In June the Supreme Court ruled that government cuts to welfare carried out between 2013 and 2015 were unlawful in a decision that undermined much of the welfare ministry’s rationale for how it determines benefits. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning welfare recipients who’d had their benefits reduced, in two cases. Another two dozen suits against the government are still being heard and it’s assumed the court’s decision will have a significant impact. The ministry argued that the cuts in question, which totaled about ¥300 billion, reflected a decrease in the cost of living, but the court found that the ministry had “exceeded and abused [its] discretionary power” in arriving at the cuts, which went as high as 10 percent for some welfare recipients. As it happens, 10 percent is the exact portion by which the ruling Liberal Democratic Party in 2012 pledged to reduce government assistance. In essence, the ministry had come up with a calculus that would make the LDP’s wishes come true, and had less to do with deflation. It remains to be seen if any of the plaintiffs are compensated for the cuts.
It also remains to be seen if the Supreme Court ruling will have any effect on the welfare policies of the new administration of Sanae Takaichi, who, according to Reuters, has advocated for a “stricter ability-to-pay principle” that could adversely impact single parents and low-income earners, many of whom are dependent on public assistance to make ends meet. The LDP’s general approach to welfare is that it is something that needs to be reined in as much as possible, as illustrated by an article published by Asahi Shimbun in early October.
A single mother with four children who lives in “northeastern Japan” applied for public assistance in 2024, since she couldn’t raise her kids on the money she earned from her full-time job. The woman had divorced her husband early in January of that year because of his “reckless” attitude toward money, which made it difficult for her to plan for her family’s future. As is often the case with such stories, the reporter neglects to discuss anything related to the ex-husband’s responsibilities in supporting his ex-wife, who appears to be raising their four children, including an infant, alone. She made the best of her situation for as long as she could and found her living expenses exceeded her pay, so “as a last resort” went to city hall and applied for government assistance to make up the difference.
During the application process, she was asked if she had a car, and she said that she did since she needs it to shuttle her kids to daycare and to commute to her job. Her assistance was approved, but in the fall of 2024 she received a phone call from the official who had taken her application. He told her she would have to get rid of her car by the end of the year or forfeit her benefits. The welfare office had determined that her car was an “asset,” so, according to the rules, she was not allowed to own one.
The daycare facility where the woman brings her children is a 15-minute walk from her house. Without the use of a car she has to walk three of her children to the facility while also carrying futons and changes of clothing for them. As for her commute, she returned to her job after maternity leave, and it takes 20 minutes to get to her work place by car. If she uses public transportation, it takes an hour and 20 minutes each way. More significantly, if any of her children fall ill at daycare, she would be unable to get to the facility quickly without a car. She told the official at city hall that she needs her car in order to keep her full-time job. Without it, she would probably have to reduce her hours, meaning she would then have to apply for more benefits. With the car, her benefits can be reduced. The official said there was nothing he could do since he was just following the law.
Eventually, the woman hired a lawyer who argued her case with the pertinent officials, and last March the welfare department relented and allowed her to keep her car and her benefits.
Continue reading











