on RTL News Recently, a man named Chris – a man who seemed to be blessed with quite a few ticks – had the opportunity to complain. He lives comfortably in South Limburg, unfortunately in an area where the rivers overflowed their banks last summer. Quite a few houses were flooded. Although it was not as bad as in Germany or Belgium, Prime Minister Rutte made it a national disaster. “And that means we have decided that the Disaster Damage Compensation Act will apply in this crisis,” he shouted.
Chris had 200,000 euros in damage, something you can easily build a whole house for. But until now he had been reimbursed ‘only’ 170,000 euros. Chris is missing 30 thousand euros. “He can’t even play the piano because of that, because it was also damaged by the flooding,” the reporter reported. All hopes were now pinned on the House of Representatives. The government should have to cough up the last 30,000.
Of course there will be parliamentarians who will allow themselves to be involved in this lobbying cart. If it’s not Pieter Omtzigt, then Geert Wilders or Lilian Marijnissen. And otherwise there is a chat program that gives space to this victim, his counselor or confidant. And then Chris still gets his last 30,000.
It is a time when the government, in this case the community, has to pay for the individual damage of each calamity. It would be much better to invest the money in raising the dikes, improving the watercourse of the rivers and planning houses in places where people can keep their feet dry, as happened with the Delta Works after the flood of 1953, than Chris’ to pay for the piano. That is collective responsibility, rather than compensating to the last cent those who already have the most money, the best wheelbarrows or the best drama to mobilize politics.
It is also a flip side of the neoliberal society in which people continuously ask themselves ‘what’s in it for me?’ This is not only due to politics, but also to the media. Since the emphasis has shifted from state news to street news, the newscasts have been filled with the individual dramas of aggrieved people. When the state pension was introduced in 1958, no ninety-something would have been angry because he or she had not had it in the 25 years before that. Now every medium was paying attention to students who had missed out on the free scholarship in recent years. “Apparently the government thinks we are worth less than the previous generation,” the newspaper said.
Many people over the age of 60 have paid contributions for early retirement (early retirement scheme) for years. This allowed older groups to crawl behind the geraniums at the age of 62, 60 and sometimes even 58. Are they not worth less, just like the Zeelanders who did not receive a piano after 1953?
Solidarity is passé, it’s about who complains the best or the smartest. He gets a new piano.