Concurrence of schemes is detrimental to the group of sole earners on benefits | News item

News item | 29-03-2023 | 10:35

There are many different schemes, from different government agencies, that are intended to ensure that people can make ends meet and build a secure existence. This has become a complex system over the years. If you use multiple schemes (such as allowances and UWV benefits), schemes may conflict with each other. This is currently detrimental to a group of sole earners with benefits from the UVW or private income insurance. The government is making every effort to find a solution for this.

Everyone in the Netherlands must have an income that you can use to get by. People with low incomes receive extra support through allowances. Due to an unfavorable concurrence of schemes, the income for some households is too low. This concerns a group of couples or couples for whom the benefit, such as the WIA or WW, of one of the two partners is the couple’s only income. Due to different schemes that conflict with each other, so-called ‘coincidence of schemes’, they receive fewer allowances than a comparable couple or couple on social assistance benefits.

It works like this: because they have only one income (the benefit of one partner, the other has no income), they pay more tax than a couple or couple with social assistance benefits (both partners receive a benefit and, so to speak, twice their income). enters). This is because they are entitled to the general tax credit once, if income comes in for two people, you are entitled to this twice. As a result, they need a higher gross income to achieve the same net income as a couple on social assistance benefits. On this higher gross income, the couple already loses benefits. As a result, the disposable income (net income + benefits) of couples with one income is lower than that of a couple on social assistance benefits. This is an undesirable outcome. Earlier analyzes showed that about 5,700 households are affected by this problem. Another group has recently come into the picture, which means that, based on current insights, the total size of the group is about 10,000 households.

In recent years, intensive efforts have been made to find a solution to the problem. Different solutions were considered by different cabinets, but the disadvantages were always too great. Due to a recent ruling by the Central Appeals Board (CRvB) and because a larger group has come into the picture, the cabinet is once again reviewing the possible solutions. The cabinet wants to work on this together with municipalities, UWV and the Benefits Agency, social counselors and experts by experience. Before the summer, the cabinet will elaborate on the possible solutions.

ttn-17