1Année
There is no convincing strategy for the sustainable financing of pensions or social security funds. That is bad.
I'm just wondering whether the "half-knowledge" you criticize is not also to be found in you? In any case, you are expressing yourself somewhat ambiguously. There was never a proposal to increase the tax on capital gains. It was about social security contributions. In fact, wage tax should be reduced in return. The system is of course difficult to implement, as you rightly pointed out. And I'm still not completely convinced, as there is a lack of detailed information. But at least it has to be mentioned positively that a proposal for upgrading the social security funds has been put forward at all. The same investment income, the same contribution rates with the same benefits...it can't stay that way. I don't want to make any cuts to the existing benefits. That is a matter of personal judgment. That means we need more capital injection and/or increased contribution rates. But above all, we need one thing: proposals! And there are far too few of them.
I'm just wondering whether the "half-knowledge" you criticize is not also to be found in you? In any case, you are expressing yourself somewhat ambiguously. There was never a proposal to increase the tax on capital gains. It was about social security contributions. In fact, wage tax should be reduced in return. The system is of course difficult to implement, as you rightly pointed out. And I'm still not completely convinced, as there is a lack of detailed information. But at least it has to be mentioned positively that a proposal for upgrading the social security funds has been put forward at all. The same investment income, the same contribution rates with the same benefits...it can't stay that way. I don't want to make any cuts to the existing benefits. That is a matter of personal judgment. That means we need more capital injection and/or increased contribution rates. But above all, we need one thing: proposals! And there are far too few of them.
•
22
•
1Année
@T-Dax Excuse me? To even mention this populist, undocumented and purely electoral nonsense a la "tax the rich" in a laudatory way shows a tendency towards typical German payola that borders on masochism and is completely incomprehensible to me. Even on the left-wing green house radio, Robert didn't manage to provide a single word of detail. When a Maischberger embarrasses a Green "top candidate" then everyone, absolutely everyone, should realize that this is simply a poster slogan for the culture of envy.
"If we just pay a little more then it will work out!" Nonsense. Expenditure must come down, we are already among the world's tax champions. This has been clear to any normal thinker for a long time, but of course no one will touch it with pliers. Instead, there are now public defenders for detainees awaiting deportation. That is the essence of this party. At our expense.
Once again: Habeck did NOT say no to the question "does this also apply to people with €30,000 ETF". I don't understand why that doesn't set more people's alarm bells ringing here.
And on the subject of finally more taxes for the super-rich: once again, they are not affected. How many of them are still compulsorily insured? That's ridiculous. It affects me, you and the others here, we have to work several years longer because of it and it's still being praised.
"If we just pay a little more then it will work out!" Nonsense. Expenditure must come down, we are already among the world's tax champions. This has been clear to any normal thinker for a long time, but of course no one will touch it with pliers. Instead, there are now public defenders for detainees awaiting deportation. That is the essence of this party. At our expense.
Once again: Habeck did NOT say no to the question "does this also apply to people with €30,000 ETF". I don't understand why that doesn't set more people's alarm bells ringing here.
And on the subject of finally more taxes for the super-rich: once again, they are not affected. How many of them are still compulsorily insured? That's ridiculous. It affects me, you and the others here, we have to work several years longer because of it and it's still being praised.
•
44
•1Année
@T-Dax and one more thing, because I saw that you are a lawyer and therefore actually have the IQ to understand why this is madness: telling people for years that they have to invest their double and triple-taxed net income so that they don't belong to the deposit bottle crew in old age, then sneakily increasing the taxes on the profits is perverse, antisocial and so lacking in solidarity that I'm surprised how such a thing can come from the lips of a Green.
Such levies become the new baseline and never disappear again because nobody wants to abolish them (for the then fatter budget). New taxes and levies should be rejected by any rational person until this country has solved its spending problem.
Such levies become the new baseline and never disappear again because nobody wants to abolish them (for the then fatter budget). New taxes and levies should be rejected by any rational person until this country has solved its spending problem.
••
1Année
@CMustermann uiuiui. You seem to be very upset. I understand your criticism (at least in part). So your solution is to prop up the social security funds even more with tax money? That would be possible without tax increases, of course, but only by making savings elsewhere. But do you really think that's the solution to the problem? Seriously? Simply by making savings? I'm already not a fan of co-financing the social security funds through taxes.
There is also an official statement from the Greens that explicitly states that they only want to tax assets above 1 million. I don't think that concerns you or me or most people here.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not praising the specific proposal. We still know too little about it. I'm praising the fact that a party has dared to make a proposal at all that doesn't end in the populist phrase "don't worry, we'll just save it elsewhere".
PS: On the subject of populism. I don't think it would do your statement any harm to refrain from using populist fighting words such as "nonsense", "masochism", "paying slavishness" etc. if you want to credibly criticize the populist tendencies of others.
There is also an official statement from the Greens that explicitly states that they only want to tax assets above 1 million. I don't think that concerns you or me or most people here.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not praising the specific proposal. We still know too little about it. I'm praising the fact that a party has dared to make a proposal at all that doesn't end in the populist phrase "don't worry, we'll just save it elsewhere".
PS: On the subject of populism. I don't think it would do your statement any harm to refrain from using populist fighting words such as "nonsense", "masochism", "paying slavishness" etc. if you want to credibly criticize the populist tendencies of others.
•
11
•1Année
@T-Dax In their current constellation, our social security funds are huge Ponzi schemes, as we have an increasingly top-heavy population curve, meaning there are more and more old and sick people who are no longer productive. Throwing more money, from whatever source, into this system, which is already impossible in principle, is "delusional", as the Americans would say.
It would be healthy if we in Germany stopped using taboos. I would take a similar approach with a friend who is chronically broke and constantly claims that he needs to earn more money to be able to afford new stuff. So let's take a look at the budget: we have 445 billion at our disposal. An incredible 108 of that goes into pensions, 24 into ALG2.
These pots should have been invested in the capital market years ago. A system based purely on co-payments is bound to collapse at some point, and anyone who doesn't believe that is welcome to become Bernie Madoff's successor. But the socialist redistribution crew and their comrades are blocking this, because the stock market is gambling, not sustainable enough and unfair. Until this is implemented, a cap on further increases should be put in place as a matter of urgency. The "equity pension", which has been mutilated beyond recognition by the coalition colleagues, is a drop in the ocean of German profligacy and is well-intentioned but useless on this scale.
A further 17 billion goes to development aid, where a comprehensive cut is probably quite simple and unproblematic for us to implement at home. 23.2 billion goes into administration, where there should certainly be a 50% efficiency gain if you look at the working culture in the offices. Performance-based pay for the public sector would be a good way to reduce the cookie-cutter approach at our expense.
The 38 billion in debt, which is respectable by international standards, should also remain capped, but only the FDP seems to be interested in this at the moment; everyone else would like to abolish the debt ceiling.
It would be healthy if we in Germany stopped using taboos. I would take a similar approach with a friend who is chronically broke and constantly claims that he needs to earn more money to be able to afford new stuff. So let's take a look at the budget: we have 445 billion at our disposal. An incredible 108 of that goes into pensions, 24 into ALG2.
These pots should have been invested in the capital market years ago. A system based purely on co-payments is bound to collapse at some point, and anyone who doesn't believe that is welcome to become Bernie Madoff's successor. But the socialist redistribution crew and their comrades are blocking this, because the stock market is gambling, not sustainable enough and unfair. Until this is implemented, a cap on further increases should be put in place as a matter of urgency. The "equity pension", which has been mutilated beyond recognition by the coalition colleagues, is a drop in the ocean of German profligacy and is well-intentioned but useless on this scale.
A further 17 billion goes to development aid, where a comprehensive cut is probably quite simple and unproblematic for us to implement at home. 23.2 billion goes into administration, where there should certainly be a 50% efficiency gain if you look at the working culture in the offices. Performance-based pay for the public sector would be a good way to reduce the cookie-cutter approach at our expense.
The 38 billion in debt, which is respectable by international standards, should also remain capped, but only the FDP seems to be interested in this at the moment; everyone else would like to abolish the debt ceiling.
•
11
•