Opinion Surcharges scandal

Opinion: Make sure that “mistakes”, such as surcharges, do not lead to catastrophes again

A benefits affair does not have to be repeated, but then the House of Representatives must understand what went wrong, write Arjen Siegmann and Maarten Werksma.

Arjen Siegmann country Maarten Werksma June 27, 2024, 22:00

This is a submitted opinion piece. The position in this article is not necessarily also Trouw's position.

The recovery operation for benefits has received an enormous boost because of Princess Laurentien's personal involvement and intent. According to an official, her foundation would first pay far too high amounts, which was difficult to explain to taxpayers. But the House of Representatives now believes that the “Laurentien method” can continue. As it turned out, parents get the feeling of being really heard and seen for the first time.

But the “Laurentien method” also contains an enormous lesson for the future: political decision-making must take much more account of the damage that a system can cause. This isn't just about money.

Fewer procedures

Sure: damage repair will cost a lot of money. Amounts of up to 14 billion euros are circulating for the entire government's recovery operation. These are not the amounts that go through the Equal Recovery Foundation, the “Laurentian Method”. A pilot carried out, which, by the way, included the most serious cases, shows that the costs of the 'method' are low. The damages are comparable to what the State itself pays out and leads to significantly fewer court proceedings.

But no matter how high the final amount will be, the damage repair is probably justified. People's lives have been turned upside down to such an extent that it is often impossible to make up for it with any amount of money.

But if you only look at today's costs, you're missing something. After all, the Netherlands faces a major political choice. There must be an alternative to the allowance system counterclockwise or clockwise.

The message of the benefits affair is 'never this again'. The amount of total damage, personal and financial, should alert us. One of the pillars of the reformed surcharges should consist of preventing damage afterwards.

Because damage occurs during implementation. Every system should be wary of inattention, misinterpretations or mistakes on the part of the people who have to live with it, even if the chance of this is very small. The implementation of social policy — and surcharges in particular — must therefore build in different layers of certainty so that small mistakes do not lead to catastrophes.

No artificial reality

Damage almost certainly occurs when rules are complicated. With each new rule, there will be new people who interpret them differently, are inattentive, or make mistakes.

And we write “mistakes” reluctantly. People are not wrong: they are forced into actions they did not ask for. Politicians must learn that they cannot create artificial reality under the guise of the “calculating citizen”. Simple rules have an intrinsic value because they prevent damage caused by misinterpretation.

Damage is also caused by tax laws that are swept through parliament under high pressure. The lack of a hardship clause in surcharges was one of the major causes of the affair. Citizens could not object if the law had unintended consequences for them. Nevertheless, this was a conscious choice by our representatives. While something that has such a big impact on people needs to be discussed with lawyers, independent experts and experience experts.

Former CDA senator Peter Essers has been pointing out the poor quality and procedural shortcomings of tax legislation for years. Secretary of State Van Rij has also pointed this out. The House of Representatives has full control over this. After all, she decides how to deal with the tax plan and what space the government gets for ad hoc policy.

One of the classic “cardinal” virtues is Prudentia, prudence. Foresight, looking ahead is a principle that will also prove itself in the future. The state must see preventing and repairing damage as a new political virtue.

Arjen Siegmann is professor of economics at the VU and a staff member at the CDA Scientific Institute

Maarten Werksman is Werksma is a board advisor at BS&F, a consulting company for social policy and care

Also read: The cabinet doubles the waiting time for allowance parents

The state is making allowance parents wait months longer for a decision on their additional compensation, in order to be less likely to end up in legal proceedings.

Just before her departure, Minister Carola Schouten tries to soften the harsh social assistance rules.

No unjustified discounts more on carer benefits. Away with the duty for social assistance recipients to report gifts and gifts. Minister Schouten quickly presents that proposal to the House of Representatives before the new cabinet takes office.