'You don't take a job as a prostitute, we cut your benefits'

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Mike, your position is inherently a red herring since we don't know if Germany is forcing people into hazardous jobs. We only know that they are forcing people to be raped for a living.

[tharkûn]

Mike, your position is inherently a red herring since we don't know if Germany is forcing people into hazardous jobs. We only know that they are forcing people to be raped for a living.

We do not even know that. Mike's point is that the article merely states that benefits will be reduced. Okay reduced from what to what? Is she going from double the poverty line to the poverty line? Are people utterly destitute once they have their welfare reduced?

People shouldn't be forced into prostitution to meet basic living needs. Starve or become a prostitute is tantamount to rape; but that most likely is NOT what is happening here. Most likely the benefits she still receives after the "reduction" are far more than I would consider the basic minimum needed to sustain life.

So the question becomes which, if any jobs, one should be able to decline without the state slashing overly generous payments to a bare minimum. A 'morality' clause leaves abuse wide open, a 'health and safety' clause means endless dickering about the exact limits of personal endangerment acceptable, and even a 'sex industry' clause can be streched miles wide. One could adopt a "reasonable person" standard and then have individuals review appeals one a case by case basis, but then the standard is objective and enforcement will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Personally my preferred method is the old gradual decline of payment over time. As time progresses, your benifits get cut to whatever bare minimum is set. The big down side to this is that people on the wrong part of the boom-bust curve get hit harder than others. No ethical, moral, or legal arguements about the nature of which jobs the government should push welfare recipients into, just a ticking clock encouraging them to take a job.

[Solauren]

There are lots of other reasons why someone might refuse to take a certain job; the real problem is the policy of penalizing people for making such a decision, regardless of the nature of the job. Making a special exemption for prostitution would be silly.

I agree.

The loophole could be closed nicely with a clause for 'reasonable objection based on moral or ethical grounds, or reasons of health and safety'

For example 'I don't want to work in the that computer factory cause I don't like the work' is not a reasonable objection (at least in my view), however concerns about the safety of the plant would be.

And for the job in question, since most people have a moral/ethical opinion on 'sex-for-sale' (I'm okay with it as long as it's regulated and the person selling the 'product/service' is willing)

In this case, she objects to being forced into the sex trade. That could be viewed as a morale objection.


Another possible close is for the database to include a feature to filter our candidates by jobs they will not work.
i.e this woman should be able to say to the government "Hey, I don't want to be a hooker/work in a brothel" and poof, anyone for such an organization can't pull up her info.

[Edi]

Outside of Darkstar threads and the Axis Kast debates, I' ve honestly never seen as much bullshit posted on this board as in this thread, and this time it seems to be by al parties. Not much of a surprise that all of the posters spouting the bullshit to one degree or another are North Americans with little or no understanding of how European welfare systems work, and it looks like ALL of you failed basic reading comprehension because you like to assume things.. Yes, this applies to EVERYONE in this thread, no exceptions.

The article flat out states the woman was out of work. She had worked in a cafe before, but was currently unemployed (hence it is accurate to call her a waitress), which is why she was getting benefits. She was offered a job as a prostitute, the alternative being that her benefits would be cut. Typically cutting benefits in a situation where the unemployed person refuses work means that the cut is 100% for a period of several weeks or even months (it is here anyway, and the German system is not all that much different from ours). I don't see this as a person demanding more money, I see it as someone who is trying to avoid being forced into prostitution to cover basic living expenses.

Then there is the job situation in Germany: They have, as of yesterday's newspaper, at least 5 million unemployed people, and that count only includes those who are officially unemployed, it does not take into account students etc who might want or need part time work. It is entirely possible that in the woman's situation there are simply no jobs to be had.

In this light, expecting her to become a prostitute against her will cannot be acceptable on any grounds. I can't see an ethical argument that would support such a position, given that rape is a criminal offense (and for good reasons). The government forcing citizens to submit to being victims of a crime is wrong in every possible way.

Never mind that in instances like this when two different laws conflict, it often takes a long and costly court battle to sort it out, because government unemployment offices are the most anal retentive bureaucracies imaginable. As long as there is a single statute anywhere in the law that gives them the right to deny people benefits, they will do that and refuse to budge unless ordered by a court to do so, even when there are statutes that directly support the people they are denying those benefits to.

If the problem is too high benefits, as fgalkin implied (and German benefits are relatively high, but you would have to compare them to cost of living first), then the first thing to do is revamp the benefits system so that it eliminates that problem. However, his comment about Russian immigrants to Germany leads me to think about a scenario where these people draw unemployment benefits while working in the greay market or engaging in other illegal activities moneymaking activities. While not all Russians by any means are of this variety, such ones are common enough that the suspicions are not unfounded.

Edi

[Solauren]

okay, question for Lord Wong

if the German Welfare system wasn't so cushy, and was basically 'we will pay your rent for a room with hydro, a lock and basic food, and if you are lucky you get a private bathroom'

Note I didn't say apartment + extras. A Room with basic power for light and heating, and basic food requirements.

Would you be able to get worked up about the woman being put into the "work as a hooker or lose even that?"

I have known welfare bums. I have known/suspected (and reported) welfare cheats. And I wouldn't even force them into the sex industry. The military in a non-combat role maybe, or a risky job with book pay, but not the sex industry.

[Robert Walper]

I have some really good looking female friends, who are awesome people (some that I even have really strong feelings for). The idea that if they got stuck without work, and were really trying to find work but the only avaliable employment being prostitution (thus being forced into that decision) makes me physically ill.

[Slartibartfast]

It's very simple: if she can't get a job, and the government can't afford to pay every unemployed person's lifestyles, then she can starve.

Nobody's forcing her to accept a job she doesn't want.

[Durandal]

The article flat out states the woman was out of work. She had worked in a cafe before, but was currently unemployed (hence it is accurate to call her a waitress), which is why she was getting benefits.

Calling her a waitress implies that she currently holds a job as one. If she doesn't have a job, she's unemployed. Period. You can't be an unemployed waitress. Furthermore, the article flat-out states that her field is IT. Why they called her a waitress is beyond me. All it did was confuse things.

She was offered a job as a prostitute, the alternative being that her benefits would be cut. Typically cutting benefits in a situation where the unemployed person refuses work means that the cut is 100% for a period of several weeks or even months (it is here anyway, and the German system is not all that much different from ours). I don't see this as a person demanding more money, I see it as someone who is trying to avoid being forced into prostitution to cover basic living expenses.

So how exactly is this a threat? If they're at the point where they're offering her a job, she's going to lose those benefits anyway. If she refuses, she loses the benefits. If she takes the job, she loses the benefits because she's no longer unemployed and hence ineligible.

This isn't exactly a threat. It's the government saying, "Okay, your benefits are up. We've got a job lined up for you if you want it." It's a favor, not a threat. At least that's how I understand it. Nothing is stopping her from applying to other places or taking other offers.

[Edi]

The article flat out states the woman was out of work. She had worked in a cafe before, but was currently unemployed (hence it is accurate to call her a waitress), which is why she was getting benefits.

Calling her a waitress implies that she currently holds a job as one. If she doesn't have a job, she's unemployed. Period. You can't be an unemployed waitress. Furthermore, the article flat-out states that her field is IT. Why they called her a waitress is beyond me. All it did was confuse things.

How is calling her an unemployed waitress inaccurate? She has has worked as one, but is currently unemployed, and the term is a good description of that. It is not that difficult to understand. As for the IT part, it did not confuse me at all. Trained in the IT field, unable to find work that matches her education, reduced to doing other stuff (like temporarily being a waitress) and currently unemployed. Not an unusual situation at all, and not difficult to grasp.

She was offered a job as a prostitute, the alternative being that her benefits would be cut. Typically cutting benefits in a situation where the unemployed person refuses work means that the cut is 100% for a period of several weeks or even months (it is here anyway, and the German system is not all that much different from ours). I don't see this as a person demanding more money, I see it as someone who is trying to avoid being forced into prostitution to cover basic living expenses.

So how exactly is this a threat? If they're at the point where they're offering her a job, she's going to lose those benefits anyway. If she refuses, she loses the benefits. If she takes the job, she loses the benefits because she's no longer unemployed and hence ineligible.

This isn't exactly a threat. It's the government saying, "Okay, your benefits are up. We've got a job lined up for you if you want it." It's a favor, not a threat. At least that's how I understand it. Nothing is stopping her from applying to other places or taking other offers.

It is rather different from a normal situation. Forced or coerced sex is defined in the law as rape, yet she is supposed to meekly go and spread her legs against her will because she is offered that as a job? So it's okay for the government to force people to become victims of a crime? Would you be willing to bend over and take it up the arse if offered that as a job?

No, nothing is stopping the woman from applying to other places or taking another offer, but if her applications are rejected and she is not given any other offers, what then?

True enough that the government offering a job or conveying a job offer from a private employer is a favor, but prostitution is a special case. As long as the recipient of the offer is ready to do that of her own free will, there is nothing wrong with it, but if she is not, it becomes the government coercion to submit to being a crime victim if her benefits will be cut for refusal to submit to that. Any other job, and your argument would have no holes in it.

Edi

[Alan Bolte]

I'm not clear on something. Are her benifits being cut because a job became available, or are they being cut at that particular time and they said 'here's the only job we know is available'?

[Edi]

I'm not clear on something. Are her benifits being cut because a job became available, or are they being cut at that particular time and they said 'here's the only job we know is available'?

They're cutting her benefits because she refuses to take the job they are offering her, namely the job of a prostitute. If she had not been offered that, this article would not exist.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

I'm not clear on something. Are her benifits being cut because a job became available, or are they being cut at that particular time and they said 'here's the only job we know is available'?

They're cutting her benefits because she refuses to take the job they are offering her, namely the job of a prostitute. If she had not been offered that, this article would not exist.

Edi

And there is no welfare system in Germany, the land of free university for everyone? Once unemployment benefits are cut off, she is left to starve? I call bullshit.

[Edi]

I'm not clear on something. Are her benifits being cut because a job became available, or are they being cut at that particular time and they said 'here's the only job we know is available'?

They're cutting her benefits because she refuses to take the job they are offering her, namely the job of a prostitute. If she had not been offered that, this article would not exist.

Edi

And there is no welfare system in Germany, the land of free university for everyone? Once unemployment benefits are cut off, she is left to starve? I call bullshit.

If there is a secondary safety net, it is probably dependent on an individual's right to drawing anything from the primary one running out, will be substantially less and how much is paid out is dependent on how much the official dealing with your application decides you should get. And refusing to take a job offered through the government unemployment agency typically means cutting off all benefits for a set period. Applying for secondaries in a situation like that will immediately have the official citing the decision by the unemployment agency to cut the primary benefits because of refusal, and that will be used as justification for holding out secondaries (because refusal obviously means the person has enough resources to do without it, no exceptions).

These systems work largely in this fashion, and getting any kind of decisions reversed is time-consuming and costly, and usually requires resorting to courts. It'd help if some of the German posters who are more familiar with the particulars of their system told us how the details of the system work, then we would have a better idea of this issue.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

If there is a secondary safety net, it is probably dependent on an individual's right to drawing anything from the primary one running out, will be substantially less and how much is paid out is dependent on how much the official dealing with your application decides you should get. And refusing to take a job offered through the government unemployment agency typically means cutting off all benefits for a set period. Applying for secondaries in a situation like that will immediately have the official citing the decision by the unemployment agency to cut the primary benefits because of refusal, and that will be used as justification for holding out secondaries (because refusal obviously means the person has enough resources to do without it, no exceptions).

And there is no conceivable situation other than prostitution where somebody might have good reason to refuse a job? There is no way this hasn't come up before, and the article certainly makes no mention of her troubles switching to basic welfare, which means she hasn't even tried yet. Instead, she went straight to the press to sell her story.

These systems work largely in this fashion, and getting any kind of decisions reversed is time-consuming and costly, and usually requires resorting to courts. It'd help if some of the German posters who are more familiar with the particulars of their system told us how the details of the system work, then we would have a better idea of this issue.

Edi

If you need a German with direct knowledge of their welfare systems to explain to you how it works, then where do you get off claiming that you have special knowledge of these systems compared to everyone else in this thread?

[Edi]

If there is a secondary safety net, it is probably dependent on an individual's right to drawing anything from the primary one running out, will be substantially less and how much is paid out is dependent on how much the official dealing with your application decides you should get. And refusing to take a job offered through the government unemployment agency typically means cutting off all benefits for a set period. Applying for secondaries in a situation like that will immediately have the official citing the decision by the unemployment agency to cut the primary benefits because of refusal, and that will be used as justification for holding out secondaries (because refusal obviously means the person has enough resources to do without it, no exceptions).

And there is no conceivable situation other than prostitution where somebody might have good reason to refuse a job?

Yes, there are. Such as allergies to chemicals necessary to perform certain jobs, but they are hardly analoguous to the question here. The defining question is when is it willing work as a prostitute and when is it forced rape.

There is no way this hasn't come up before, and the article certainly makes no mention of her troubles switching to basic welfare, which means she hasn't even tried yet. Instead, she went straight to the press to sell her story.

Assumption on your part. I'd like to see your evidence, as there are a number of plausible ways this could have ended up in the press. Such as writing to a Letters to the Editor section a newspaper when she ran into a bureaucratic brick wall (easy to do in Germany, I've relatives who have lived there and they found out the hard way that the German bureaucracy is totally inflexible, no matter what the circumstances). If such a letter was published, the reporters would seek her out instead of the other way around, and the story would come out.

These systems work largely in this fashion, and getting any kind of decisions reversed is time-consuming and costly, and usually requires resorting to courts. It'd help if some of the German posters who are more familiar with the particulars of their system told us how the details of the system work, then we would have a better idea of this issue.

Edi

If you need a German with direct knowledge of their welfare systems to explain to you how it works, then where do you get off claiming that you have special knowledge of these systems compared to everyone else in this thread?

Given the evidence of previous posts in this thread, I obviously have a better idea of how European welfare systems work in the general sense than the previous posters (most of them North Americans) did, and I defy you to find me a quote where I claim special knowledge about the particulars of the German system. The welfare systems in several countries here are very similar and tend to work very much by the same principles, so this argument of yours is nothing but a nitpick, as it does not address the points I've made.

If you missed the point where I acknowledged in my first post that the German and Finnish systems are similar but not the same, you should go and have your eyes checked. There could be errors in my arguments depending on the exact particulars of the German welfare system, which is why I would not mind someone with better knowledge than my own putting in their two cents.

Remember, all I have to do is make a better argument than the ones so far presented to strike them down, it is not required that the argument be perfect. And you know from experience that when defeated, I'm not at all averse to admitting it, it's just that so far I've not seen anything in this thread that fills those qualifications.

[Patrick Ogaard]

The German unemployment and welfare systems are complicated. After all, the laws and regulations come from the same country that has produced something close to three quarters of the world's total tax code material. Thus I may be misunderstanding some of it, or completely missing certain aspects. Regardless, here goes:

Roughly speaking, and I do mean very roughly, someone who has been employed at a level sufficient to have to pay unemployment insurance contributions, and that means almost anything beyond specifically exempt minor jobs, has to pay in for at least 16 months to get the minimum initial unemployment benefit for at least 8 months. Someone who's paid contributions for at least 36 months gets up to 18 months. Basically, that's what in current German terminology should be "Arbeitlosengeld I". It amounts to something close to 60-67% of net pay, dependent on things like having dependants. There's also a cap of 5,200 Euro on the basis of calculation, so no one's going to get more than around 3,000 or so Euro per month.

After the unemployment benefits run out, there is a threefold path: Grundsicherung (basically social security for those unable or too old to work), Arbeistlosengeld II (AKA ALG II, basically reduced unemployment benefits), or Sozialhilfe (classic welfare). It used to be that there was Arbeitslosenhilfe, not financed by worker contributions but by taxes, and with similar but slightly reduced benefits, instead of ALG II.

The big stink currently is that the introduction of ALG II has led to the effective elimination of a long-cherished tradition of German unemployment benefits: the out of work not being compelled to do work they might consider beneath them and that might damage their dignity. Under the old system, a suitably highly qualified person could conceivably truck on for ages, collecting benefits almost indefinitely without having to take a "lesser" job.

Basically, if one runs out of time under ALG I or turns down too many theoretically legit job offers, one can be bumped down to ALG II. That amounts to having to touch your personal savings (insofar as they exceed the 4.1k to 13k Euro exemption, sum based on age, that can't be touched); making do with about 345 Euros a month (in the West, slightly less in the East); having only one "reasonable" car; and having a "reasonable" apartment of no more than 40 square meters for a single person, plus a formula for couples and kids and so forth, with more square meters allowed for homeowners. In theory, the authorities could make one move to a smaller apartment, or sell too flashy a car. Basically, if the authorities haven't screwed up their math, ALG II is supposed to be just enough to get by on while looking for work, and should include basic medical coverage.

Welfare (Sozialhilfe) benefits are lower, in the Euro 280s to 290s monthly, with payment of basic housing, basic utilities, basic medical insurance, and small sums for things like Christmas presents for the kids, or occasional new clothing or replacement furniture. It used to be that a new washer, refrigerator, bed or TV had to be specifically authorized, but I believe (but don't know for a fact) that most of those things are being phased out in favor of lump sums, basically things like a clothing allowance, a furniture allowance, etc.

It's a freakishly complicated system.

One can't however, be compelled, even under ALG II, to do work one is not physically, mentally or emotionally capable of doing. A job as a prostitute should certainly qualify as a job outside of the physical, mental or emotional capabilities of many people. Worst case, she could take the authorities to court (and presumably not having much money, she'd likely qualify for monetary aid from the government in pursuing her case).

[Sebastin]

OK, there seems to be a lot of confusion in this as to what is actualy going on, so please allow me to provide some thoughts. I haven´t read the thread closely, so i´m sorry if i answer anything that has already been said. Please note that i´m no expert on these matters. Also the german welfare system is in the process of extensive reforms so all of this is without guarantee.

1. The german welfare net has multiple levels. Upon losing his job someone first gets "unemployment money" for a short time, which is basicaly his old salary. Then comes "unemployment help" which is a percentage of the old salary and may be paid for up to several years, depending on how long the job was held. The bottom line then is "social help" which is paid indefenitly and cannot be reduced.

2. "Social help" is quite limited. One can live of it (thats the point), but it will be a simple life. For example controllers visit the homes of families on social help to check on their status and one has to seek their approval for individual larger purchases. Say for a new bed or desk or stuff like that. Of course some people are still content with that, some always are.

3. The idea is that if someone on unemployment support rejects an offered job for which he is eglible then said support would be reduced (not cut!). This is a fairly new development and still fairly controversial.

4. One is of course ineglible for a job if there are medical reasons (as certified by a doctor). I´m also about 99% sure that one can reject any job because of moral objections, mostly because more or less anything in germany has such a clause. For example you can even get out of conscription for being morally opposed to military service. One would just have to explain these objections in a believable way. That should be easy for prostitution.

5. When prostitution was officially recognized as a profession there was a lot of talk in the media about what this means in combination with 3. This was somewhat less than a year ago iirc. At the time many politicians, including those who pushed for the laws in 3., came out to say that, yes, this means that under these laws a woman would have to accept a job as a prostitute and that this is of course completely unintentional. The law was however already passed before anyone thought about it. There was a lot of handwringing among the responsible politicians and a general consensus that it would be easiest to just let the constitution court shoot it down as soon as it gets the first case. ( The porcess is much shorter and easier than the legislative process of making the change, even if everyone agrees on the general points.)

6. When laws collide it is upon the courts, and ultimately the constitution court, to decide what takes precedent. However just like the us supreme court it´s german equivalent cannot rule on something without an actual case. The cases that get ruled upon are almost always arranged by various interest groups for that specific purpose. I strongly suspect this is what happens here. It would also neatly expain the silence of the media, which almost never focuses on the case in such trials.

7. The very first article of the german constitution guarantees that human dignity must not be infringed upon. This trumps even the protection of life and limb (art. 2). There is no way that this law will stand.

8. For Mike: Germany doesn´t have and never had free university education for everyone. Where did you get this from?

[Sebastin]

Snip

Damn you for typing faster than a handicapped turtle (which would be my pace). And you seem to know more about this stuff too.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Snip

Damn you for typing faster than a handicapped turtle (which would be my pace). And you seem to know more about this stuff too.

Don't let the Euro figures fool you. Anyone can google those up. What I wrote is pretty much everything I know on the subject, and much more than I really want to know.

As for my fast typing, ruining my wrists in typing class has finally paid off (and after only twenty years).

[Steven Snyder]

When I came to these boards I was a die-hard republican conservative, albiet an atheist. But as time goes on I find myself agreeing more with Mr. Wong more often.

You want to get government assistance, you play the game. Being on welfare shouldn't be a pleasant experience, you should be motivated to get off it. Individuals who can't stand on their own two feet are "Beggars" clad them in whatever deceptive terms please you, but at the end of the day they are still beggars.

No one is forcing her to do this, she has alternatives. Live on the street, find a relative to take care of her, join the military, she HAS options. And even if she chose prostitution THIS IS NOT RAPE. Rape is a crime of violence, where someone (a man usually) forceably takes what he wants from a someone who is usually a woman, upon the threat of death or serious bodily harm. You people who are claiming that this is rape are cheapening the term rape, watering it down to mean what you want it to mean because it is convenient to you.

If she has kids then she better damned well swallow her pride and morals and do what she has to do for the sake of her children. If she is too damned proud to take this job then her kids need to be in a home where the parents have their priorities straight. I would walk through fire for my children, and I damned well expect other parents to do the same.

The more I think about this, the less pity I have. She has been offered a job...there are far worse fates in the world than to get paid to look good and fuck people.

[Keevan_Colton]

Steve, your definition is bullshit, the law in scotland for example has been specifically changed so that rape is explicitly not defined by violent force because frankly, that doesnt work.

Rape can take the form of violent force, but it can also take the form of abusing those of diminished capacity (for example using date rape drugs) you are the one who is cheapening the term by limiting it to a small section of what is a very serious crime.

[Darth Wong]

The big stink currently is that the introduction of ALG II has led to the effective elimination of a long-cherished tradition of German unemployment benefits: the out of work not being compelled to do work they might consider beneath them and that might damage their dignity. Under the old system, a suitably highly qualified person could conceivably truck on for ages, collecting benefits almost indefinitely without having to take a "lesser" job.

I have never understood why this would be considered a mandatory feature of a welfare system. We have welfare recipients in Canada as well who reject work that is "beneath their dignity", and I'm not talking about prostitution. I'm talking about being a waiter, etc.

Basically, if one runs out of time under ALG I or turns down too many theoretically legit job offers, one can be bumped down to ALG II. That amounts to having to touch your personal savings (insofar as they exceed the 4.1k to 13k Euro exemption, sum based on age, that can't be touched); making do with about 345 Euros a month (in the West, slightly less in the East); having only one "reasonable" car; and having a "reasonable" apartment of no more than 40 square meters for a single person, plus a formula for couples and kids and so forth, with more square meters allowed for homeowners. In theory, the authorities could make one move to a smaller apartment, or sell too flashy a car. Basically, if the authorities haven't screwed up their math, ALG II is supposed to be just enough to get by on while looking for work, and should include basic medical coverage.

Welfare (Sozialhilfe) benefits are lower, in the Euro 280s to 290s monthly, with payment of basic housing, basic utilities, basic medical insurance, and small sums for things like Christmas presents for the kids, or occasional new clothing or replacement furniture. It used to be that a new washer, refrigerator, bed or TV had to be specifically authorized, but I believe (but don't know for a fact) that most of those things are being phased out in favor of lump sums, basically things like a clothing allowance, a furniture allowance, etc.

I'm having trouble seeing how movement to one of these lower tiers could possibly be considered "coercion".

It's a freakishly complicated system.

One can't however, be compelled, even under ALG II, to do work one is not physically, mentally or emotionally capable of doing. A job as a prostitute should certainly qualify as a job outside of the physical, mental or emotional capabilities of many people. Worst case, she could take the authorities to court (and presumably not having much money, she'd likely qualify for monetary aid from the government in pursuing her case).

Since there was a big political stink about this a year ago, I suspect she or her lawyer was spoiling for this fight. The odds of someone realistically having no possible chance at any job but prostitution are not very high.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, there are. Such as allergies to chemicals necessary to perform certain jobs, but they are hardly analoguous to the question here. The defining question is when is it willing work as a prostitute and when is it forced rape.

It is not forced rape; this is the worst kind of deceptive bullshit rhetoric and I'm tired of your constant misuse of the term. This is like saying that a guy who refuses to pay for dinner unless he gets sex is a fucking rapist.

Given the evidence of previous posts in this thread, I obviously have a better idea of how European welfare systems work in the general sense than the previous posters (most of them North Americans) did,

Oh for fuck's sake, your only argument is that she might have to wait a few weeks or months to switch to a lower tier because of bureaucratic red tape. You think that's unique to Europe?

Canadian systems can make you wait 6 weeks or more to start a new form of government benefits as well; big fucking deal. That's why they also have tenant protection acts, shelters, and food banks, so that even if you're in serious trouble financially you don't literally have to worry about starvation or freezing to death. So drop the "rape" angle; it's nothing but empty-headed rhetorical nonsense.

This is about how much welfare she thinks she should be able to get from the government, not rape.

[Steven Snyder]

Steve, your definition is bullshit, the law in scotland for example has been specifically changed so that rape is explicitly not defined by violent force because frankly, that doesnt work.

Rape can take the form of violent force, but it can also take the form of abusing those of diminished capacity (for example using date rape drugs) you are the one who is cheapening the term by limiting it to a small section of what is a very serious crime.

Yet nothing you have said actually supports the case that prostitution is rape.
Are you implying that because she is poor she has "diminished capacity"? No you are the one who cheapens an act of brutality.

And changes to the law in Scotland are not what we are discussing here.

[Edi]

Patrick, Sebastin, thanks for the input.

As far as my arguments so far have been presented, I acknowledge that they have contained mistakes (e.g. the temporary 100% cut of benefits that is in force here for refusal only has a milder version of reduced benefits in Germany). In other respects the German system is almost entirely similar to ours, but the Finnish one has defined stricter limits so that it cannot be strung along so easily. We've got the "67% of last pay" system for 500 days, after which you automatically drop to basic unemployment benefits, and if and when that runs out, there is basic social welfare, but both of the latter are insufficient to even pay an average rent in the capital (€500+ per month, minimum), never mind everything else on top of that. There are also some private trust fund type setups that you can join and that can give some additional benefits, but you obviously have to pay extra for those. I'm not sure if they lower the general benefits somewhat.

All of this doesn't change the main thrust of my arguments, though (assuming we're not talking about Arbeitslosengeld I recipients). As demonstrated by Sebastin's points 3 and 5, it is recognized as a problem there and they are waiting for the courts to strike it down. Were such a situation to rise here (hypothetical, as it is not going to happen anywhere in the near future), it would be handled via legislative change at the Parliament, because it would be quicker.

Edi