Our societies are ripped off by entrepreneurs who hijack the language of solidarity.
The rich and powerful sponsor charities and cultural institutions, and do a lot of charity. They often emphasize that they want to make a positive contribution to the world, but rarely look at how they could do less harm themselves. Why should our biggest global problems be solved by #superrijken , rather than by our democratically elected institutions — which are being eroded by those same super-empires through #belastingontduiking and lobbies?
We do not become dependent on gifts from the super rich, but we must demand more equality and fairness from business and politics.

The coronacrisis has (again) demonstrated how crucial the public sector is. While health and education forces keep our society running at the moment, precisely these sectors have been under pressure for years; schools are short of money and teachers, nurses are working overtime and police are also stuck. Is this crisis an opportunity to revive - and money - the public sector and other vital professions?

And where is that money supposed to come from? People like Rutger Bregman and Anand Giridharadas have been calling for years that the super rich pay far too little taxes and thereby contribute to increasing inequality and poverty of public services. What opportunities do we have to bridge the growing gap between rich and poor? Why don't we tax the rich just like the ordinary citizens? And what would it do if we did? Tonight, we dive into the world of wealth inequality, taxation and philanthropy to come up with enlightening answers.

'Assistance case' Wijdemeren does not stand in itself: 'Pocket money children had to return'

“Pocket money children had to return”
The case of the anonymous woman with assistance who has to pay back EUR 7000 for receiving groceries does not seem to be on its own. “This is just one of the many excesses that happen to make the news.”

One of the other things is Monique's (full name known to editors). She, like the woman from the municipality of Wijdemeren, was charged with fraud. She had to repay more than 5000 euros because her children had received 20 euros of pocket money a month from her ex-husband. “According to the municipality, these were income,” she says to the NIS.

Monique's children live with her. Therefore, she receives 100 euros of alimony per month. “That amount was far from enough. It was a challenge for me to pay the costs for the children. For a bike, school trips, clothes, school supplies, a computer or a mobile phone, I had no money. For those expenses, my children depended on my ex-husband, who didn't have much money to spend either.”

Therefore, from the moment they went to high school, the children received 20 to 30 euros pocket money per month from her ex-husband. “I never saw that pocket money as part of my income.” It was used by the children for school supplies and clothes, but also for sweets and a mobile phone.

Loading full article...