Uri's Social Assistance Reform Challenges Norms

On May 18, the canton of Uri will vote on a revision of its social assistance law. The proposal includes provisions that have stirred controversy among experts, particularly Article 26, which mandates the consideration of any voluntary asset surrender within the past ten years as income. This means that individuals deemed by authorities to have spent too much money during this period may face reductions in their social assistance benefits.

Critics argue that such practices contradict the constitutional guarantee of support for those in need. A specialist in social assistance from the University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland has raised concerns about the implications of these proposed changes. He highlights a troubling trend where recipients of social aid are increasingly viewed as individuals seeking to exploit state resources, leading to the introduction of stricter regulatory measures.

The core principle of social assistance is to provide a safety net for individuals facing financial hardships, ensuring they receive help regardless of the perceived cause of their situation. This principle, known as the finality principle, should only be compromised in cases of clear abuse. Recent rulings from the Federal Court have reinforced this idea, clarifying that eligibility should not be contingent on the perceived worthiness of the applicant.

Proponents of the new regulation in Uri argue that individuals should not be allowed to squander their resources only to rely on public support afterward. However, the distinction between social assistance and supplementary benefits (EL) must be acknowledged. While supplementary benefits often complement social security systems such as old-age pensions (AHV) or disability insurance (IV), the financial consequences of asset surrenders are typically less severe in those cases.

Critics point out that individuals who face sanctions under supplementary benefits may be penalized again when applying for social assistance for the same circumstances. This creates a cycle of punishment that leaves individuals without adequate support, raising questions about the state's responsibility in ensuring a minimum standard of living.

The potential consequences of including asset surrender in income calculations could lead to the complete elimination of social assistance, leaving only emergency aid, which may provide as little as 8 to 10 Swiss francs for daily necessities. Such amounts fall well below the social minimum defined by the Swiss Conference for Social Assistance (SKOS), violating principles of human dignity.

Defining voluntary asset surrender remains ambiguous. It generally refers to an individual's conscious reduction of their wealth through excessive spending or transfers to others. However, determining the intent behind financial decisions made years prior poses significant challenges, leading to potential inconsistencies and arbitrary enforcement.

Examples may include parents who transfer property to their children only to find themselves unable to cover nursing home costs later or individuals who fall victim to scams. The existing legal framework already provides mechanisms to address cases where individuals attempt to circumvent the system by depleting their assets.

There are concerns that Uri's approach could serve as a precedent for other cantons. For instance, Bern is considering similar revisions to its social assistance laws, while Valais and Lucerne have already adopted related measures, albeit in milder forms. Once a taboo is broken in social assistance policies, it can quickly become normalized.