1D·

SPD vs. shareholders, savers & Bitcoiners

SPD wants to increase withholding tax for savers and small investors from 25% to 30%. It also wants a financial transaction tax. It wants to hinder retirement provision, saving, investing and prosperity even more.

Further plans:

- Wealth tax from 45% to 49

- Wealth tax

- Real estate tax: abolish tax exemption after 10 years

- Abolish tax exemption on cryptos & Bitcoin after 1 year

$BTC (-0,19 %)
$ETH (-1,9 %)
$SOL (+7,37 %)

#steuer
#steuern
#spd
#cdu
#etf
#etfs
#aktien
#börse
#meme
#memes
#lustig
#funny
#witzig

40 Comentarios

NEWT@SteelAnacott

And @Techaktien wants to ride the wave of outrage a little longer to generate a few more clicks and followers.

•

fiducation@fiducation

@SteelAnacott quite rightly so. Only the insurance industry benefits from the proposal. DVAG has once again invested its party donations well.

•

NEWT@SteelAnacott

@fiducation According to this logic, the CDU should be in favor of this. The DVAG has donated five times as much to the CDU as it has to the SPD, and Merkel already spoke at the DVAG sales conference in 2008.

••

fiducation@fiducation

@SteelAnacott let's hope not

••

NEWT@SteelAnacott

@fiducation So, please do not construct a causal chain where it does not exist.

•

fiducation@fiducation

@SteelAnacott Can you rule it out?

We can't. The CDU may receive more party donations from DVAG, but the SPD is relatively more dependent on them.

••

NEWT@SteelAnacott

@fiducation Oh, now it's enough not to be able to rule something out to make an assertion.

So I'll just claim that the CDU, BSW, FDP and KfD (a disaster for Germany) act much more in the interests of lobby associations and individuals than the SPD, that they all received significantly more party donations above individual amounts of €35,000 in 2024. I can't rule that out with these figures, can you?

•

fiducation@fiducation

@SteelAnacott You can say a lot of things. In any case, the increase is a shot in the arm in every respect. Except for the insurance industry. Whether it was lobbying or not is basically completely irrelevant. Either way, it is an unnecessary demand that may increase tax revenue in the short term, but not in the long term. It harms the location, competitiveness and potential capital accumulation.

•

NEWT@SteelAnacott

@fiducation You are digressing from the topic. My point is not the evaluation of the measure - which is also highly questionable as to whether it will be implemented at all - but the fact that you are making assertions that you cannot substantiate in any way. I simply expect more from people who want to educate others about finance!

•

fiducation@fiducation

@SteelAnacott This is only about the evaluation of the measure.

Nevertheless
there is obviously also potential here for interest-driven politics through party donations, which is absurd to deny. The probability of this happening is of course limited, and the SPD's other demands can only be explained by a lack of economic competence.

••

Usuario eliminado

Comentario eliminado

Ver todas las 15 respuestas adicionales

Kulturgut@DerBro

The SPD will hopefully soon be in single figures. Then the problem will solve itself.

•

Dividendenopi👴@Dividendenopi

@DerBro probably not for the next 4 years, as is to be feared....

•

BockaufDividenden@BockaufDividenden

I would love to swap the percentages of SPD and FDP anyway...

•

Techaktien@Techaktien

@DerBro Must brother. Must.

••

Techaktien@Techaktien

@Dividendenopi Hoping for new elections soon

•

Maverick4831@Maverick4831

@Dividendenopi wait and see. I don't yet believe that the new government will manage a whole legislative period.

•

Soprano@Soprano

@DerBro Well, they'll just give away citizenships to anyone who votes for them

•

Gomerdoc@Gomerdoc

@DerBro then Merz brings the BSW and the Left Party on board. That would be even worse.
Things will never get better in this country. The electorate's neglect of prosperity is too far advanced.....

••

Manuel@Variett

You know how it is, the ultra-rich can get away with it. The poor have too little money to fleece. So you have to get the money from the part of the population that can invest, but can't defend themselves like the ultra-rich.

So it's quite logical to want it that way.

But hey, it's not going to get any better, because we have X number of unemployed people and X number of boomer pensioners who cost a lot of money (see budget expenditure on labor and social welfare)

•