[A QUOTE="Tolentino, post: 689457, member: 50284"]
A few examples of what is unreasonable:
Single parent working non-negotiable shift work.
PhD engineer cleaning toilets (I would also consider this a macroeconomic unreasonable waste).
A person who can only work a maximum of 6 hours per day for health reasons (verifiable) should be sanctioned because they have rejected a 40-hour position.
You are already asking the right question, but unfortunately your own answer falls far too short.
And personally, I do not want a single employee of the employment agency to decide whether someone is able to work or whether a certain job is reasonable for a certain person.
First of all, the state should provide more jobs before resorting to forced labor by coercion.
I do not want the state to waste resources (I mean time and personnel, not money) putting out a capitalist smoke screen before (actually, I don’t want this at all) it has tackled the big buckets (in the multifaceted sense): tax evasion, unfair tax avoidance (exemption needs assessment), and undeclared work (where again, mainly the big players matter, the cleaning staff or someone cutting their neighbor’s hair over the bathtub is simply irrelevant).
Yes, the retiree story sounds good at first. But that is also just a smoke screen.
Firstly, we do not have enough jobs! The shortage of skilled workers is very industry-specific and in many areas (automotive) the trend has already reversed again.
Precarious jobs are not affected by this at all.
But the retirees who have worked their lives in them (and are suitably qualified) are the ones who would even take that chance. The highly educated engineers still needed in some areas no longer want to work and do not need to (financially). Those who want to are not dependent on the 2k allowance to do it—they are intrinsically motivated and have a lot of drive.
Where the shortage is most glaring, e.g. in nursing, money is not the main problem but the inhumane working conditions. Someone who has retired from the job usually can no longer do the job.
The next thing is tax-free overtime. Again, first stimulate the need for the extra work.
How do you prevent piles of full-time workers nominally reducing hours and then doing overtime on part-time contracts (there may already be approaches for this, but I think it is a legitimate question)?
[/QUOTE]
It's a pity that the discussion became awkward in the replies after you.
However, you are right that my "without ifs and buts" was too short-sighted or not sufficiently thought through to the end. To be honest, I mentally assumed that the framework conditions fit for "assigned" jobs. So working hours taking the necessities of the person themselves into account.
Where I still disagree, however, is that an engineer must accept a cleaning job. If the engineer cannot find a job in their field, then it is better that they work something than nothing at all. They can easily continue applying from that job. But discussing this here to the end will probably not succeed anyway.
You can also talk about a night-watchman state. Then it does not intervene at all, the tax burden is correspondingly low, but the social fabric is then torn apart. What I do not like at all is that individual people are not held responsible anymore.
There are quite a few points where one can take action. Both regarding the overall tax system, as well as tax avoidance, and also the social system and its design. One does not exclude the other.