The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.

  • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Merz is predictable and a traitor to the German people. He will usher in the fascist power grab through conservative policies - the AFD will grow in popularity as conservatives protect the 1%.

    Die Linke’s tax plan would have paid for the yearly debt of the government and then some; their secret - tax the wealthy.

    We can afford all of our costs, we can improve society, we can provide a thriving economy for all Germans if we simply tax the ultra wealthy out of existence. No one should have a billion euro net worth, nor 100 million nor 50 million. No one need own 3 houses while others go without even a flat.

    We have enough wealth in this country, it’s just in the hands of the hoarders. Don’t look towards conservatives or the right for change, look towards those that address the root problem!

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours ago

      IMO the borders need to be closed first before taxing the rich works well enough. Allow me to explain:

      If you tax the rich today, they drop the german citizenship and become carribean citizens tomorrow, and then you can’t tax them anymore. All the while they hold on to their companies in germany.

      Instead, it has to be illegal to invest inside germany (above a certain threshold amount) if you don’t have german citizenship. This way, the rich can’t flee. They have to keep german citizenship to hold on to their companies, and then they can be taxed.

      • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Although I appreciate the thought here, and I think the investment idea may even be good regardless of what I’m about to say, that’s not exactly how this works. If you tax the assets the rich own, where they own them, it doesn’t matter where they go. And they can’t live in Germany and not get taxed, so they can change citizenship all they want if they live here they will get taxed here. And based off of the most recent studies/reports I’ve seen (but not read) rich don’t actually move when taxes go up - which makes sense. People have lives, family, friends, favorite restaurants and hobby spaces.

        The rich will try to dodge the taxes, they may even succeed but we don’t have to legistate a bullet proof solution we just have to agree:

        1. the rich need to be heavily taxed (I’d even say out of existence)
        2. taxing the rich is possible via various methods
        3. taxing the rich would solve and/or reverse most of societies problems so everyone should talk and support it.

        But yes, I’m a big fan of no outside investment. I’m also a fan of government investment requiring ownership purchases. I’m also a fan of requiring companies to be partially or totally owned by their workers. And I don’t think anyone should have a net worth over let’s say 50 million.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 hours ago

          So you’re saying the assets (factory, houses, land) should be taxed directly, instead of the billionaires?

          Interesting idea, i need to think about it.

            • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              17 hours ago

              After having thought about it, i’d like there to be a “exempt tax amount”, i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don’t pay any wealth taxes.

              • if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that’d be difficult.
              • It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

              does that make sense to you?

              • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                17 hours ago

                That makes sense. My point isn’t to tax the property it’s that the property is taxed, if that makes any sense. You tax based on the property, it traces to the owner, the owner gets taxed based on the property. If the owner lives in Beijing or Antarctica the property is still here and gets taxed, they can’t avoid it by moving unless they can take the property.

                So in that case, an exempt amount is fine. I’d just want it to be steep up to a point where it’s 98 or 100%.

                No one gets a third house before everyone gets one kinda thing. And also no one is allowed to have enough wealth they can destabilize democracy or even a city.