The idea of levying social contributions on investment income is absolutely correct and has long been common practice in France, for example. The fact that the Greens are calling for high basic tax-free allowances is something that CL has forgotten to mention. The fairy tale that only the poor middle class and small savers are affected by this is just that, a fairy tale.
Most people here pay social security contributions on their salaries, while billions in dividends are paid out every year for which no social security contributions are paid. If this additional money were available, social security contributions could be reduced for everyone, in other words for each and every one of us.
In addition - and this is also somehow forgotten - the statement is first and foremost that capital gains should be taxed. It doesn't say that another 15% social security contributions should be added to this; there is no figure at all.
Then there is the issue of retirement provision. If, at the same time, politicians decide on an AV-Depot that is not or hardly taxed, then that would be a fair trade-off and only investment income that serves as a "salary substitute" would be subject to social security contributions.
I see a much bigger problem with the issue of "taxation of corporations", because what about foundations, for example, which do not actually have to pay social security contributions? What about assets managed abroad?
In my opinion, the idea is a good one, but I see great dangers in implementing it correctly. A small wrong lever and nobody pays or small investors pay. Or you levy the tax at source and then risk the popularity of local shares, as in France.
Most people here pay social security contributions on their salaries, while billions in dividends are paid out every year for which no social security contributions are paid. If this additional money were available, social security contributions could be reduced for everyone, in other words for each and every one of us.
In addition - and this is also somehow forgotten - the statement is first and foremost that capital gains should be taxed. It doesn't say that another 15% social security contributions should be added to this; there is no figure at all.
Then there is the issue of retirement provision. If, at the same time, politicians decide on an AV-Depot that is not or hardly taxed, then that would be a fair trade-off and only investment income that serves as a "salary substitute" would be subject to social security contributions.
I see a much bigger problem with the issue of "taxation of corporations", because what about foundations, for example, which do not actually have to pay social security contributions? What about assets managed abroad?
In my opinion, the idea is a good one, but I see great dangers in implementing it correctly. A small wrong lever and nobody pays or small investors pay. Or you levy the tax at source and then risk the popularity of local shares, as in France.
•
1010
•
@devnerd_daddy Exactly, thank you!
••
@devnerd_daddy The problem is that the contributions would not fall for everyone. Politicians take the additional revenue and spend it on other things.
•
11
•@Madhatter5566 Experience shows otherwise. When the SHI system was supported by the quarterly contribution at the doctor's, the additional contributions fell.
••
@devnerd_daddy And then to rise sharply because the contribution scared off the patients and then came all the end stages. So we all say thank you.
••
@Madhatter5566 How did you arrive at this statement? According to Statista, this is not comprehensible. The current contribution rates are roughly the same as in 2007, so we are talking about relatively stable deductions.
••
Comment was deleted
@Rudolf81 I would first recommend that you read my comment in its entirety. It is precisely the last point that I am referring to.
Otherwise, no. Income is income, regardless of how it is generated. If I manufacture screws as a company, I pay taxes. If I make a profit by lending money, I also pay taxes. So why should the state make an exception for private individuals? Your personal risk in generating income is your problem. Welcome to capitalism; if your return is too low, you have lent capital to the wrong company.
Otherwise, no. Income is income, regardless of how it is generated. If I manufacture screws as a company, I pay taxes. If I make a profit by lending money, I also pay taxes. So why should the state make an exception for private individuals? Your personal risk in generating income is your problem. Welcome to capitalism; if your return is too low, you have lent capital to the wrong company.
•
11
•
Don't panic. Social security contributions on investment income will never come. That would be extremely damaging to the German capital market. It would also affect income from government bonds, which no one would then buy and we would slide into bankruptcy. With polls currently showing 13-14%, it remains just a wet green dream.
•
11
•