taz: The Commission for the Reform of the Welfare State makes proposals which you have already formulated. In the future, basic security, housing benefit and child allowance should come from a single source. What would that improve for applicants?
Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn: You would then probably receive social benefits more easily and quickly than today. At the moment you have to submit applications to three places: to the job center for basic security, to the family fund for child allowance, and finally to the municipality for housing benefit. Many people don’t see through this or forego the complicated application. There is hope that the current, sometimes contradictory rules will be standardized.
taz: The commission writes that the minimum subsistence level and the “individual needs” of the applicants must be guaranteed “in any case”. But doesn’t the merger also pose the risk of cuts in social benefits?
Im Interview: Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn
61, was a Green MP in the Bundestag until spring 2025. The economist and social expert now works at the Institute for Social Ecology.
Strengmann-Kuhn: The risk definitely exists. I fear this effect, for example, in the so-called transfer withdrawal rates, i.e. how the benefit recipients’ self-earned income is offset against state benefits. The commission proposes a corridor of 70 to 80 percent above the mini-job limit. If 80 percent of income is taken into account in order to save money, this could lead to financial disadvantages for many people compared to today.
taz: For these slightly higher working incomes However, the share of the billing should be lower than it is now.
Strengmann-Kuhn: Depending on whether the credit is 70 or 80 percent, it may be that less is left over from such income. But: The proposal avoids current credit rates of up to 100 percent for additional income. That’s good. Anyone who earns higher amounts of money in addition to the state subsidies could keep more money than they do now.
taz: The recommendations boil down to simplifying the bureaucracy. Instead of three or four bodies, only two authorities will be responsible in the future. The job centers would be responsible for those who are able to work, and the social welfare offices of the municipalities would be responsible for those who are not able to work. A good idea?
Strengmann-Kuhn: The problem is that this would put a considerable burden on the job centers because they would then have to take care of millions of people who are now entitled to housing benefit and earn 2,000 to 3,000 euros or more. Benefit recipients who already earn decent incomes are actually at the wrong address – they need a financial subsidy, but not the other support from the job center.
taz: What do you suggest?
Strengmann-Kuhn: It would be better if the benefits came from the tax offices for people who already pay taxes today. They already have the information on all incomes anyway. This meant a real reduction in bureaucracy for those affected and the authorities. The job centers would be significantly relieved.
taz: Your proposal also includes that the benefits would be paid out automatically, without application. But then many more people received money and the costs for the state increased.
Strengmann-Kuhn: Not that much at all. The Commission apparently had this calculated. Accordingly, the additional costs were in the low single-digit billion range, not counting the reduction in bureaucracy – a manageable amount.
taz: Under the black-red coalition, the public debate is currently moving more in the direction of cutting social benefits. Do you now see the Commission’s recommendations as a counterpoint?
Strengmann-Kuhn: That is still unclear. In contrast to the reform of citizens’ money, which is now being renamed basic security, the recommendations are characterized by progressive ideas. It’s about simplifying the welfare state and making it more effective for people. As I said, the report also includes the possibility of reducing benefits.
taz: How realistic do you think the suggestions are?
Strengmann-Kuhn: As far as quick implementation is concerned, I am skeptical. There are still many hurdles and open points that the coalition will argue about. The Union in particular will campaign for cuts. But it is the beginning of an exciting debate about the system of the welfare state.