Bewertung und Relevanz der Karenzzeit beim Vermögen im Bürgergeld

Abstract

"Means-tested basic income benefits according to SGB II for individuals capable of working and their families secure the legally defined minimum income. The benefits are granted if the cost of living cannot be fully financed from one’s own income and assets or the assets of relatives living in the household (community of needs). Local job centers are responsible for providing the benefits as well as for conducting activation programmes. In the first year of receiving basic income benefits, there is a one-year grace period for assets. During the grace period, assets of up to 40,000 euros for the first person and 15,000 euros for each additional person in a community of needs are not taken into account when assessing the entitlement. This research report brings together results on the evaluation and relevance of the grace period for assets in SGB II from surveys of the working population and job center employees and additionally provides information on the relevance of various hypothetical asset limits implemented in SGB II for fiscal costs and the number of potential benefit recipients based on microsimulation results. The survey results on the assessment of the regulation among employees and those receiving income benefits show a rather divided picture, although the majority of respondents consider it positive that in the first year benefits can be received even with higher savings. The regulation is particularly popular among unemployed people and the self-employed, while employees subject to social security contributions are somewhat more critical of it. Approval also tends to increase with the amount of savings in the household. The majority of the job center employees surveyed rate the grace period as not very useful. On the one hand, it does create security for those affected. On the other hand, the grace period for assets irritates the job center employees’ sense of justice because need has long been defined differently - i.e. less generously. Regarding the relevance of the grace period, 93 percent of job center employees involved in advice and placement say that the grace period for assets is never or very rarely a topic in their advisory meetings. The grace period rule also has little significance for the approval of benefits. On average across all job centers, benefit administrators report having processed 1.7 initial applications for benefits with assets in the range relevant to the grace period during the last month. Even fewer cases (0.5) are reported on average where benefits had to be refused after the end of the grace period due to high assets. The information on household savings of the employed persons surveyed also suggests that only a small proportion of those receiving benefits actually gain from the grace period rule. Only 2 percent of those receiving benefits report savings in the relevant range, while for people not receiving benefits the figure is 14 percent. Analyses and simulations based on the SOEP show low amounts of wealth among those entitled to social benefits. As the assets to be taken into account do not include, in particular, residential property and the car, the remaining liquid assets rarely exceed the protective wealth limits in the basic income support. This effect is further intensified during the first 12 months in which only substantial assets are considered. Raising the wealth thresholds therefore leads to additional costs of the basic income support. Communities of need whose assets were slightly above the original asset threshold and were therefore not entitled to benefits become eligible again. However, the effect decreases as the asset threshold increases, as most households with higher assets also have significant income and would therefore not be entitled to benefits regardless of the asset threshold." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))

Cite article

Bruckmeier, K., Sommer, M., Bernhard, S. & Wiemers, J. (2025): Bewertung und Relevanz der Karenzzeit beim Vermögen im Bürgergeld. (IAB-Forschungsbericht 14/2025), Nürnberg, 39 p. DOI:10.48720/IAB.FB.2514