社會救助為最古老的社會安全制度，其功能在提供人民一個普遍、無因的最低「生活安全網」。實施時通常以人民之「保障需求性（Schutzbedürf- tigkeit）」為前提，亦即以「貧窮線」作為是否發給救助給付之標準。我國社會救助之理念已經從傳統上以宗教或道德為出發的救濟觀念，蛻變至憲法基本權利的生存權保障。對此，現行社會救助制度對於給付標準之認定仍難免失之嚴苛，近年來遂暫時以各種特別津貼補其不足。但此一美意卻常招致批評，因為社會立法本即易與政治掛勾，立意良善的褔利措施往往淪為「變相買票」的工具。為了釐清社會救助的地位，還給社會福利本來的面目，本文首先以憲法學觀點說明「生存權」作為基本權利之意涵，尤其著重於社會法所關注的「合乎人性尊嚴之生活權」，而社會救助制度即為其主要手段。又社會救助已經納入我國社會法領域之一環，如能參考德國發展的軌跡，或許更能指引我國未來發展方向。至於是我國近年來新推行的各種「福利津貼」，既為人民之所需，卻又無法從傳統福利觀念來加以理解，本文乃嘗試以「社會津貼」為之定位。最後則就關係社會救助請求權的「最低生活費用標準」以及「家戶觀念」兩項所產生的問題加以檢討，並提出法規範可能的修正方向。至於有關保險、救助與津貼的整合問題，也在文末點出若干思考原則。結果則有待立法者以及社會政策共識之形成。

Social relieves is the oldest social security system. Its purpose is to provide people with a general, unconditional “network of minimum life security.” Its implementation usually is conditioned on the recipient’s “necessity of life protection,” i.e. it uses “subsistence level” as the standard for determining whether to grant relieves. The ideas of social relieves in this country has transformed from the traditional concept of charity stemming from religion or morality to a fundamental right of life protected by constitution. Due to the strictness of current social relieves system in establishing the standard level for making payments, for expediency, the government started to use various special allowance measures to mitigate the hardship. Yet such a goodwill often invited criticisms, because social legislation is easily politicized. A well-intended welfare measure may be turned to a legitimized tool for buying votes in the election. In order to clarify the nature of social relieves, to return it to its original place of social welfares, this article shall explain the meaning of “right of life” from the viewpoints of constitutional law as a fundamental right. Emphasis shall be placed on the central concern of social law- “the right to a life accorded with human dignity,” in which social relieves system is the principal method used. Also, social relieves has been adopted as an integrated part of this country’s social law. If the successful developmental track of Germanic social law can be consulted with, it may be a helpful reference in guiding our future direction in this regard. Recently we have implemented various “welfare allowances”. While these measures are demanded by people, they cannot be apprehended from traditional welfare concepts. This article attempted to place them into the category of “social allowances.” Finally, this article touched the questions arose from defining “subsistence level” and “concept of household”- which are related to the rights of social relieves, and submit proposals for possible legislative revisions. As to the problem of integrating insurance, assistance and allowance systems, this article also pointed out certain principle and directions for deliberation. The outcome of solution will depend on the consensus of legislators and their social policy considerations.