.

Poverty trap

And then the labor market. The committee promises those who can work “help in finding a job.” Here too, the following applies: why? Anyone who can and wants to work (that concerns about two million Dutch people) can really find a job. Actually getting that job, any person over 50 can tell you, is something completely different. But employers should be held accountable for this, not job seekers.

Finally, the committee wants to relax the rules for working while receiving benefits. But that is also a stopgap that does not really help against the most important obstacle to working again or more: the poverty trap. A minimum income guarantee without frills or restrictions does that, and thus brings in billions. You could easily call such a system a basic income.

To share





Email the editor