[ad_1]
SRF’s “Kassensturz” described several cases on Tuesday. The problem is not new, the program reported on it as early as February 2015.
In the canton of Zurich, municipalities cannot require that the old-age provision be used to pay off debt at the social welfare office. And the Swiss Conference for Social Welfare (Skos) will remove this option from its guidelines early next year. But in Aargau the practice is still legal and municipalities can apply it.
EPP and SP are planning political initiatives
The question is how much longer, because resistance is building. The rapprochement of the Aargau EPP has been a thorn in the side, and not only since the “Kassensturz” report. Fortunately, Skos wants to establish clearer guidelines. Furthermore, it is unfair that it depends on the municipality in which you live, whether the old-age provision should be used to pay off debts or not, ”says Councilor Therese Dietiker. The parliamentary group is working on a proposal and will present it soon. Not only is the lack of uniform regulations unfair, but also the fact that it affects those who have a pension fund. “Anyone who has worked has to give this money to the community. They have as little as someone who has never saved, ”says Dietiker. That’s degrading
The cantonal SP also plans to take action against the Aargau practice. In a communication, the party criticized this as a misuse of pension funds. The Prevention and Social Assistance Law must clearly regulate that the money from the pension funds cannot be used to pay social assistance debts, and the corresponding proposal will be presented in the next parliamentary session. Furthermore, a national framework law is required to regulate the basic characteristics of social assistance for all cantons, as well as the prohibition of this “misappropriation” of funds.
Greens present themselves to the federal government
“If there is a joint initiative, we will join”, announces the president of the Greens, Daniel Hölzle. National Councilor Irène Kälin will also present herself to the federal government soon. “It’s amazing how you can improve your own community treasury at the expense of those who are already poor,” says Kälin. Pension funds have the task of enabling people in old age to lead a dignified life, and the aim of social assistance is to lead people to independence. Therefore, it is not from the point of view of social welfare or old-age benefit that municipalities “reduce” their social spending with money from pension funds. “Therefore, I assume that this practice is illegal,” Kälin said. You will ask the Federal Council; also if it could force the canton of Aargau to issue a blanket ban.
Specifically, the Greens await an opinion from the Federal Office of Social Security. “After all, the canton of Aargau depletes the AHV, which then has to intervene in the gap.” Kälin also reserves the right to make a motion depending on the response of the Federal Council.
FDP-Grossrat defends the practice in individual cases
Adrian Schoop, municipal mayor of Turgi and FDP councilor, would like to keep the regulation. She describes a case from her community: a person was paid money from a pension fund and transferred to relatives at home and abroad, despite social assistance debts. “Municipalities need a margin of discretion to assess and prevent these types of incidents,” said Schoop. He is also against early retirees having to spend all the money from their pension fund to pay off their debts, but: “At least sit down together, make sure that part is paid and in what time frame, it should still be possible “.
Schoop defends himself against the fact that communities are under pressure. It is not about taking money from those affected by poverty, but about the fact that social assistance must be repaid. “Each case must be considered individually,” says Schoop.
Last year, the Grand Council of the Turgi FDP failed with an initiative that demanded that the social welfare legislation be amended in such a way that municipalities know in time about inheritances, gifts and benefits acquired from former welfare recipients. That was a matter for the federal government, he told himself.
