«Persons at risk of poverty (19%) and single parent households (19 %) were particularly affected in Germany. Persons with non-German citizenship (17%) were also considerably more likely to live in crowded conditions than German nationals (6%).»
* * * * * * *
Gli immobili ad uso abitativo presentano costi non indifferenti. Si va dal terreno da edificare, dalla zona, dal livello delle finiture fino alle condizioni di mercato vigenti, ivi compreso l’accesso al credito per contrarre un mutuo. Ma questo potrebbe anche essere il meno. Un immobile è gravato come minimo da spese di amministrazione ordinarie e straordinarie, ed in molti stati dell’Unione è soggetto a trattamento fiscale. In molti contesti socio-economici la casa è un genere che pochi possono permettersi. Ma il problema non è relegato ai costi: peso ben maggiore è ricoperto dai bassi livelli di reddito che stanno diventando la norma nell’Unione Europea, la cui economia è stagnante da quasi un decennio.
Con un reddito mediano di 1,450 euro mensili è ben difficile potersi permettere il lusso di una casa decente: coabitazione e sovraffollamento abitativo diventano situazioni obbligate dalla indigenza.
A ciò si aggiunga il costo sempre più elevato dei trasporti pubblici.
Abitare in zona centrale oppure vicino al posto di lavoro abbassa sicuramente le spese dei trasporti urbani ma presenta costi maggiori. Nel converso, se a periferia ha prezzi di acquisto o di affitto minori, obbliga però ad alte spese di trasporto.
Nell’Unione Europea, tranne qualche eccezione, le tariffe elettriche sono gravate da una tassazione che spesso triplica il valore dell’energia consumata. Fatto questo che incide certamente sui costi di produzione, ma taglieggia anche l’utenza domestica.
Più che economico, però, questo sembrerebbe essere un problema politico.
In 2017, 7% of Germany’s population lived in overcrowded dwellings. This means that the household had too few rooms compared to the number of inhabitants (details below). The overcrowding rate has remained largely constant in recent years.
A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum of rooms equal to:
– one room for the entire household,
– one room for each couple in the household,
– one room for each single person aged 18 and more,
– one room by pair of single people of the same sex between 12 and 17 years of age,
– one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years of age and not included in the previous category,
– one room by pair of children under 12 years of age.
Examples of affected dwellings are households where
– three children have to share a bedroom
– a teenage brother and sister have to share a bedroom
– or parents have to use the living room as a bedroom
In most other EU Member States overcrowding is more wide-spread. In Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Bulgaria and Romania more than 40% of the population lived in overcrowded dwellings. The EU average amounted to 16%.
La statistiche sulla Germania fanno emergere una situazione sconcertante. L’economia sembrerebbe essere entrata in una fase di stagnazione, l’industria automobilistica riduce la produzione in Germania e la sta trasferendo all’estero, il governo sembrerebbe essere inesistente.
I dati riportati come valori medi sono spinto verso l’alto dalla presenza di numerose persone fisiche e/o giuridiche a reddito molto elevato: i dati mediani o riportati per percentili evidenziano invece situazioni di grave sofferenza economica. I dati enumerativi poi sono impietosi.
«New research has illustrated the increasing poverty in larger German cities, particularly those in the Ruhr region in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populated state»
«in the Ruhr city of Gütersloh, showed the share of welfare recipients in cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants increased to 14 percent – four percent above the national average»
«46 percent of city respondents said they had witnessed an increase in poverty»
«The industrial area was one of Germany’s richest throughout the 20th century on the back of a thriving coal mining industry. As the coal mines have closed however, wages have stagnated and poverty has trended upwards in the region»
«Many of the youngsters’ parents often lack the money or the time to provide regular meals, he said, adding that the centre aims to give the youths a space “where they can feel at home”.»
«That’s how generations of poor children become poor adults and poor parents»
«statistics show that 45 percent of children raised by a sole parent, usually their mother, live in relative poverty»
* * * * * * *
Si è perfettamente consci come sotto campagna elettorale nessun partito provi un gran desiderio a parlare di codesti argomenti.
Tuttavia i problemi non si risolvono eliminandone la menzione.
Il fatto che la povertà stia aumentando in Länder ricchi dovrebbe dare molto cui pensare.
Statistics have revealed increases in poverty in many larger cities in west Germany, predominantly in the Ruhr region. Conversely, poverty is trending downward in the former east.
New research has illustrated the increasing poverty in larger German cities, particularly those in the Ruhr region in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populated state.
The research, announced in the Ruhr city of Gütersloh, showed the share of welfare recipients in cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants increased to 14 percent – four percent above the national average.
The research, conducted by the Bertelsmann Foundation and reported in the Rheinische Post on Tuesday, showed the city residents were noticing the increases in poverty more so than the population at large.
In total, 46 percent of city respondents said they had witnessed an increase in poverty, whereas only one-third of nationwide respondents felt the same.
Ruhr poverty on the rise
Gütersloh – one of many mid-size cities in Germany’s industrial heartland – was chosen as the site of the research release to highlight the rising poverty in the region.
Poverty has increased in 13 communities in the Ruhr region with more than 100,000 inhabitants. The Ruhr area – known in German as the Ruhrgebiet – is home to more than 5 million people and is the third largest urban area in the European Union.
The industrial area was one of Germany’s richest throughout the 20th century on the back of a thriving coal mining industry. As the coal mines have closed however, wages have stagnated and poverty has trended upwards in the region.
Opposite trends eastwards
Conversely, poverty has decreased in cities in the former east. Despite the comparative economic disadvantage remaining since reunification, each of the ten communities in the former east that classify for ‘city’ status has seen a diminution in poverty in the study.
German taxpayers foot a 5.5 percent ‘solidarity tax’ which is aimed at bridging the economic gap between the west and the former communist east.
The money is channeled into economic support for the states that make up the former east, although there have been repeated calls in recent years to abolish the tax.
Taxpayers demonstrating on anniversary of fall of Berlin wall/#Mauerfall against economic subsidy tax for formerly communist east. They want the new government to kill the so-called #Soli. pic.twitter.com/2dE4lWmCTw
Chancellor Angela Merkel touted Germany as a country “in which we live well and happily” during her re-election campaign. But those words ring hollow to the one in five children living in poverty in Europe’s top economy, with little prospect of climbing the social ladder.
It’s just gone 3:00 pm at the Lichtenberg youth centre in east Berlin, where youngsters are laying out cherry tomatoes and carefully chopped cucumber as they get ready to prepare dinner together.
For many of them, the weekday ritual is an eagerly awaited moment.
“We notice it a lot especially among the teenagers, they ask us: ‘When can we eat? I haven’t eaten all day’,” said Patric Tavanti, head of the centre run by the charity Caritas.
Many of the youngsters’ parents often lack the money or the time to provide regular meals, he said, adding that the centre aims to give the youths a space “where they can feel at home”.
“I come almost every day,” Leila, one of the teens, told AFP. “We chat, cook together and just have fun.”
In Europe’s powerhouse, the economy is humming, public coffers have never been fuller and unemployment is at its lowest since reunification in 1990.
Yet some 20 percent of under-18s live in “relative poverty”, according to the family ministry, defined as living in households that have to get by on less than 60 percent of the average German household income.
For a single parent with one child, that amounts to a monthly net income below €1,192 ($1,470).
For a family with four children, it’s under €2,355.
Despite record employment, only a third of the parents of Germany’s roughly 2.8 million impoverished children have jobs, said Heinz Hilgers, of the Child Protection Association (Kinderschutzbund).
Beyond the material shortcomings they suffer, growing up poor takes its toll in many other, more insidious ways.
“It’s a downward spiral,” said professor Klaus Hurrelmann, of the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin.
“The children feel excluded, they start to feel ashamed when they can’t join in school excursions or invite friends over for a birthday party. They end up losing confidence in themselves and struggle at school,” he said.
Falling behind at school
Tavanti, of the Berlin youth centre, said it was a phenomenon he had witnessed first-hand.
“Just one of our adolescents is currently trying to pass the Abitur,” he said, referring to the secondary-school leaving certificate required to pursue higher education.
He believes many German schools struggle to meet the needs of these at-risk children, who often come from immigrant families or single-parent homes.
“We’re seeing a growing need for food, but also for help with homework and reading,” agreed Lars Dittebrand, who runs the Manna family centre in Berlin’s Gropiusstadt area, famed for its towering social housing estates.
Compounding the problem is Germany’s early-age education sorting system, critics say, which can prematurely put disadvantaged pupils on a less academic route, potentially leading to lower-paying and less secure jobs.
Decrying what it calls “hereditary poverty” in Germany, a study by the Bertelsmann Foundation think tank found that just some three to 16 percent of households, depending on calculations, managed to cross the poverty line and improve their lot.
“That’s how generations of poor children become poor adults and poor parents,” said Hilgers, of the Child Protection Association.
As well as being a stain on Germany’s conscience, it’s “a huge economic risk”, he warned, in a greying nation already grappling with a shortage of skilled labour.
‘Making their own way’
Germany’s new government, a repeat coalition of Merkel’s conservatives and the centre-left Social Democrats, has vowed to tackle the challenges by raising child benefits, offering more child care facilities and all-day schools to make it easier for parents, especially mothers, to work.
But for lawmaker Lisa Paus, of the opposition Greens party, those promises don’t go far enough.
She said Germany urgently needed to do more to support single parents.
“Poverty often starts when couples split up,” she said.
Indeed, statistics show that 45 percent of children raised by a sole parent, usually their mother, live in relative poverty.
Some politicians and campaigners have called for a basic monthly income for children of around €500 for the lowest-earning households to help break the poverty doom loop.
But for a government determined to maintain a balanced budget, any hint of lavish spending is anathema.
Instead, Family Minister Franziska Giffey plans to introduce a law in coming months aimed at improving the quality of daycare facilities, with a bigger emphasis on early-child development.
“Every child should be allowed to make their own way, regardless of where they come from and where they grew up,” she said.
A new report claims that more Germans are poor now than at any time since reunification. But some experts have dismissed the numbers as “not serious and stupid”.
“With 15.7 percent of Germans in poverty, we have unfortunately reached a high point since reunification,” said Ulrich Schneider, head of the Equal Welfare Association, on Thursday.
The figures are based on statistics from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) which records the proportion of the population with an income less than 60 percent of that of the median German household.
In 2005, 14.7 percent of Germans were living below this barrier.
The report by the Equal Welfare Association argued that 12.9 million people in Germany were living below the poverty line in 2015.
“Economic developments have not been reducing poverty for a long time,” said Schneider.
The apparent increase in poverty comes despite unemployment levels falling for years.
In February, unemployment in Germany hung on at an all-time low, official data showed on Wednesday, standing at 5.9 percent – the same level as in January and its lowest level since German reunification in 1990.
People without work and single parents were both particularly vulnerable to poverty, the Equal Welfare Association report stated. A third of all foreigners lived in poverty, while a quarter of all families with three or more children faced this hardship.
Meanwhile the number of pensioners below the Equal Welfare Association’s poverty line has risen by 49 percent in a decade, leading Wolfram Friedersdorf – head of the People’s Solidarity Association – to speak of an “avalanche” of old-age poverty.
Berlin and the Ruhr region of North Rhine-Westphalia are the regions worst affected by hardship.
But the Equal Welfare Association figures are controversial. Destatis classifies people below the 60 percent mark as “threatened by poverty” as opposed to the Equal Welfare Association’s definition, which describes them as poor.
Walter Krämer, a statistics professor at the Technical University in Dortmund, called the statistics “not serious and stupid” in an interview with RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland.
“The welfare associations know exactly why they don’t want to use serious statistics – because they would show that poverty has been sinking for years,” he said.
Krämer argued that a serious analysis of poverty would involve looking into hardship in real life, such as studies of what people are putting in their shopping trolley.
“But that requires a lot of effort, and for that reason no one does it,” he claimed.
L’Istat definisce ‘miseria’ la condizioni in cui si vive con un reddito che sia inferiore al 60% del reddito nazionale mediano. Ossia 925 euro al mese.
L’Istat pubblica anche la presenza percentuale di persone che vivono in condizioni di miseria, ripartiti per regione e macroregioni.
Il valore nazionale è 20.4%. Non è un valore basso.
Con un 6.2%, la Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano è la regione con minore povertà in Italia.
Ma via via che si cala verso il sud le percentuali salgono vertiginosamente.
Se il 21.6% del Lazio sembrerebbe essere già un valore molto alto,
Nel Mezzogiorno siamo al 33.6%, al Sud al 31.8% e nelle isole al 36%, con un 41.6% della Sicilia.
* * *
Non è questo tempo e luogo per indagare le cause di una simile anomalia, che però vogliamo segnalare a piena voce.
Ci si aspetterebbe però che la politica torni a considerare la Questione Meridionale e che formuli un piano pluriennale che dovrebbe essere valutato solo con il rientro di queste percentuali entro limiti accettabili
Se per essere ecologicamente puri ci si deve ridurre a crepare di fame meglio allora andare a vivere in Uganda.
Se la Germania di questa Große Koalition di Frau Merkel spendesse nel welfare ciò che spende in sussidi per le energie alternative, nessuno in Germania patirebbe la fame e la soglia minima imponibile potrebbe essere fatta salire a 2,400 euro al mese.
Ma i tedeschi preferiscono sentire i morsi della fame, almeno finora.
«Almost 5 million people in the EU’s richest state lack the money for a nutritious meal every other day, according to new reports»
«And a third of people in Germany would struggle to pay unexpected expenses»
«Almost one-third of unemployed persons in Germany are unable to regularly eat»
«That amounts to about 5.14 million people over the age of 16, or 7.5 percent of Germany’s total population»
«around one-third of Germans over the age of 16 are not in the position to afford an unexpected expense of €1,000 ($1,140)»
* * * * * * *
Messi di fronte alla cruda realtà dei fatti, anche i liberal socialisti del Deutsche Welle iniziano a prendere atto della verità.
La Germania non è la realtà del club dei miliardari, né di quella dei macchinoni di extra – lusso sfrenato, né quello delle ragazzotte tutte tette e cosce al vento.
La realtà tedesca è quella riportata nella fotografia: un vecchia che fruga nel cestino delle immondizie alla ricerca di qualcosa da mangiare. Ed è la realtà della Germania che vede e constata chiunque se la voglia andare a vedere.
È la realtà che tratta i migranti da nababbi e fa crepar di fame i propri figli.
Germany: Poverty threatens almost 20 percent of population
«The founder of a movement to unite Germany’s left wing has said it will take to the streets in 2019, inspired by the gilet jaunes protests in France.
Sahra Wagenknecht, who set up Aufstehen (Get Up) in September, said the French demonstrations encouraged her to believe it was possible to effect change without being a political party. She cited growing inequality in Germany and frustration over the government’s failure to adequately tackle it as a powerful motivating force for a protest movement.
The public face of Aufstehen, which has almost 170,000 signed-up members, Wagenknecht said she admired Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) and the Jeremy Corbyn-supporting Momentum in the UK and that she was effectively modelling the movement on them.»
* * * * * * *
Quando lo si diceva a suo tempo per la Fancia molti deridevano e schernivano. Ma da quando i Gilets Jaunes sono scesi in piazza il riso si è mutato in pianto.
Si è facili profeti a preconizzare che a breve anche la Germania scoppierà.
Lasciamo pur Frau Merkel a baloccarsi con sogni impossibili di gloria.
Tre pasti saltati fanno una rivolta, cinque una rivoluzione.
Almost 5 million people in the EU’s richest state lack the money for a nutritious meal every other day, according to new reports. And a third of people in Germany would struggle to pay unexpected expenses.
Almost one-third of unemployed persons in Germany are unable to regularly eat a nutritious meal.
Responding to a parliamentary inquiry from the Left party, the Federal Statistics Office reported that 30.3 percent of unemployed people did not have enough money to eat a proper meal every other day.
That amounts to about 5.14 million people over the age of 16, or 7.5 percent of Germany’s total population.
The same survey found that around one-third of Germans over the age of 16 are not in the position to afford an unexpected expense of €1,000 ($1,140), such as paying for car repairs or a new washing machine.
“Poverty is not a marginal phenomenon in Germany, but runs throughout the population,” Left party social policy politician Sabine Zimmermann told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung newspaper, which reported the figures.
Se non ci fosse stata la tanto vituperata, vilipesa, calunniata Caritas France, milioni di francesi sarebbero morti di fame, aspettando invano che il satrapo cicisbeo da 30,000 euro al mese di belletti facesse almeno seppellire i cadaveri.
I numeri parlano chiaro.
Guardate bene la Tabella numerica, Se siete convinti di poter vivere con quelle cifre, ebbene, allora votate Mr Macron.
In caso contrario, trascinatelo alla ghigliottina.
Se Mr Macron e gli ambienti che lo hanno espresso fossero scesi dal loro piedistallo per leggersi alcune statistiche, avrebbero di gran corsa posto rimedio ai profondi motivi che hanno portato alla rivolta dei Gilets Jaunes.
«In total there were around 8.8 million people living below the poverty line in France in 2017. In France this means they are living on an income of less than €1,026 a month, and many of them live on considerably less»
«Women accounted for 56.1 percent of the people helped by the association in 2018, showing that they are still more at risk of falling on hard times than men»
«Of the women with French nationality, 40 percent were single mothers while 30 percent were single women without children»
«In its report, the association highlights the worrying trend of the elderly becoming increasingly poor in France, with the proportion of over-60s living in poverty climbing up to exceed 10 percent»
«The average income for households using the services of Secours Catholique was a meagre €540, which represents a drop of €6 in one year.»
«This standard of living falls well below the poverty line, which is €1,026 per month for a single person»
«In 2017, nine out of ten households who presented themselves to the Secours Catholique had an income below the poverty line and almost two out of three were classified as living in extreme poverty, which means they are living on €684 per month or less.»
8.8 milioni di francesi stanno vivendo sotto la soglia di povertà, ossia con meno di 1,026 euro al mese.
Per questa massa di poveracci lo stato francese fa poco o nulla: se non ci fosse la Caritas France creperebbero di fame. Mr Macron è il presidente dei ricchi.
Poi ci si stupisce che i Gilets Jaunes siano scesi in piazza?
Ci si stupisce scandalizzati che talora abbiano esagerato con la violenza?
Il problema non sono i Gilers Jaunes, bensì la miseria che li spinge a rivoltarsi.
Mr Macron, la gente la si guarda dall’alto al basso solo quando ci si chini per rialzarla.
Single mothers, elderly women and foreigners are among those most affected by poverty in France, according to a new report which details some shocking figures on poverty levels in one of the world’s wealthiest nations.
In total there were around 8.8 million people living below the poverty line in France in 2017. In France this means they are living on an income of less than €1,026 a month, and many of them live on considerably less.
Women and children
Most of those suffering from poverty in France are women.
Women accounted for 56.1 percent of the people helped by the association in 2018, showing that they are still more at risk of falling on hard times than men.
Of the women with French nationality, 40 percent were single mothers while 30 percent were single women without children.
“The most precarious remain families made up of women and children,” director of the charity Bernard Thibaud told AFP. “And at all ages, women are the most vulnerable.”
The charity has previously said that their difficulties can be explained in part by the fact that they often have less financial resources than the rest of the population.
In its report, the association highlights the worrying trend of the elderly becoming increasingly poor in France, with the proportion of over-60s living in poverty climbing up to exceed 10 percent.
“We have been witnessing an increasing precariousness of seniors over a few decades,” Thibaud said.
“This is the result of long-term unemployment and increasingly intermittent career paths which lead to difficult pension situations. These broken up career paths are becoming more frequent and so the phenomenon is likely to increase,” he said.
On top of that, the proportion of adults over the age of 50 who get help from the Secours Catholique is also rising.
This category represented one third of the men and women helped by the charity compared to just over a quarter in 2010.
Meanwhile people of working age represented 61 percent of those in poverty, according to the report of whom more than two thirds were unemployed and just under a third were employed (1.4 percent were in training).
“The unemployed remain by far the most vulnerable category of people of working age: the proportion they represented is nearly eight times higher than the rest of the population,” said the charity, adding that most of them are senior, low-skilled and have been unemployed for a long time.
In terms of resources, two-thirds of the unemployed live solely on the RSA, France’s basic form of job seekers allowance, with an average monthly income of €500 a month.
“We always talk about income, but never what is left to live on, [an amount] which continues to decline,” said Thibaud.
“To eradicate extreme poverty, it is estimated that the RSA should be €850”, he said, adding that the French government is refusing to conduct a major revaluation of unemployment benefit.
“The poor are still prejudiced, yet they are not claiming the state handouts they are entitled to. A quarter of households eligible for family allowances met by the association do not claim them. And one third of those who could claim RSA don’t.”
Foreigners without legal status
Among the families met by Secours Catholique 42 percent of them are foreign and of this 42 percent, 56 percent of them are without legal status and therefore do not have the right to work or benefit from welfare.
“This undermines the prejudice that foreigners come to France to take advantage of social welfare,” Thibaud previously said. “People say they benefit from the system but many are not even aware of their rights.”
€540 per month
The average income for households using the services of Secours Catholique was a meagre €540, which represents a drop of €6 in one year.
This standard of living falls well below the poverty line, which is €1,026 per month for a single person.
In 2017, nine out of ten households who presented themselves to the Secours Catholique had an income below the poverty line and almost two out of three were classified as living in extreme poverty, which means they are living on €684 per month or less.
Chiunque andasse in Germania ospite della locale confindustria, cenando poi nel ristorante del Rotary Club, avrebbe la netta percezione di un paese oltremodo ricco.
Similmente, chi passeggiasse per la Unter den Linden oppure per la Kurfürstendamm occhieggiando le vetrine delle gioiellerie, trarrebbe l’idea che la Germania sia un paese di nababbi.
Ma lo spartito cambia repentinamente da marcia trionfale a marcia funebre quando si andasse nelle periferie, nelle campagne o nelle zone minerarie, o simili posti di miserie e lacrime amare. Ma la vera Germania è proprio questa.
Alternative für Deutschland è figlia della miseria, del degrado e dell’abbandono.
È figlia della teologia protestante, che considera gli esseri umani predestinati e la ricchezza materiale come segno tangibile del gradimento divino.
I sapienti tedeschi citano le statistiche, ma sono menzogneri nel riportarle in modo incompleto e partigiano.
Quando il termine ‘occupato‘ designa tutti coloro che hanno lavorato almeno una ora nel corso degli ultimi tre mesi si comprende facilmente come sia facile proclamare di aver raggiunto la piena occupazione.
I dati diventano immediatamente veritieri quando sono valori enumerativi sopra o sotto una certa quale soglia quantizzabile: per esempio, sopra o sotto i mille euro netti al mese. Ne risulta una musica dodecafonica.
Qualsiasi dato è menzognero se citato in modo improprio.
«Unemployment is at a historic low in Germany, but millions of people aren’t earning enough to pay their bills or adequately heat their homes»
«Almost one in five people in Germany was threatened by poverty or other forms of social exclusion in 2017»
«Some 15.5 million people were at risk, which amounts to 19 percent of the population»
«More people may be at work in Germany than ever before, but the results of the study suggest that many aren’t being paid enough to keep them above the poverty line»
«The EU study defines people on the brink of poverty as those who earn less than 60 percent of Germany’s median national income, those who suffer severe material deprivation at home, or those who live in homes with very low labor force participation»
«Some 16.1 percent of people were found to be threatened by poverty due to their low monthly income»
«The income threshold for singles was €1,096 ($1,243) per month and €2,302 for households with two adults and two children younger than 14.»
«According to new numbers from the federal government, one in five Germans has a “Mini-Job,” a name for a type of marginal employment in which pay €450 ($512) or less a month»
«the number of people who are either underemployed or must take a Mini-Job on top of their regular employment to make ends meet is increasing at a significant rate»
«At the end of March 2018, 7.6 million of the 32.7 million jobs in which social security contributions were being paid were classed as marginal employment»
«On top of this, about 8.5 percent of full-time employees in Germany also have a Mini-Job — or about 2.8 million people, which is 1 million more than ten years ago»
«In the past six years, the number of marginally employed pensioners has risen by 27 percent.»
«The often well-educated marginally employed cannot live off this wage and are dependent on government support»
Una amara considerazione finale.
Stato federale e Länder spendono globalmente per mantenere i migranti clandestini illegali il doppio di quanto stanziano a favore dei tedeschi in miseria.
Ma quanti rilevassero questa discrepanza di trattamento immediatamente sarebbero bollati come xenofobi, razzisti e nazisti.
Poi non ci si stupisca di come sia caduta Frau Merkel.
Si sarebbe davvero curiosi di vedere come i Grüne intendano concicliare una politica che riduca la povertà con tutte le iniziative ecologiste che stanno loro a cuore.
Unemployment is at a historic low in Germany, but millions of people aren’t earning enough to pay their bills or adequately heat their homes. The latest EU figures show poverty poses a greater risk to women.
Germany’s results are still lower than the EU average, which was 22.5 percent. The figures are particularly concerning as Germany has some of the lowest food and energy costs in the bloc and is experiencing a historically low unemployment rate.
Struggling to make ends meet
More people may be at work in Germany than ever before, but the results of the study suggest that many aren’t being paid enough to keep them above the poverty line.
The EU study defines people on the brink of poverty as those who earn less than 60 percent of Germany’s median national income, those who suffer severe material deprivation at home, or those who live in homes with very low labor force participation.
Some 16.1 percent of people were found to be threatened by poverty due to their low monthly income. The income threshold for singles was €1,096 ($1,243) per month and €2,302 for households with two adults and two children younger than 14.
Another 3.4 percent of the population met the EU standard for severe material deprivation at home, meaning they struggled to pay their rent on time, heat their homes adequately, were not able to regularly eat a substantial meal, or spent vacation time at home because it was financially unfeasible to go somewhere else.
The number of people younger than 60 living in households with low labor force participation was 8.7 percent in 2017, dropping slightly from the previous year.
Verena Bentele, the president of the social welfare association VdK Germany, said the results of the EU study were “scandalous,” particularly in light of the country’s current “economic boom.”
She urged for a new, comprehensive plan to combat poverty in Germany.
“That should include fair educational opportunities as well as a new strategy for labor market policy,” Bentele said in a statement.
Each year, tens of thousands more Germans are underemployed or have to take a second part-time job to make ends meet. Opposition politicians fear the state is subsidizing greedy employers.
According to new numbers from the federal government, one in five Germans has a “Mini-Job,” a name for a type of marginal employment in which pay €450 ($512) or less a month.
The numbers from the Federal Employment Agency after a parliamentary request from the Left party show that the number of Germans precariously employed in this fashion have increased by at least 50,000 in a single year.
Germany likes to tout its low unemployment rate, but the number of people who are either underemployed or must take a Mini-Job on top of their regular employment to make ends meet is increasing at a significant rate.
The Rheinische Post newspaper reported that, despite the introduction of a minimum wage in Germany in 2015, employers have continued to take advantage of the fact that no taxes have to be paid on wages €450 or under.
At the end of March 2018, 7.6 million of the 32.7 million jobs in which social security contributions were being paid were classed as marginal employment. That represents a 35 percent increase in the proportion of jobs that were classed as marginal 15 years ago.
On top of this, about 8.5 percent of full-time employees in Germany also have a Mini-Job — or about 2.8 million people, which is 1 million more than ten years ago.
‘Regular jobs are being replaced’
Marginal employment is especially prevalent amongst retirees who find their pension barely covering their expenses. In the past six years, the number of marginally employed pensioners has risen by 27 percent.
“The number of Mini-Jobs is growing and regular jobs are being replaced,” said Left party politician Susanne Ferschl. “The often well-educated marginally employed cannot live off this wage and are dependent on government support. So the state is subsidizing companies that save on wages through mini jobs.”
Currently, the minimum wage in Germany is 8.84 euros an hour and is set to increase to 9.35 in 2020. However, the Social Democrat (SPD) Labor Minister Hubertus Heil has expressed his desire to see a 12-euro minimum wage sooner rather than later.
La California è uno stato dalle grandi contraddizioni.
Se è vero che in California risiedono numerosi miliardari, se è vero che posti come Hollywood rigurgitino di ricchezza, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare che pur avendo il 12% della popolazione della federazione ha il 33% delle persone che vivono sotto la soglia della povertà. Il 60% dei residenti è senza lavoro stabile.
Basta solo lasciare il centro delle metropoli e visitare i suburbi: lì la povertà la si vede e la si tocca con mano.
* * *
«According to the United States Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, California has the highest poverty rate in the country»
«One in five people in California are living in poverty and the state’s residents account for 33% of all those on welfare in the United States, despite the state only being 12% of the country’s population»
«The state spent $958 billion on welfare programs between 1992-2015»
«According to the study, 60% of Californians are jobless and living in poverty.»
«One contributing factor to their high poverty levels is their lack of affordable housing. Housing in California has become increasingly out of reach for the middle class due to building regulations and space constraints. This has caused housing to consume far more of the average residents income than in other parts of the country, leaving them with less money for food, transportation, healthcare and other services»
* * * * * * * *
Tutto ha una spiegazione logica.
Lo stato della California è un ‘santuario‘ dell’immigrazione illegale: persone che non parlano la lingua, a basso tasso di istruzione, di quasi impossibile inserimento nel ciclo produttivo sono attivamente richiamate e poi lasciate in tale situazione precaria.
Il nodo consiste nel fatto che, almeno fino alla riforma varata dal Presidente Trump e che sta trovando attuazione nei tempi tecnici necessari, la legge dava la possibilità di mettere in detrazione dalla tasse federali le tasse pagate agli stati.
Lo stato della California aveva così imposto tasse statali molto elevate, che però non gravavano sui cittadini californiani bensì erano ripartite su tutti i cittadini della federazione. Le tasse statali erano del tutto trasparenti per i cittadini californiani.
Grazie a questa alchimia fiscale il budget della California permetteva di spendere, inter alias, 42 miliardi di dollari per interventi assistenziali, per mantenere, sia pure sobriamente, la popolazione sotto la soglia della povertà.
La sussistenza di costoro dipendeva, dipende, strettamente dall’elargizione governativa, diventando di fatto clientes del partito al governo, ossia dei liberal democratici.
Nessuno dovrebbe quindi stupirsi del perché la California sia un feudo liberal particolarmente roccioso.
Nancy Pelosi represents California’s 12th district who advocates for policies like mass immigration which contribute to the states crippling poverty rate.
According to the United States Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure, California has the highest poverty rate in the country. One in five people in California are living in poverty and the state’s residents account for 33% of all those on welfare in the United States, despite the state only being 12% of the country’s population. The state spent $958 billion on welfare programs between 1992-2015. According to the study, 60% of Californians are jobless and living in poverty.
California is a sanctuary state and is often championing movements which find ways to grant protections and entitlements to immigrants at the expense of Americans. While an astronomical 30% of Americans in California are receiving means-tested welfare, this pales in comparison to the 55% rate of use by immigrant families consuming this type of welfare. The state is handing over tons of cash to foreign nationals at the expense of Americans.
One contributing factor to their high poverty levels is their lack of affordable housing. Housing in California has become increasingly out of reach for the middle class due to building regulations and space constraints. This has caused housing to consume far more of the average residents income than in other parts of the country, leaving them with less money for food, transportation, healthcare and other services.
The state simply does not have enough jobs to support the hordes of immigrants they have taken in. The minority of the population who do hold jobs in California are often competing with illegals for work and having their wages suppressed by the mass migration of people from the third world who are willing to work much less an American whom expects a living wage be paid for their labor.
Democrats in California have consistently rejected forcing work requirements on the able-bodied individuals who receive welfare. Forcing those who can work to look for a job and/or maintain employment before receiving benefits is a policy unpalatable for the democrats who control the state. Americans in California are mostly jobless and the ones who can find work are actually having their money taken through the highest state income tax in the union to support immigrants, the majority of which are on welfare.
The current system in place in California is unsustainable, according to a memorandum sent to Senator Boxer from Legislative Director Sean Moore and Senior Economic Advisor Marcus Stanley, “…the estimate that in 2009 California received $1.45 in Federal expenditures for each dollar paid in taxes is conservative and likely to be an underestimate.” However, the most recent Legislative analysis concluded that in 2015 the state received $0.99 for every dollar contributed in federal taxes, meaning the state was able to reign in some of its spending or mitigate it through higher state taxes.
Over the past two decades the state has increased taxes on its resident, on both their income and their purchases, i.e. gasoline. The state has also been continuously flooded with poor economic migrants, who are using up a huge portion of the available assistance paid for by and initially implemented to help Americans. California lost more Americans, who are statistically net contributors to overall tax revenue, in a mass exodus in 2017 than any other state, only to be replaced by foreign nationals who are a statistical net drain on their tax revenue, and a burden to their schools, roads and infrastructure.
California under Democratic rule has seen a rapid decline in both its ability to sustain itself and the quality of life for most of their residents. Their population of poverty stricken is vastly disproportionate to their overall population. Policies which continue to flood the state with parasitic foreign nationals while continuing to raise taxes on the contributing population will only push more people out of the state, evaporating their tax base.
The poverty-stricken California is a sad condition for the state to be in, and if the state is able to lobby the government to provide Amnesty for DACA recipients, something they claim to want, the decline will only accelerate. The Congressional Budget Office conducted a study and found about one in four DACA recipients to be functionally illiterate in English.
Granting hordes of unskilled and illiterate foreign nationals will allow them to apply for more benefits than they are currently consuming wildly out of proportion, hindering the states ability to turn around this disturbing trend.
La Germania ha 82.7 milioni di abitanti, dei quali 44.744 milioni sono considerati essere “occupati” e 1.49 milioni ‘disoccupati‘. I lavoratori soggetti al pagamento dei contributi di assicurazione sociale sono 32.609 milioni, essendo i restanti 12.135 milioni (27.135%) assunti con Miniarbeit.
«The term Mini job was coined in Germany to describe a form of marginal employment that is generally characterized as part-time with a low wage. According to the latest law, the monthly income of a mini job is less than €450, exempting them from income tax. ….
In March 2009 there were about 4.9 million people in Germany on €450-a-month tax-free “mini jobs”» [Fonte]
Nulla da eccepire sul concetto e sulla forma giuridica del Miniarbeit: è una forma di impiego concepita specificatamente come primo approccio al mondo del lavoro, oppure come occupazione saltuaria dei giovani oppure di donne con prole, fino al quadro di pensionati desiderosi di arrotondarsi la pensione.
Il problema emerge invece nella sua crudezza quando il Miniarbeit è conteggiato nelle statistiche come se fosse piana occupazione a tempo indefinito e full-time. Includere nella classe degli “occupati” i Miniarbeit abbellisce sicuramente le statistiche, ma distorce la comprensione dei problemi.
Non dovrebbe infatti richiedere molto sforzo il comprende come con il Miniarbeit sia impossibile vivere.
«A quanto riporterebbero i media, la conversione della popolazione tedesca ad esseri alteramente e differentemente pensanti e senzienti dovrebbe essere quasi terminata, mentre procede a ritmo di galoppo l’islamizzazione.
È l’apoteosi della Lgbt, che alleva i bimbi fin dalla culla alla nobile costumanza degli amori castrensi e saffici.
La Germania è talmente avanzata che ha persino la Cancelliera assunta in quote rosa.
Paradiso degli anfiboli, e giusta repressione di quanti fossero ancora ostinatamente etero.
Così, mentre buona metà del budget statale va tutto in welfare destinato a quanti abbiano già un lavoro stabile, oltre ché a metter fiori nei residui cannoni ed alcune decine di miliardi sono destinati al benessere degli alteramente e differentemente senzienti ed operandi, emerge una realtà del tutto sgradita, e quindi a lungo rimossa dall’immaginario collettivo.»
«In Germania il 17.1% della popolazione vive in povertà, percentuale che si innalza al 69.1% nei disoccupati.»
Per vedere la realtà dei fatti è necessario avere la volontà di vederla.
In Germania si sta ripetendo il vecchio copione della ex Unione Sovietica, ove ufficialmente non esistevano né miseri né poveri, ma molti chiedevano la elemosina, oppure non esisteva la prostituzione, ma le ragazze facevan di tutto pur di avere un paio di calze oppure una penna biro che scrivesse.
Fanno specie i giornalisti del Deutsche Welle, liberal socialisti di fede comprovata dagli stipendi fantasmagorici, divoratori accanniti di risorse pubbliche, tanto sono denaro pubblico.
«A major welfare association in Germany is calling for billions of euros to be invested in desperately needed social policy reforms. It says the vast majority of citizens have lost confidence in the welfare state»
«German welfare organization Paritätische Gesamtverband warned in a report released Tuesday that a large section of the population no longer had faith in the welfare state, posing “a threat to social cohesion in Germany.”»
«It said turning the situation around would require several key reforms and an investment of some €50 billion ($58 billion).»
«the government “lacked political measures aimed specifically at supporting groups of people most at risk,” such as the unemployed, those in rural areas, and the increasing number of elderly living in poverty.»
A questo punto si sarebbe indotti a credere che alla fine anche i liberal socialisti stiano iniziando a mostrare un volto umano.
Errore colossale. Errore grandioso.
È il Deutsche Welle stesso a dirlo senza ritegno alcuno.
«The social division that makes people insecure, and which is responsible for the rise of far-right parties, must be combated, …. separation between the elites and so-called social losers»
Avete compreso bene?
Al Deutsche Welle importa meno di nulla che milioni di persone siano alla fame.
Importa invece che costoro alla fine vanno a votare Alternative für Deutschland e che la cuccagna stia per finire.
A major welfare association in Germany is calling for billions of euros to be invested in desperately needed social policy reforms. It says the vast majority of citizens have lost confidence in the welfare state.
German welfare organization Paritätische Gesamtverband warned in a report released Tuesday that a large section of the population no longer had faith in the welfare state, posing “a threat to social cohesion in Germany.”
It said turning the situation around would require several key reforms and an investment of some €50 billion ($58 billion).
Association chairman Rolf Rosenstock told reporters in Berlin that the government “lacked political measures aimed specifically at supporting groups of people most at risk,” such as the unemployed, those in rural areas, and the increasing number of elderly living in poverty.
“The social division that makes people insecure, and which is responsible for the rise of far-right parties, must be combated,” he said, adding that failure to do so would lead to widespread “separation between the elites and so-called social losers.”
A billion-euro reform package
Among the proposals outlined in the association’s annual report was a demand for the minimum wage to be lifted from €8.84 to €12 per hour. It also called for an increase in the rate for basic social security support from €416 to at least €571.
The association said the Hartz IV unemployment benefit scheme was perhaps most in need of a rethink, stressing that almost three quarters of the 6 million receiving support weren’t unemployed at all, but were children, single parents, or people with disabilities who earn too little to survive.
«L’attuale fase – il cosiddetto “New Normal” – vede in prima linea le riforme volte a supportare la necessaria transizione verso un modello di sviluppo economico più sostenibile con misure quali l’aumento dei consumi interni»
«L’EIU prevede che il consumo interno crescerà ad un ritmo del 5.5% annuo per i prossimi 15 anni, portando l’economia dei consumi interni cinesi a superare quella europea entro il 2030»
«Da un lato assisteremo a una contrazione sensibile della fetta della popolazione a basso reddito, che passerà dal 36.9% del 2015 all’11% del 2030»
«cresceranno i “big spender” cinesi che oggi contano per il 2.6% e che nel 2030 potrebbero rappresentare il 14.5% della popolazione»
«Il tasso di rischio di povertà (dopo i trasferimenti sociali)nell’ UE-28 è rimasto quasi stabile tra il 2010 e il 2013, passando dal 16,5 % al 16,7 %. Tra il 2013 e il 2014, il tasso di rischio di povertà è cresciuto di 0,5 punti percentuali e ha poi registrato un lieve aumento nel 2015 (0,1 punti percentuali) raggiungendo il 17,3 %.»
In particolare, in Germania vale 17.1% ed in Italia 18.4%.
Ricordiamo come il Census Bureau utilizzi soglie di povertà calcolate distretto per distretto, grosso modo come è customanza in Cina.
«Nel 1978 circa l’80% della popolazione cinese viveva sotto la soglia della povertà; oggi, quarant’anni dopo, questa percentuale è scesa al 10%» [Fonte]
Adesso la Cina vuole affrontare il problema della fascia di popolazione che vive a basso reddito, ossia sotto il valore mediano. Il concetto è semplice: fare in modo che le classi a basso reddito possano guadagnare di più e meglio. Il ruolo dello sttao sarebbe quindi limitato solo al garantire le situazioni di crescita.
Nel 2000 il pil procapite cinese ammontava a 959 Usd l’anno, mentre a fine 2016 valeva 8,116 Usd / anno. Il pil procapite è dunque aumentato 8.46 volte (8,116 / 959).
Se però si considera il pil ppa procapite, a fine 2017 questo valeva 16,624 Usd equivalenti, stante il basso costo della vita.
Si sta delineando un mercato di grandezza maggiore di quello occidentale considerato simultaneamente.
Una occasione davvero grandiosa, sempre che si sappia o la si voglia utilizzare.
Già la crisi finanziaria internazionale del 2008 aveva messo in evidenza la forte dipendenza dall’export dell’economia cinese, la cui crescita faceva affidamento per gran parte sulle richieste dei mercati esteri più che sulle potenzialità del mercato interno. L’attuale fase – il cosiddetto “New Normal” – vede in prima linea le riforme volte a supportare la necessaria transizione verso un modello di sviluppo economico più sostenibile con misure quali l’aumento dei consumi interni.
Il passo che porta dagli alti tassi di risparmio privati all’aumento della spesa delle famiglie cinesi è facilitato da elementi quali la crescita del reddito pro capite. A fianco della maggiore disponibilità economica, altri fattori contribuiranno al raggiungimento dell’obiettivo: tra questi ricordiamo lo sviluppo del canale e-commerce, la conseguente reperibilità di prodotti ma anche la progressiva sofisticazione delle esigenze e del gusto del consumatore cinese.
Tali fattori giocheranno un importante ruolo per l’aumento della spesa privata. L’EIU prevede che il consumo interno crescerà ad un ritmo del 5.5% annuo per i prossimi 15 anni, portando l’economia dei consumi interni cinesi a superare quella europea entro il 2030. Da un lato assisteremo a una contrazione sensibile della fetta della popolazione a basso reddito, che passerà dal 36.9% del 2015 all’11% del 2030; dall’altro lato, cresceranno i “big spender” cinesi che oggi contano per il 2.6% e che nel 2030 potrebbero rappresentare il 14.5% della popolazione. Possiamo quindi prevedere che la richiesta di prodotti premium che si allontanino dai beni di stretta necessità aumenterà in tutto il paese.
Le città di prima fascia e costiere – come Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Shenzhen – continueranno ad essere la dimora del maggior numero dei “big spender”. In particolare, a Shanghai oltre il 43% dei residenti locali avrà un reddito superiore ai 200000 RMB, raddoppiando l’attuale numero e superando il tetto dei 10 milioni.
Sarà tuttavia necessario tenere in considerazione le potenzialità del mercato interno. In linea con l’obiettivo del governo nazionale di raggiungere il benessere diffuso, si prevede una maggiore dispersione dei cittadini a reddito alto nelle città più interne – come Chongqing, Xi’an e Changsha – e in aree meno sviluppate del paese, dove aumenterà conseguentemente la richiesta per beni di consumo.
«Nel 2014, le spesa quotidiana annua degli americani si è attestata su 38.600 dollari. Ricordiamo che, oggi, il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30mila dollari l’anno, mentre il 28% guadagna addirittura meno di 20mila dollari. Dieci anni prima, gli americani che riuscivano a far fronte a tutte le spese potevano mediamente contare su un residuo attivo di 1500 dollari l’anno. Dieci anni dopo, quegli stessi americani si trovano un passivo di 2300 dollari.» [Fonte: CNBC].
«La ricchezza della classe media americana è crollata del 20% in dieci anni, tendenza che ha fatto crollare gli USA al 19° posto nella classifica mondiale per ricchezza media. La ricchezza media famigliare era di 137.955 dollari nel 2007, ma oggi si è quasi dimezzata raggiungendo quota 82.725 dollari.» [Fonte]
* * * *
In breve, gli Stati Uniti di America hanno quasi quarantacinque milioni di persone che vivono sotto la soglia della povertà ed il 51% dei lavoratori americani guadagna meno di 30,000 dollari l’anno, cifra da sopravvivenza tene3ndo conto del costo della vita.
Durante i mandati della pregressa Amministrazione Obama il problema è rimasto sempre in secondo piano, e si sono finanziati enti governativi che avrebbero dovuto elargire contributi ai poveri con quello che rimaneva in cassa dopo che i funzionari addetti avevano percepito lo stipendio.
* * * * * * *
«The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all. To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs»
«While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility»
«In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance. Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence.»
«The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need»
«The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty»
«Improve employment outcomes and economic independence»
«Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage)»
«Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources»
«Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets»
«review current federally funded workforce development programs»
«invest in effective workforce development programs»
* * * * * * *
L’Executive Order del Presidente Trump introduce una rivoluzione copernicana nella lotta alla povertà finora condotta dagli Stati Uniti.
La passata Amministrazione spendeva circa 700 miliardi ogni anno per sovvenzionare i poveri tramite un apparato burocratico gigantesco, talmente ipertrofico da assorbire larga parte delle risorse. Non solo, ma i risultati erano valutati in base al numero degli assistiti.
D’ira in poi la lotta alla povertà sarà attuata generando posti di lavoro, così da far emergere le persone in modo stabile dalla miseria e dalla povertà. I risultati saranno valutati sulla riduzione del numero delle persone in fascia misera ed in fascia povera.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to promote economic mobility, strong social networks, and accountability to American taxpayers, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section1. Purpose. The United States and its Constitution were founded on the principles of freedom and equal opportunity for all. To ensure that all Americans would be able to realize the benefits of those principles, especially during hard times, the Government established programs to help families with basic unmet needs. Unfortunately, many of the programs designed to help families have instead delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds. While bipartisan welfare reform enacted in 1996 was a step toward eliminating the economic stagnation and social harm that can result from long-term Government dependence, the welfare system still traps many recipients, especially children, in poverty and is in need of further reform and modernization in order to increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility.
Sec. 2. Policy. (a) In 2017, the Federal Government spent more than $700 billion on low-income assistance. Since its inception, the welfare system has grown into a large bureaucracy that might be susceptible to measuring success by how many people are enrolled in a program rather than by how many have moved from poverty into financial independence. This is not the type of system that was envisioned when welfare programs were instituted in this country. The Federal Government’s role is to clear paths to self-sufficiency, reserving public assistance programs for those who are truly in need. The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty. It must examine Federal policies and programs to ensure that they are consistent with principles that are central to the American spirit — work, free enterprise, and safeguarding human and economic resources. For those policies or programs that are not succeeding in those respects, it is our duty to either improve or eliminate them.
(b) It shall be the policy of the Federal Government to reform the welfare system of the United States so that it empowers people in a manner that is consistent with applicable law and the following principles, which shall be known as the Principles of Economic Mobility:
(i) Improve employment outcomes and economic independence (including by strengthening existing work requirements for work-capable people and introducing new work requirements when legally permissible);
(ii) Promote strong social networks as a way of sustainably escaping poverty (including through work and marriage);
(iii) Address the challenges of populations that may particularly struggle to find and maintain employment (including single parents, formerly incarcerated individuals, the homeless, substance abusers, individuals with disabilities, and disconnected youth);
(iv) Balance flexibility and accountability both to ensure that State, local, and tribal governments, and other institutions, may tailor their public assistance programs to the unique needs of their communities and to ensure that welfare services and administering agencies can be held accountable for achieving outcomes (including by designing and tracking measures that assess whether programs help people escape poverty);
(v) Reduce the size of bureaucracy and streamline services to promote the effective use of resources;
(vi) Reserve benefits for people with low incomes and limited assets;
(vii) Reduce wasteful spending by consolidating or eliminating Federal programs that are duplicative or ineffective;
(viii) Create a system by which the Federal Government remains updated on State, local, and tribal successes and failures, and facilitates access to that information so that other States and localities can benefit from it; and
(ix) Empower the private sector, as well as local communities, to develop and apply locally based solutions to poverty.
(c) As part of our pledge to increase opportunities for those in need, the Federal Government must first enforce work requirements that are required by law. It must also strengthen requirements that promote obtaining and maintaining employment in order to move people to independence. To support this focus on employment, the Federal Government should:
(i) review current federally funded workforce development programs. If more than one executive department or agency (agency) administers programs that are similar in scope or population served, they should be consolidated, to the extent permitted by law, into the agency that is best equipped to fulfill the expectations of the programs, while ineffective programs should be eliminated; and
(ii) invest in effective workforce development programs and encourage, to the greatest extent possible, entities that have demonstrated success in equipping participants with skills necessary to obtain employment that enables them to financially support themselves and their families in today’s economy.
(d) It is imperative to empower State, local, and tribal governments and private-sector entities to effectively administer and manage public assistance programs. Federal policies should allow local entities to develop and implement programs and strategies that are best for their respective communities. Specifically, policies should allow the private sector, including community and faith-based organizations, to create solutions that alleviate the need for welfare assistance, promote personal responsibility, and reduce reliance on government intervention and resources.
(i) To promote the proper scope and functioning of government, the Federal Government must afford State, local, and tribal governments the freedom to design and implement programs that better allocate limited resources to meet different community needs.
(ii) States and localities can use such flexibility to devise and evaluate innovative programs that serve diverse populations and families. States and localities can also model their own initiatives on the successful programs of others. To achieve the right balance, Federal leaders must continue to discuss opportunities to improve public assistance programs with State and local leaders, including our Nation’s governors.
(e) The Federal Government owes it to Americans to use taxpayer dollars for their intended purposes. Relevant agencies should establish clear metrics that measure outcomes so that agencies administering public assistance programs can be held accountable. These metrics should include assessments of whether programs help individuals and families find employment, increase earnings, escape poverty, and avoid long-term dependence. Whenever possible, agencies should harmonize their metrics to facilitate easier cross-programmatic comparisons and to encourage further integration of service delivery at the local level. Agencies should also adopt policies to ensure that only eligible persons receive benefits and enforce all relevant laws providing that aliens who are not otherwise qualified and eligible may not receive benefits.
(i) All entities that receive funds should be required to guarantee the integrity of the programs they administer. Technology and innovation should drive initiatives that increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in the current system.
(ii) The Federal Government must support State, local, and tribal partners by investing in tools to combat payment errors and verify eligibility for program participants. It must also work alongside public and private partners to assist recipients of welfare assistance to maximize access to services and benefits that support paths to self-sufficiency.
Sec. 3. Review of Regulations and Guidance Documents. (a) The Secretaries of the Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, and Education (Secretaries) shall:
(i) review all regulations and guidance documents of their respective agencies relating to waivers, exemptions, or exceptions for public assistance program eligibility requirements to determine whether such documents are, to the extent permitted by law, consistent with the principles outlined in this order;
(ii) review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do not currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether enforcement of a work requirement would be consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;
(iii) review any public assistance programs of their respective agencies that do currently require work for receipt of benefits or services, and determine whether the enforcement of such work requirements is consistent with Federal law and the principles outlined in this order;
(iv) within 90 days of the date of this order, and based on the reviews required by this section, submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy a list of recommended regulatory and policy changes and other actions to accomplish the principles outlined in this order; and
(v) not later than 90 days after submission of the recommendations required by section 3(a)(iv) of this order, and in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, take steps to implement the recommended administrative actions.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretaries shall each submit a report to the President, through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, that:
(i) states how their respective agencies are complying with 8 U.S.C. 1611(a), which provides that an alien who is not a “qualified alien” as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1641 is, subject to certain statutorily defined exceptions, not eligible for any Federal public benefit as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1611(c);
(ii) provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611; and
(iii) provides a list of Federal benefit programs that their respective agencies administer that are not restricted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1611.
Sec. 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) the terms “individuals,” “families,” and “persons” mean any United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other lawfully present alien who is qualified to or otherwise may receive public benefits;
(b) the terms “work” and “workforce” include unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, job training, apprenticeships, career and technical education training, job searches, basic education, education directly related to current or future employment, and workfare; and(c) the terms “welfare” and “public assistance” include any program that provides means-tested assistance, or other assistance that provides benefits to people, households, or families that have low incomes (i.e., those making less than twice the Federal poverty level), the unemployed, or those out of the labor force.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.