Geplante Verschärfung im SGB Bereich

Bundesregierung will geplante Hartz-IV-Verschärfungen teilweise auf die Sozialhilfe übertragen 28.04.15

Strafsanktionen bis auf null Unterstützung, Arbeits- und Ortsanwesenheitspflicht: Die Zusammenlegung der einstigen Arbeitslosenhilfe mit der Sozialhilfe 2005 hat nicht nur den vom Grundgesetz geforderten Schutz der Menschenwürde in die Bedeutungslosigkeit verbannt, sondern ein Dauerchaos produziert. Hinter verschlossenen Türen bastelt die Bundesregierung deshalb an einer umfassenden Hartz-IV-Reform. Durchgewunken wird diese wohl im Sommer. Man will das Zweite Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB II) für die Verwaltung »vereinfachen«, wird es aber, wie nach außen gedrungene Dokumente belegen, für »erwerbsfähige« Leistungsbezieher teils drastisch verschärfen. Nun wurde bekannt: Kranke, Behinderte und Rentner, die Grundsicherung nach dem Zwölften Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB XII) beziehen, müssen mit ähnlichen Einschnitten rechnen.

Das geht aus einem »Arbeitsentwurf« des Bundesministeriums für Arbeit und Soziales (BMAS) für ein »Gesetz zur Änderung des SGB XII« vom Februar hervor, den der Sozialrechtler Harald Thomé jetzt zugespielt bekam und veröffentlicht hat. Das Papier listet Vorschläge für Änderungen und Erweiterungen zahlreicher Passagen des Gesetzes auf. Danach sollen einige der bei Hartz IV geplanten Neuregelungen, vor allem beim »Verfahrensrecht«, auf »dauerhaft Erwerbsgeminderte« übertragen werden. Behörden sollen schneller Zahlungen einstellen oder kürzen können und »Vermögen« und Einkünfte strenger anrechnen. Die »Angemessenheit« für eine Unterkunft soll stärker reglementiert werden. Hier solle »das Hartz-IV-Sonderrecht auf das SGB XII übertragen werden«, konstatiert Thomé.

Erwerbsgeminderte erhalten grundsätzlich dieselben Sätze wie Hartz-IV-Bezieher. Alleinstehende bekommen monatlich 399 Euro, Lebenspartner je 360 Euro. Dazu wird die »angemessene« Miete erstattet. Auch bei den Wohnbedingungen für bedürftige Kranke, Behinderte oder Rentner ist es ähnlich: Obergrenzen für die Miete bestimmen die Kommunen. Vielerorts liegen diese weit unter der Wohngeldtabelle. Ist die Bleibe zu teuer, wird auch Grundsicherungsbeziehern auferlegt, innerhalb von sechs Monaten umzuziehen. Danach werden ihnen nur noch die »angemessenen« Kosten erstattet, den Rest müssen sie zuzahlen.

Zudem will das BMAS die Sozialämter berechtigen, schneller Leistungen einzustellen, etwa, wenn der Betroffene innerhalb einer »angemessenen« Frist verlangte Unterlagen nicht vollständig eingereicht hat – und das ganze ohne Bescheid. Außerdem soll auch für Erwerbsunfähige die »sofortige Vollziehbarkeit« amtlicher Entscheidungen gelten. Im Klartext: Wie bei Hartz IV seit Beginn praktiziert, sollen Widersprüche und Klagen gegen Verwaltungsakte keine aufschiebende Wirkung entfalten. Trotz unsicherer Rechtslage wird also sanktioniert, bis das Gericht entscheidet. Selbst bei Eilanträgen kann dies mehrere Monate dauern.

Bereits jetzt wird bei der Grundsicherung vorhandenes »Vermögen« weit strenger angerechnet als bei Hartz IV. So muss jemand, der letzteres beantragt, nicht komplett alles aufbrauchen, bevor er Hilfe erhält. 150 Euro pro Lebensjahr darf er für die Altersvorsorge angespart haben. Bei einem 45jährigen sind das 6.750 Euro, ein 60jähriger darf 9.000 Euro oder Vermögensgegenstände in diesem Wert behalten. Beantragt jemand Grundsicherung, muss er zuvor jegliche Ansparbeträge über 1.600 Euro für den Lebensunterhalt ausgeben. Über 60jährigen werden 2.600 Euro gewährt.

Ebenso haben Grundsicherungsbezieher keinen Anspruch auf Freibeträge. Das gilt nicht nur für Rente und Kindergeld, sondern auch für Erwerbseinkommen. Der Grundfreibetrag von 100 Euro, wie bei Hartz IV, gilt hier nicht. Zudem kann die Behörde Klienten, die das Rentenalter noch nicht erreicht haben, regelmäßig zur Überprüfung ihrer Arbeitsfähigkeit bei einem amtsärztlichen Dienst verpflichten. Ist diese nach dessen Attest noch teilweise (unter drei Stunden täglich) vorhanden, darf das Amt die Leistungsbezieher unter Androhung von Kürzungen in Maßnahmen oder »zumutbare« Arbeit zwingen. Im Paragraphen 39 a des SGB XII heißt es dazu: »Lehnen Leistungsberechtigte entgegen ihrer Verpflichtung die Aufnahme einer Tätigkeit (…) ab, vermindert sich die Regelbedarfsstufe um bis zu 25 Prozent.« Bei wiederholten »Vergehen« können die Sanktionen summiert werden. Das heißt: Auch Behinderte dürfen bis auf null sanktioniert werden.

Quelle

Diesen Trend in einem Ausmaß, nicht weit entfernt von einem Genozid, beobachte ich bereits seit Jahren in Großbritannien. Hier ist eine Interessensgruppe, von Betroffenen. Wenn das auch nur teilweise bei uns Realität werden sollte, dann gnade uns Gott.

I started this page as an idea to take the DWP and Government to court for the crimes that they are committing against the sick and disabled in our country; hence the name "The People Versus The Government, DWP and Atos".

My own personal experience and the stories from other people that were flooding Facebook and blogs I started research and speaking with Human Rights Solicitors to see if we had a case. I thought that we could, as a group, go to court and have a "class action" (American Style) law suit. I put a call out for people who would willingly tell their stories publicly and who might be able to come to court. I then found out that the UK can't do court cases like that.

Then we became a kind of advice page and spread news that would directly affect the people who were being targeted and this included Jobseekers because EVERY single Jobseeker that I have ever met WANTS to work. (When I say met, I mean on here, Facebook, face-to-face and over the phone). Not one of them has ever said or implied "I'm going to relish my life on benefits and never work again because my mother didn't work nor her mother or hers. The rhetoric of the three generations of workless households being quashed.

There are a variety of admins here, some who specialise in giving advice, some who share from other groups, some who post information and some who post private messages anonymously. They ask for an anonymous post because if the post happens to pop in a friend or family member's newsfeed, they don't want to be embarrassed. People ARE embarrassed about having to claim benefits.

The variety of admins here are from all over the UK. We have at least one Scot, one Welsh, and one English admin (and that's out of 20 admins, of at least five who are active on nearly every day). We don't use our names here because we have been targeted personally before. Our intent is to help. Not to be threatened.

We all have differing views and believe different things. Some of the admins will vote and some will not. It is their business if they choose to vote and who they vote for. It is also their business if they do not vote.

If you have an argument and opinion, then you can do as you please.

If you spam the page with abuse, then we will hide the comments. If you make it personal (ie "I will find you and burn your house down") then we will take all of the information we can find from your Facebook page and report you to the police. If you target the admins personally, then we will block you. Say what ever you want to say, but if you threaten us, we will block you.

As we get ever closer to election time, people are getting extremely tense and very riled up. Some people are very assured and confident about who they're voting for or if they're voting at all. That's all very well, fine and dandy.

But, if you start a hate vendetta against us, or other people who comment on the page, we have to take action. A lot of people are on this page because they are vulnerable. We cannot have people doing something drastic to themselves or being hurt because some Keyboard Warrior is trolling. You may forget about what you have posted when you close the page, but other people may not. They may take it personally.

Argue, debate and have opinions, but please, do not attack or abuse.

I hope that this is fair warning. As for the people who were abusing the admins, they were given fair warning and have been banned from this page. And I hope that wherever you are, you are safe and have a peaceful day.

Admin
26.04.15

Source

In Großbritannien ist die Gewaltenteilung komplett zusammengebrochen. Es kann jemand noch so stark behindert und krank sein, er wird von den Gutachtern im staatlichen Auftrag, wider besseren Wissens, als arbeitstüchtig und gesund erklärt. Dann konsequenterweise von den Jobcentern wegen allen möglichen und gar unmöglichen Gründen auf null runtersanktioniert, was zur Folge hat, daß dort massenweise Menschen wegsterben. Ich habe nicht umsonst das Wort Genozid (Völkermord) benutzt. Wenn der Trend wirklich auf uns zu kommen sollte, dann werden die wenigsten von uns Betroffenen noch an einem natürlichen Tod sterben.


#hartz iv #grundversorgung #sozialhile #sanktion #verschärfung #behindert #krank #erwerbsminderungsrente #völkermord

How Poverty Changes Your Brain

How poverty changes your brain





      Source

Expertise zu Hartz IV

Die HARTZ IV-Gesetzgebung, vorrangig das SGB II, verstößt (in über 40 Fällen) gegen die Gültigkeitsvoraussetzung für nach Maßgabe des Art. 19 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG Grundrechte einschränkbare Gesetze gemäß Art. 19 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG (Zitiergebot) und ist von daher ungültig. Ihre Anwendung ist verfassungwidrig.

Name: Hartz IV - Expertise
Internetadresse: http://rechtsstaatsreport.de/hartz4
Herausgeber: Grundrechtepartei

Top 20 Reasons to Love Basic Income

Citizen Income is the best solution to the injustices of our current tax and benefit system; but as Abba Eban once said, "Men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other resources." So, it may be some time before we are ready to recognise the folly of our current system and the wickedness of what the current Government is trying to pass off as 'welfare reform'. However the fact that the Green Party has included the idea of Citizen Income in its 2015 manifesto is certainly a hopeful sign.

In essence the idea is very simple: replace the current mess of benefits, tax credits and allowances with one simple system where each individual receives an unconditional income. It is like getting £200 every time you pass Go.

This idea seems radical to some, impossible to others, but its benefits could be enormous. The Centre for Welfare Reform is committed to promoting Citizen Income and so, in order to encourage debate I thought I'd provide a summary of its main benefits. Here are my top twenty reasons to love Citizen Income.

1. Justice - Each of us has a basic right to exist. Citizen Income gives each of us enough to live on.

2. To Hell with Poverty - Citizen Income directly attacks poverty, by establishing the highest feasible minimum income.

3. Simple - The current benefit system is so complex that about £17 billion goes unclaimed because people don't know what they are entitled to receive.

4. Affordable - The funding necessary for Citizen income is already being spent on benefits, pensions, tax credits or hidden inside tax allowances.

5. Cheap - The current system is incredibly complex and expensive to administer.

6. Rational - The current system is so complex that even the people running it don't understand it. The DWP even claimed it was impossible to calculate the impact of their policy changes on disabled people. This makes rational policy-making impossible.

7. Universal - We all need income security and we all need to remember that we are one community - bound together by common rights and duties.

8. Respectful - The current system is shaming for people who need benefits, damaging human dignity and also increasing social division.

9. Liberating - Citizen Income frees people from a whole range of poverty traps that make it harder for people to earn, save, form a family or take risks. Strong foundations enable people to do more for themselves and others.

10. Adaptable - Citizen income can be adjusted to transparently reflect the differences in age or disability that may be relevant to income.

11. Secure - Ultimately the only real securities on earth are the ones we give each other. Citizen Income commits us to work together to ensure everyone has their basic needs secured.

12. Living Wage - Better wages will come when people are not forced by fear and destitution into the labour market.

13. Family - Giving a citizen income to each parent and recognising the work of parents who care for their children or other relatives makes for strong families.

14. Community - Citizen Income makes it easier for people to contribute to their communities in ways that make sense. Volunteering, neighbourliness and community development all become easier.

15. Capacity - In order to win a modest increase in income many disabled people are forced through pointless or harmful hoops - all to prove they 'cannot work'. This whole inept system could be swept away.

16. Business - Currently Government tries to increase employment by a schemes and incentives which merely increase bureaucracy and reduce efficiency. Citizen Income lets people set up their own business or strike their own deals with employers.

17. Creative - Too many people are not making the most of their skills and gifts for fear of losing a job they hate. Citizen Income could unleash human creativity.

18. Sustainable - The fundamental failure of the current economic system is that it creates and distributes new money via banks through the creation of debt. Citizen Income is democratic Keynesianism - money goes to people, not banks.

19. Global - There is a global movement for Citizen Income which will also help restore global justice and enable the spread of effective human rights around the world.

20. Scrap the DWP - Integrating the tax and benefit system means that we can finally close down the worst Government department in Whitehall - the Department of Work and Pensions.

In time Citizen income will seems as natural and right as the NHS or a free school education. It is an idea whose time has come and anyone interested in making society better must pay it attention.

Source

Die Verlosung des Grundeinkommens

Verlosung Nr. 9 - Robin

Verlosung Nr. 10 - Joshua

Quelle

The Rise of the Working Poor and the Non-Working Rich

The Rise of the Working Poor and the Non-Working Rich

Many believe that poor people deserve to be poor because they're lazy. As Speaker John Boehner has said, the poor have a notion that "I really don't have to work. I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around."

In reality, a large and growing share of the nation's poor work full time -- sometimes sixty or more hours a week -- yet still don't earn enough to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.

It's also commonly believed, especially among Republicans, that the rich deserve their wealth because they work harder than others.

In reality, a large and growing portion of the super-rich have never broken a sweat. Their wealth has been handed to them.

The rise of these two groups -- the working poor and non-working rich -- is relatively new. Both are challenging the core American assumptions that people are paid what they're worth, and work is justly rewarded.

Why are these two groups growing?

The ranks of the working poor are growing because wages at the bottom have dropped, adjusted for inflation. With increasing numbers of Americans taking low-paying jobs in retail sales, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, childcare, elder care, and other personal services, the pay of the bottom fifth is falling closer to the minimum wage.

At the same time, the real value of the federal minimum wage is lower today than it was a quarter century ago.

In addition, most recipients of public assistance must now work in order to qualify.

Bill Clinton's welfare reform of 1996 pushed the poor off welfare and into work. Meanwhile, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a wage subsidy, has emerged as the nation's largest anti-poverty program. Here, too, having a job is a prerequisite.

The new work requirements haven't reduced the number or percentage of Americans in poverty. They've just moved poor people from being unemployed and impoverished to being employed and impoverished.

While poverty declined in the early years of welfare reform when the economy boomed and jobs were plentiful, it began growing in 2000. By 2012 it exceeded its level in 1996, when welfare ended.

At the same time, the ranks of the non-working rich have been swelling. America's legendary "self-made" men and women are fast being replaced by wealthy heirs.

Six of today's ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of Americans combined.

Americans who became enormously wealthy over the last three decades are now busily transferring that wealth to their children and grand children.

The nation is on the cusp of the largest inter-generational transfer of wealth in history. A study from the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy projects a total of $59 trillion passed down to heirs between 2007 and 2061.

As the French economist Thomas Piketty reminds us, this is the kind of dynastic wealth that's kept Europe's aristocracy going for centuries. It's about to become the major source of income for a new American aristocracy.

The tax code encourages all this by favoring unearned income over earned income.

The top tax rate paid by America's wealthy on their capital gains -- the major source of income for the non-working rich -- has dropped from 33 percent in the late 1980s to 20 percent today, putting it substantially below the top tax rate on ordinary income (36.9 percent).

If the owners of capital assets whose worth increases over their lifetime hold them until death, their heirs pay zero capital gains taxes on them. Such "unrealized" gains now account for more than half the value of assets held by estates worth more than $100 million.

At the same time, the estate tax has been slashed. Before George W. Bush was president, it applied to assets in excess of $2 million per couple at a rate of 55 percent. Now it kicks in at $10,680,000 per couple, at a 40 percent rate.

Last year only 1.4 out of every 1,000 estates owed any estate tax, and the effective rate they paid was only 17 percent.

Republicans now in control of Congress want to go even further. Last Friday the Senate voted 54-46 in favor of a non-binding resolution to repeal the estate tax altogether. Earlier in the week, the House Ways and Means Committee also voted for a repeal. The House is expected to vote in coming weeks.

Yet the specter of an entire generation doing nothing for their money other than speed-dialing their wealth management advisers is not particularly attractive.

It puts more and more responsibility for investing a substantial portion of the nation's assets into the hands of people who have never worked.

It also endangers our democracy, as dynastic wealth inevitably and invariably accumulates political influence and power.

Consider the rise of both the working poor and the non-working rich, and the meritocratic ideal on which America's growing inequality is often justified doesn't hold up.

That widening inequality -- combined with the increasing numbers of people who work full time but are still impoverished and of others who have never worked and are fabulously wealthy -- is undermining the moral foundations of American capitalism.

ROBERT B. REICH's film "Inequality for All" is now available on DVD and blu-ray, and on Netflix. Watch the trailer below:

Source

Kinder bringen sich das Lesen selbst bei

Children Teach Themselves to Read
übersetzt von Martin Wilke im Herbst 2014




Kinder bringen sich das Lesen selbst bei


7 Prinzipien des Lesen-Lernens ohne Unterricht

1   für ein nicht-beschultes Kind gibt es kein kritisches Zeitfenster oder bestes Alter für das Lesen-Lernen

Für Kinder in Standard-Schulen ist es sehr wichtig, pünktlich Lesen zu lernen, nach dem von der Schule vorgegebenen Zeitplan. Wer in Verzug gerät, kann mit dem Rest des Lehrplans nicht mehr Schritt halten und wird womöglich als „Versager“ bezeichnet, oder ihm wird nahegelegt, die Klasse zu wiederholen, oder er gilt als jemand mit einer geistigen Behinderung. In Standard-Schulen ist das Lesen-Lernen der Schlüssel zu allem anderen Lernen. Erst „lernt man zu lesen“, dann „liest man, um zu lernen.“

Die am häufigsten geäußerte Botschaft in diesen Geschichten über das Lesen-Lernen ist, dass Kinder eine positive Haltung zum Lesen und allgemein zum Lernen haben, weil sie nicht gegen ihren Willen zum Lesen gezwungen oder überredet wurden.

2   Motivierte Kinder können sehr schnell von scheinbarem Nicht-Lesen zu flüssigem Lesen kommen

3   Versuche, Kinder zum Lesen zu drängen, können nach hinten losgehen

4   Kinder lernen Lesen, wenn das Lesen für sie ein Mittel zu einem von ihnen geschätzten Zweck wird

5   Wie auch viele andere Fertigkeiten lernt man Lesen gesellschaftlich durch gemeinsame Teilnahme

6   Einige Kinder interessieren sich für das Schreiben, bevor sie sich für das Lesen interessieren, und sie
     lernen Lesen, während sie Schreiben lernen

7   Es gibt keinen vorhersehbaren „Kurs“, durch den Kinder Lesen lernen

Quelle