German government plans to cut housing support amid drastically rising rents

Tino Jacobson & Markus Salzmann

Demonstration against high rents in Berlin, September 2021. Banner reads: "Together against Displacement and #CollectiveMadness"

The German government is planning a reform of the citizen’s allowance (Bürgergeld) welfare payments, which would cut housing support for the poorest households. In the face of rapidly rising rents, this represents a social catastrophe for a growing number of families.

According to plans drawn up by the ruling coalition of the Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) and Social Democrats (SPD), the housing support element within Bürgergeld is to be reduced. In the traditional summer interview with broadcaster ARD last month, Chancellor Merz (CDU) had already advocated capping rental support as part of a comprehensive reform of Bürgergeld.

Bürgergeld, which is available to people with little or no income, is at the centre of the government’s social cuts. It is to be downgraded this year to a kind of “basic social security.” This means that the roughly €40 billion budgeted for 2024 will be drastically reduced. A double-digit billion-euro sum is to be saved through the capping of rental payments for those in need.

Accompanying these plans for a brutal attack on the poorest layers is a foul and deceitful campaign about alleged “luxury rents” for Bürgergeld recipients, spearheaded by CDU circles and right-wing media. For example, North Rhine-Westphalia state Prime Minister Hendrik Wüst (CDU) recently demanded that the state should “no longer pay for very large and very expensive apartments for Bürgergeld recipients.”

In the ARD summer interview, Merz claimed that Bürgergeld recipients in major cities received up to €20 per square metre from the “welfare office” for a 100-square-metre apartment, which a “normal worker’s family” could not afford.

Merz is deliberately stirring up envy against the poorest, who are supposedly living in luxury, in order to justify cuts. The reality, of course, is very different.

Market rents have exploded over the past three years, and affordable housing is scarcely available. On average, asking rents in Germany rose by 18.3 percent. In Munich, they are now around €20 per square metre, making the Bavarian capital the most expensive city in Germany. Other expensive cities include Frankfurt am Main and Stuttgart. Berlin ranks 10th for highest asking rents: since early 2022, they have risen by 42.6 percent to an average of €14.90 per square metre.

In Berlin in 2024, there was a significant gap between market rents and existing rents. The average existing rent is €7.21 per square metre. Many tenants remain in their cheaper apartments because moving would mean significantly higher rent.

Cities such as Kaiserslautern and Cottbus also saw substantial increases—41.7 and 41.3 percent respectively. Average rents now stand at €10.05 (Kaiserslautern) and €8.86 (Cottbus). This shows that rent increases are not only occurring in major cities but also increasingly in medium-sized and smaller cities. Inward moves from more expensive urban areas are driving prices even higher.

While more and more households must spend over half their income on rent, the coffers of the property corporations are filling up. Rising rental income has produced record profits for Germany’s two largest real estate companies this year.

Vonovia’s adjusted pre-tax profit rose by around 11 percent to €984.3 million. By the end of the year, it is expected to reach €1.85 billion to €1.95 billion, an increase of around €100 million over the original forecast, according to finance daily Handelsblatt.

LEG also reported a 15.4 percent rise for the first half of the year. Overall, the second-largest German housing company’s profit rose to over €448 million.

This development is politically intended. Federal and state governments work closely with the real estate lobby, and even minimal interventions that would affect the profit interests of property corporations are avoided.

At the same time, despite growing demand, almost no new housing is being built. The previous government of the SPD, Greens and Liberal Democrats (FDP) intended to build 400,000 new homes annually, including at least 100,000 social housing units. This target was significantly missed from 2021 to 2024. In each year from 2021 to 2023, fewer than 300,000 new homes were built. In 2024, the number was only 251,900.

Furthermore, Bürgergeld recipients already often receive only part of their actual rent costs. They must pay the difference from their miserably low standard allowance.

According to the federal government’s response to a parliamentary question from the Left Party, Job Centres last year did not reimburse 334,000 households entitled to Bürgergeld for the full cost of their rent. This affects 12.6 percent of all households receiving basic social security payments.

On average, these households had to pay €116 per month on rent out of their standard allowance. For a single adult with a current standard allowance of €563, this means a reduction to less than €450.

Job Centres justify this by claiming they may only cover “reasonable” housing costs. However, this criterion is not uniformly regulated but individually determined by each municipality. Those affected must then pay the difference out of their own pockets.

This so-called housing cost gap in Berlin averages €180—Bürgergeld recipients there must cover over 23 percent of actual accommodation and heating costs themselves.

The consequences of this policy are already devastating.

In Berlin alone, there were 2,371 evictions in 2023; in 2024, there were 2,495—an increase of 5.2 percent. Nationwide, the number rose from 32,669 in 2023 to 35,006 in 2024, an increase of 7.1 percent.

This trend is reflected in growing homelessness. At the start of the year, Berlin reported 15,710 homeless minors, 16.5 percent more than the previous year (13,480). Overall, more than 50,000 people in Berlin currently live without a permanent home, at least 30 percent of whom are children and young people. The Berlin Senate (state executive) estimates that the number will rise to over 87,000 by the end of 2029, yet no countermeasures are being taken.

The so-called Housing First project, launched in 2018, is little more than a token measure. So far, it has only housed 227 homeless people. At the current pace, it would take over 1,500 years to house all the homeless in Berlin in this way.

The planned attacks by the Merz government on the last remnants of the welfare state will further exacerbate this crisis. The money saved on housing, education and health will flow directly into military rearmament.

The federal government plans to triple military spending within five years. The NATO target of 5 percent of GDP for military and war-related expenditure is to be reached by 2029, and not as originally planned in 2035. To achieve this, the military budget is to rise from the current €86.5 billion to over €150 billion.

Trump administration to begin continuous police-state surveillance of 55 million US visa holders

Jacob Crosse

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 26, 2025, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth listen. [AP Photo]

On Thursday, the State Department confirmed that it will subject all 55 million US visa holders to what it calls “continuous immigration vetting.” Behind this bureaucratic phrase lies the creation of permanent police-state surveillance.

The Associated Press reported that the government reviews will include social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in visa holders’ home countries, and any “actionable” violations of US law committed while in the United States. The new guidelines also make it mandatory that privacy switches on phones and apps be turned off during visa interviews, stripping immigrants and applicants of even the nominal protections of the Fourth Amendment, which bans government searches without a judicial warrant. Vast quantities of personal data will now be continuously stored and monitored, with the aim of purging from the United States anyone whose views conflict with the demands of US imperialism.

Visa holders and travelers to the US are already subjected to invasive searches by border police, including of cell phones, laptops and other electronic devices at airports and other ports of entry. Now this digital spying will occur at all times and places, including outside the country.

No human team could oversee 55 million social media profiles in real time. The State Department’s new vetting regime almost certainly relies on AI-driven platforms to evaluate alleged “anti-American” and “terrorist” behavior. ICE has already agreed to a $30 million contract with Palantir to develop ImmigrationOS, to facilitate the mass deportation operation.

This surveillance is global in scope. Information from foreign governments will be incorporated into reviews. Thus, if someone arrested at a protest in support of Palestine Action in Britain applies for a US visa, their political activity could be cited as “supporting terrorism.”

AP reported that the Trump administration claimed earlier this week it has already revoked more than 6,000 student visas, including approximately 200 to 300 visas for alleged “terrorism-related issues.”

While there is no question visa holders who evince support for Palestine or opposition to Zionism will be targeted and denied visas under the fraudulent banner of combating “antisemitism,” this digital dragnet is aimed at all those who espouse anti-capitalist ideologies.

Earlier this week, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) updated its guidelines to ban entry to those allegedly holding “anti-American ideologies,” which include advocating for the “economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism.”

The State Department visa initiative comes as President Donald Trump celebrated his unprecedented military-police takeover of Washington DC with a visit Thursday afternoon to the headquarters of the National Park Police, one of at least a dozen agencies and military units that have flooded the city with armed personnel since August 11.

Trump spoke to an audience of police and uniformed soldiers, praising them, praising himself (the bulk of his remarks), and praising top aides like Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum. “We're not playing games,” he said, referring to the occupation of the US capital. “We’re going to make it safe, and we’re going to then go on to other places, but we’re going to stay here for a while.”

Earlier in the day, in an interview with a right-wing radio talkshow host based in Tennessee, Trump said that Memphis was one of the cities being considered as the next target for federal intervention on the pretext of “fighting crime.” While Trump boasts about making Washington DC safe, the main target of the repression in the capital, to this point, has been immigrant workers. Nearly half of all the arrests since August 11 have been for immigration violations, not suspected crimes.

The same week these policies were being unveiled, the government officially opened the largest immigrant concentration camp in US history at the Fort Bliss military base in Texas. Built at a cost of over $1.2 billion, the facility is designed to hold 5,000 detainees.

Fort Bliss was used during the Second World War to imprison Japanese Americans as well as German and Italian immigrants under Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt. In a statement to the Huffington Post, Ann Burroughs, president of the Japanese American National Museum, warned: “It is inconceivable that the United States is once again building concentration camps, denying the lessons learned 80 years ago.”

Conditions at Fort Bliss are already infamous. Under the Biden administration, more than 1,000 unaccompanied children were imprisoned there for weeks and even months at a time. Reports from the ACLU described children with only one change of clothes for over 40 days, widespread sexual assaults, and levels of distress so acute that officials banned pencils, pens, nail clippers and toothbrushes to prevent suicide attempts. Both the ACLU and Congresswoman Veronica Escobar, who represents El Paso, were at times denied access to the facility, underscoring its secretive and lawless character.

This Aug. 22, 2021, image provided by the U.S. Army, shows construction at the Dona Ana Housing Area near Fort Bliss, Texas. [AP Photo/Spc. Elijah Ingram]

Now the camp is again being filled. In a joint statement issued on August 21, attorneys Eric Lee, James Hollis and Chris Godshall-Bennett confirmed that Venezuelan immigrant Luis Manuel Rivas Velásquez, who previously suffered a severe medical emergency when denied care at the Florida Everglades camp, had been transferred to Fort Bliss in the last week.

For more than five days he has been held without access to his lawyers. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has ignored all lawful requests for contact, permitted only one-minute phone calls with no or little notice, and denied Rivas Velásquez his prescribed blood pressure and anxiety medication. He has not been allowed to change his clothes in five days.

In the August 21 statement, Lee, Hollis and Goodshall-Bennett wrote that Rivas Velásquez’s treatment by DHS and ICE “constitutes an enforced disappearance under international law.”

Luis Manuel Rivas Velasquez [Photo: Luis Frio]

They cited Article 2 of the United Nations’ International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006), which defines the practice as the “arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State… followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.”

The lawyers appeal to the “American people to stand up and stop this government from disappearing people on US soil.”

Notably, Escobar herself was also denied entry to Fort Bliss this week, a repeat of the practice under Biden.

The continuous surveillance dragnet and the concentration camp system are two sides of the same coin. The government is preparing a framework for mass repression, targeting immigrants first but aimed at the working class as a whole. By branding opposition to war, genocide and inequality as “terrorism” or “anti-American ideology,” the Trump administration is criminalizing dissent internationally while laying the foundations for enforced disappearances and mass arrests inside the United States.

Thailand’s parliament proposes phoney amnesty bill

Robert Campion

A 32-member special parliamentary committee in Thailand has been established to draft a so-called amnesty bill that would supposedly grant pardons for various offences incurred during periods of political upheaval and protest in the country over the past two decades.

The committee has been tasked with merging three rival proposals passed on July 16 in the lower house of the National Assembly that would cancel select criminal charges and convictions between 2005 and 2022. This period covers major events including the military coups of 2006 and 2014, the judicial coup of 2008, the bloody military suppression of “Red Shirt” protesters in 2010, and the mass student demonstrations in 2020–2021.

Students raise three-fingers, symbol of resistance salute, during an August 2020 rally in Bangkok, Thailand [AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit]

The portrayal of a broad amnesty being granted in order to promote “social harmony” is a fraud. The bills approved in the Thai parliament were presented by three right-wing parties: the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), the United Thai Nation Party (UTN), and the Kla Tham Party (KT). Both UTN and KT are breakaways from the Palang Pracharath Party, founded by the junta that carried out the 2014 coup and the ruling, military-backed party until 2023.

Common to all three bills were exclusions for those charged or convicted under the draconian lèse-majesté law, Section 112 of the criminal code, which illegalises any criticism of the monarchy. The BJT added a specific clause banning support for amnesty for lèse-majesté. Section 112 is often used as a catch-all for the state to violate democratic rights and intimidate protesters with potential jail terms of up to 15 years.

The refusal to provide amnesty in lèse-majesté cases and to even ban support for such a move reflects the fact that the monarchy serves as the linchpin of Thailand’s capitalist establishment at a time when sharp tensions are growing within Thailand and the ruling class.

Other offences related to demonstrations against military-backed governments and for democratic rights have also been excluded from the approved bills. These include contempt of court, damage to public property, and noise violations. These exclusions consciously target hundreds if not thousands of youth and working-class demonstrators.

A large portion of those excluded from amnesty were participants in the 2020–2021 student-led protests that erupted following the military’s rigging of the 2019 general election and the dissolution of the Future Forward Party, the forerunner of the People’s Party (PP).

According to the Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) organisation, at least 5,057 people have been charged with a crime for exercising their rights to free speech and assembly since 2006. TLHR points out that it does not have access to information in every case and that the actual figures are likely much higher.

Furthermore, nearly 40 percent or 1,977 of these cases stem from 2020 onwards. TLHR states that from this figure, 1,218 people would not benefit from the approved amnesty bills or would only partially benefit, meaning some but not all charges would be dropped.

During the military administration of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), in power from 2014–2019, many were also prosecuted for opposing the junta’s orders or expressing opposition to the rewriting of Thailand’s constitution. Hundreds were tried in military courts, resulting in unfair trials. These charges and prosecutions were also not included in the three “amnesty” bills approved by parliament.

Therefore, a bill, if passed, would provide amnesty for right-wing political activists and party officials, as well as those who took part in the killing of protesters in 2010. That year, the military gunned down 80 “Red Shirt” demonstrators and injured more than 2,100 people. The Red Shirts criticised military rule and supported Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra ousted in a military coup in 2006. Red Shirts charged during this period will also not be covered under the proposed amnesty bills.

These so-called amnesty bills are in reality meant to allow the state and its accomplices to suppress pro-democracy and anti-government protests with complete impunity. The former ruling junta already provided immunity for military figures involved in the 2014 coup in the constitution that it drafted. Section 279 states that, “All announcements and orders of the NCPO and orders of the Head of the NCPO are to be considered as constitutional and legal, and shall continue to be valid.” 

The move to excuse the crimes of the right-wing and pro-military figures is taking place amid deep social divisions in society, exacerbated by the crisis of capitalism internationally. This has led to declining economic growth, job losses, and the eruption of a military conflict with Cambodia last month over their disputed border.

Trump’s imposition of a 19 percent tariff on all Thai exports to the US, announced on July 31, will compound the country’s economic and social crisis. Thailand’s economy is expected to grow only 1.8 percent this year and 1.7 percent next year, lower than the 2.5 percent growth in 2024. Thailand faces the slowest growth among ASEAN countries.

Under these conditions, the consolidated amnesty bill is being tailored to enable a rapprochement between rival sections of the ruling class in preparation for suppressing the class struggle that will inevitably emerge. At the same time, it is meant to give the appearance that Thailand’s period of political turmoil and coups is over. This is despite the fact that even as the bill is being drafted, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has been suspended by the Constitutional Court in a judicial coup over her handling of the border dispute with Cambodia, which erupted into an armed conflict last month.

The ruling Pheu Thai Party did not put forward its own bill, but supported the three from the right-wing parties while opposing a bill by the People’s Party and another backed by TLHR in cooperation with similar civil organisations.

Pheu Thai has implicitly rejected amnesty for lèse-majesté charges in cooperation with the right-wing and pro-military parties. Pheu Thai spokesman and MP Danuporn Punnakanta claimed, “We don’t want these bills to spark massive protests that could affect the structural integrity of the country.” A Pheu Thai-proposed amnesty bill in 2013 was seized upon by right-wing forces to stage protests against the government of Yingluck Shinawatra that ultimately led to the 2014 coup.

Pheu Thai also reportedly does not want to be accused of seeking amnesty for Thaksin, who currently faces lèse-majesté charges related to an interview he gave to the South Korean Chosun Ilbo newspaper in 2015. A ruling in this case is expected on August 22.

The role of the so-called “progressive” People’s Party in this affair has been to lend the debate over the amnesty bills an air of legitimacy. The PP has sought to convince its supporters that the parliamentary debate over amnesty can be turned into a defence of pro-democracy protesters and democratic rights. Yet the PP knows full well the right-wing and pro-military parties that dominate parliament actively oppose this.

These right-wing parties and their allies in the courts manoeuvred and schemed to block the PP’s predecessor, the Move Forward Party (MFP), from forming a government after it won the 2023 general election; dissolved the MFP on lèse-majesté accusations; and removed one prime minister and is in the process of removing a second in judicial coups.

Yet, the PP’s own proposed bill did not include amnesty for lèse-majesté charges, but instead would have established a parliamentary committee to review individual cases. In other words, the PP tells its supporters to place faith in the very parties at the forefront of attacking basic democratic rights.

Australian “affordable” housing forces workers into financial straits

Leonard Johns

The skyrocketing price of housing is a major financial burden for growing numbers of Australian workers. So-called “affordable” housing schemes promoted by (primarily Labor) governments at state and federal levels as the solution to this crisis are woefully inadequate, both in terms of availability and affordability.

A June article in the Guardian highlighted the reality that many supposedly “affordable” homes, attracting subsidies and financial incentives for developers and landlords, are far from affordable for low- and middle-income workers.

Waterloo South apartments, inner-Sydney.

The properties are subject to punitive means-testing and variable-pricing rules, effectively ensuring that anyone eligible to live there will struggle to pay the rent. As a result, in every conceivable scenario, all of these “affordable” homes exceed the generally accepted benchmark of “rental stress”—that 30 percent or more of household income goes on rent.

One of the homes reported by the Guardian was a 3-bedroom apartment in Coogee, in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney, with advertised rent of $1,350 per week. Under the “affordable housing” rules, however, the actual rent charged depends on household type—whether the applicant is a single parent, a couple, or a family with children—each of which is subject to a different cap on household income.

A sole parent with three children would pay $1,175 in rent, but must earn no more than $153,300 annually (around $2,940 per week) to be eligible. A couple with two children would pay $1,300 a week and can earn no more than $169,500, while a couple with three children pays $1,485 a week, with an income cap of $193,700. In each case, renters are required to pay at least 40 percent of their income in rent, even at the very top of the eligible income bracket.

A supposedly “affordable” townhouse in Roseville, in Sydney’s north, was priced at $1,320 per week, a 20 percent government-subsidised “discount” on market rates in the area.

To be eligible, a household of four adults must earn between $129,300 and $194,100 annually, a couple with two children between $112,900 and $169,500, or a couple with one child, $96,800 to $145,300. This means four adults would have to spend 35–53 percent of their income on rent, a couple with two children 40–61 percent, and a couple with one child, 47–71 percent.

Additionally, renters must be employed in the Local Government Area as “key workers,” which comprises low-paid and heavily casualised jobs in fields such as healthcare, education, cleaning, childcare, hospitality, retail and others. Many workers in these sectors earn less than the national median wage of around $1,400 per week ($73,000 per year), nowhere near enough to comfortably rent this property.

The Guardian also noted an “affordable” unit in Flemington, Melbourne, advertised for $503 per week. However, to be eligible, a single adult must earn no more than $73,530 a year, meaning at least 35 percent of their income would go on rent.

The dire situation in the “affordable housing” sector is just one expression of a broader crisis. The 2025 Demographia International Housing Affordability report characterises Australia as “impossibly unaffordable.”

This category was introduced by Demographia in 2024, in recognition of the growing incidence of housing markets where median house prices are more than eight times higher than median income. The report categorises as “affordable” areas where this “median multiple” ratio is three or less and “severely unaffordable” where it is between five and nine.

Demographia found Australia had a national average “median multiple” of 9.7. Out of 94 cities analysed, Sydney, at 13.8, was the second least affordable, behind only Hong Kong, at 14.4. Adelaide (10.9), Melbourne (9.7) and Brisbane (9.3) were also “impossibly unaffordable,” with Perth close behind at 8.3. 

The median house price, combining Australia’s eight capital cities—where 68 percent of the population lives—is now $1,034,806, according to housing research company Cotality. More than a third of Australian houses—34.4 percent nationally and 41.6 percent in the combined capitals—are priced at $1 million or more.

Brisbane recorded the sharpest rise over the past 10 years, with million-dollar houses going from 2.8 percent to 40.2 percent of the market. Melbourne stands at 30.9 percent, while Sydney has hit 64.4 percent.

Eliza Owen, head of Cotality, observed that the market is exacerbating wealth inequality: “If you can afford these properties, you’ve got a very high income, you’ve sold another property well, or you have wealth from your family. … You need to have that big pool of wealth to participate in the market and it’s locking out those that don’t.”

While average housing costs have gone up by 483 percent over the past 27 years, average wages have risen only 127.5 percent.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council’s “State of the Housing System 2025” report notes, “the share of homes for sale that a median income household could afford declined to 14 per cent—its lowest level on record.” As of June, 37 percent of homeowners are struggling with mortgage repayments, and 46 percent of renters face payment problems, according to data from financial comparison site Finder.

State and federal Labor governments not only have no answer to the deepening housing affordability crisis, they are actively making it worse, through the systematic elimination of public housing.

In New South Wales, the Labor government headed by Chris Minns has begun the process of demolishing the Waterloo housing estates in inner-Sydney, which will ultimately see some 3,000 people ejected from their homes. In Melbourne, Victoria, under Labor Premier Jacinta Allan, at least 10,000 residents are set to be displaced through the planned destruction of all 44 of the city’s high-rise public housing towers.

The underlying purpose in both cases is to drive the vulnerable working-class residents out of the inner-city, freeing up valuable land to create vast new profit opportunities for property developers. While a percentage of these new dwellings will be “social and affordable” housing, both categories are privately owned and operated, more expensive and provide less secure tenure than traditional public housing.

At the federal level, the Anthony Albanese Labor government’s $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) claims it will provide up to 40,000 “social and affordable” homes in five years, far less than the more than estimated shortfall of more than 600,000.

This drop in the ocean is unlikely to be fulfilled. In February, Labor admitted that not a single new home had been built under the HAFF scheme. The government had claimed the construction of 340 “social and affordable” homes, but in fact even this paltry number had merely been “acquired and converted,” not built from scratch.