Deleted User
3Yr
Comment was deleted
@Eochaid It is often a free decision to get into debt. The latest car, cell phone, clothing, general consumption, etc. are mentioned. Certainly, there are also enough people who are financially ruined by health. However, at least the most important health expenses are covered and also the education is at least formally free. (Greetings to the USA) That the Soli or other taxes for high earners change there I do not think something. One should bring more financial education into the center and above all the state should create possibilities, which make a realistic, economical private precaution possible. Who provides today privately in the depot and sometime unemployed has by his savings no claim on ALG2, after expiration of ALG1. This and many other things, such as the blatant percentages on additional earnings, signal to people at the lower end of the scale that personal initiative is not worthwhile. Apart from this, however, it must also be said that the citizens in the East are still (not only) financially isolated 30 years after reunification. Where the whole Soli (taxes are never earmarked anyway) has gone, I ask myself anyway. If you look at other statistics, you also see that social mobility is not very high. Who is born poor remains it idR also. In turn, the descendants of noble houses or merchants like the Fuggers are still rich today.
•
44
•
@Europoor On the one hand, there is a lack of education about general finances, whether taxes or the stock market. How often I hear from colleagues of the same age that the stock market is only for the rich and that it certainly brings nothing. On the other hand, the state must offer better support or at least not put any obstacles in the way. It can not be that one is punished in certain situations because one takes care of his reserves / strives.
•
44
•Deleted User
3Yr
Comment was deleted
@Eochaid The jobs are well paid here in the East, too, but the problem is the taxes.
•
11
•@Eochaid Why should one not be allowed/able to make provisions if one earns little or is even in ALG2? If someone works for 20 or 30 years and makes provisions and then becomes unemployed 5-10 years before retirement and is difficult to place, he has to use up all his money to get into ALG2 and then retires without reserves. Greetings to Schlecker and Karstadt. If one builds in there capping limits has that also hardly an advantage for "financially strong ones". The additional earnings referred not to a second job but to humans in ALG2 of an activity after-go or have otherwisewie income. Starting from the 100€ free border the state strikes there very hard. From a 450 € job then remain under 200 € and that also applies to the children in the community of need. So you teach them right away that work is not worth it. It was the same with orphan pensions in the past. I don't share your opinion about the East. People vote now because they were ignored for 30 years. After the reunification, all companies were broken up and all assets were moved to the West. You can do that, but then you don't have to be surprised that parts of the population then despise democracy.
••
Deleted User
3Yr
Comment was deleted
Deleted User
3Yr
Comment was deleted
@Eochaid Why a lump sum for savers? Link a kind of 401k with a maximum cap and cutoff on income to the last 10-20 years of income. Then the high earners also have nothing of it and if someone can put back per month only 25, 50 or 100€ is nevertheless still better than nothing. People with low income will be there anyway, I do not need to do a dance around it and hope that all are only doctor, lawyer and engineer. I do not know now exactly what examples you want, but you can look up what allowances there are for assets in the ALG2. Age*150 everything over it you must use up before there is money from the state. With the additional income over 100€ it is also quite simple. From 100€ you give 80% of each €. Calculation example for the mentioned marginal employment is here: https://www.hartziv.org/freibetraege-einkommen.html Thus only 170€ of 450€ remain. If you then subtract costs for travel or deposit for clothing, it is quickly clear why this is unattractive. Regarding the East, if populism, nationalism or worse would scare investors, then that would really be something new, greetings to China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia. Regardless of politics, one cannot deny that the East was systematically exploited by the West during the transition. Nobody went there and took people's civics exams before the companies were flattened. Whether the people were democrats or not was of no interest to anyone when everything was knocked down. But of course it is a very simple narrative that people in the West like to tell themselves so that they can sleep better. That's why everything in the East is incorrigible, lazy people who have created nothing, so apart from all the stuff that was produced cheaply in the East before the fall of the Wall and sold in the West. On the whole, I share the opinion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuUbefez7U
•
22
•@Eochaid I realize that most taxes are the same for everyone nationwide. But the generally high tax burden is the problem. The best example is the upcoming increase in the minimum wage. The low-income earner gets 400€ more gross, but only 220€ come in. Madness. The company is allowed to pay it. And how does he finance it? By dismissing the colleague and making the articles/services more expensive. In the end, it is the "exploitative" entrepreneur who stands in the pillory. Meanwhile, the state and the parties are rubbing their hands. With such moronic demands as raising the minimum wage, they've got the voters on their side, and the higher gross salaries meanwhile generate even more tax revenue. Super!
•
11
•Deleted User
3Yr
Comment was deleted