Is the contract length an issue with the advocate general as well I wonder? In this economic climate, getting a year's contract right off the bat on a new job is difficult, making it difficult especially for a Dutch person and his/her spouse moving to the Netherlands together from outside the EU, is difficult. If they've been married for years prior to moving here, I think they've proven that it's not a "marriage of convenience"!

By CW | December 10, 2009 2:40 PM

about time!!

By bobsocks | December 10, 2009 2:46 PM

I find this interesting because when my wife and I moved to NL from the USA in 2005, my wife had a contract to work in NL and we had to prove sufficient income for me to move to NL without a job. The most interesting part is that we had to pay taxes in NL but as American citizens we were not allowed to take advantage of any of the social programs in NL. This is one of the methods used by the Dutch government to fund the socialist way of life in The Netherlands. It seemed like we were the only people not taking advantage of social programs there. Well, us and some other expat friends we made while we lived there.

By Tim | December 10, 2009 11:06 PM

Interesting, Tim, were either of you naturalized citizens? Did either of you receive permanent residence status while you were here? I suspect not or else you would have earned some rights to social programs over the time it took to acquire the status. People who dip a toe in the country and leave are not going to be given the same access, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

By J. | December 11, 2009 10:41 AM

...not to mention I suspect your wife was part of the 30% tax bracket, which is lower than the 42% that the average Dutch person pays (and partners of Dutch persons).

Of course, you would also want non-Americans to immediately have access to your social programs upon moving there, right?

By CW | December 11, 2009 11:00 AM

Tim,

No immigrant is eligible for the social programs beyond kinderbijslag for the first 5 years. Why do you fell you should be eligible for something you had never paid into?

I'm quite sure you took advantage of the 30% rule which is something that Dutch citizens and asylum seekers are never eligible for.

By T. | December 11, 2009 3:47 PM

This is Tim. Wy wife was covered under the 30% rule, but when I found a job it was a local contract job so I was not eligible for the 30% rule. I was paying money into a system I could not participate in. How would you feel if you went to Albert Heijn and paid for a cart full of groceries and were told you couldn't have them? You can pay for them, but you can't take them home and eat them. How fair is that? I don't know why five years is the magic number. If you're paying for something, you are entitled to it. One of the things I couldn't stand about The Netherlands is the socialism. What I found more shocking is the way that socialism is accepted there. All of the people who commented on my original post said the same thing... you should pay into our system for five years before you can access any of the benefits. I view that as a five year penalty for wanting to live in NL.

By Tim | December 12, 2009 10:47 PM

Tim,

Would you walk into your job on the first of the month and demand your salary for that month before you had worked an hour?

What the Dutch govt. is trying to prevent is people moving here and living off of the govt without working. I wonder how many times you've complained about dirty immigrants moving to the US and living off of your tax dollars.

By T. | December 14, 2009 4:36 PM

The immigrant sucking recourses is a stupid myth. In the US, immigrants use less social resources and have a much higher employment rate (80%). Same in The Netherlands. Knowing all the little tax loopholes/benefits and services available takes decades, maybe even generations, of cultural knowledge that only native Dutch have.

"Why do you fell you should be eligible for something you had never paid into?" For the same reasons that we do not throw a new-born baby on to the street. First, compassion and morality are important because some basic social protection (such as from starvation, protection by police from murder) is a human right, not a right of citizenship. Second, contrary to so many claims, it is extremely economically beneficial to grant immigrants equal social rights and benefits. First, this prevents them from distorting the labour market. Second, getting an immigrant whose education has been paid for by a foreign government is far cheaper than the 20 years of money that a government pumps into natives. And to reiterate, no soceity tells a five year old that she can't go to kindergarten because she hasn't contributed to the tax system yet. That would be immoral and inefficient. It is also immoral to do that to immigrants, and even more inefficient.

By Rob | May 28, 2010 2:19 AM