Inclusion Check: Does This Requirement Unfairly Exclude Families?

The Transition from Citizenship Income to Inclusion Allowance

The shift from Citizenship Income to Inclusion Allowance has led to a change in requirements that has significantly reduced the number of beneficiaries.
While some argue that the government aimed to provide support only to those unable to work, others believe that some exclusions are unjustified and affect families in genuine need.

Changes in Property Ownership Requirement

Under Citizenship Income, the ownership of a primary residence was not considered when assessing eligibility.
The limit for property assets not to exceed €30,000 did not include the main home.
This condition remains the same for Inclusion Allowance, with one major difference: the primary residence is exempt only if its value for property tax (IMU) purposes is under €150,000.

Consequently, individuals owning a house valued above this threshold are disqualified from accessing the Inclusion Allowance, regardless of their income situation.
This has led to the exclusion of many former Citizenship Income beneficiaries from receiving the Inclusion Allowance.

The Debate on Property Value Requirement

The exclusion based solely on property value above €150,000 is questionable, as it assumes that owning such a property generates sufficient income for living expenses.
However, this overlooks cases where owning a house does not equate to financial security, especially for those with no steady income.

Arguments for Changing the Requirement

Reports from Cafés highlight that this requirement has unjustly excluded families with zero income who are in dire need of support.
The criteria fail to consider the financial burdens, such as outstanding mortgages, associated with property ownership, which are factored into other assessments like ISEE calculations.

Removing this constraint could benefit families genuinely in need, especially considering the underwhelming number of Inclusion Allowance beneficiaries.
By reallocating existing resources, support can be directed to those truly in need, rather than penalizing individuals with properties above a certain value that may not serve as a viable income source.

Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments.
If you are among those excluded due to property value, tell us about your experience.