Coalition Agreement 2025, New Building Funding

That sounds like you have somewhat separated yourself from society.

As a top earner, you are looking in the wrong direction. Compare the ratio of tax evasion to social costs. Ask yourself how fair it is that someone who earns the same gross income as you without working (capital gains) pays only 25% tax and minimal contributions? With your tax contribution, you are not paying for the comfort of people who have less, but subsidizing the growth of those who already live in abundance.

10 cookies are on the table. The strongest takes nine and leaves one cookie for the second. The third goes empty-handed. Then the strong one says to the second: "Watch out! The third wants your cookie!" Now the strong one can eat in peace while the second and third look at each other suspiciously.

You write like the second.

So the capital gains tax should be increased to 30 or 35%, so that Jette, Kevin, and Justus can live for €8 in central Berlin? Since the socialists certainly won't make big leaps in allowances, this will sooner or later affect the middle class again.

"A current study shows that the federal government disadvantages the acquisition of an owner-occupied property compared to investments in the construction of rental apartments. The dream of owning a home moves even further away for many would-be owners because of this misguided KfW promotion of new buildings." Source: deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de

I write like the second? Second what? Apparently some here suffer from persecution mania when you are against the red-green bubble.

So the capital gains tax is supposed to be increased to 30 or 35%, so that...

I assume that as a high earner you also hold a position with responsibility. The rule is: "first things first." Here is an example: It is apparently nonsensical to take measures to optimize material loss in production if the overall structure is getting out of control. It is obvious that the solution does not simply lie in an increase of the capital gains tax, as you quickly suggest only to immediately discard your own proposal again. We throw money at people with annual wealth increases in the double-, triple-, or even higher-digit millions. You pay the top tax rate as a sole earner with 2 children already from €140,000 gross. That is a lot of money for most, but in the contexts we are dealing with here, almost ridiculous. Even with double the income, you are still the one who has a cookie and is exposed to increasing but bearable, yet fundamentally unfair burdens. Look at the big picture. Those you repeatedly try to frame by name cause only a fraction of the financial contribution burden that you contribute to society. The middle class only has one cookie.

Apparently some people here suffer from persecution mania when you are against the red-green bubble.

The party affiliation doesn't matter much to me, as long as there is a common basic understanding of our constitution. I miss the debate about the essentials – and that is the proportion of people who exploit the social system.

About 5.5 million people receive citizen's allowance. (Source tagesschau.de)
123,000 suspected cases were checked in 2024. 16,000 fraud cases were proven.
Even if the dark figure were ten times higher, the share of fraudsters would be under 10% of the recipients.

If one were to look at the matter in a completely non- or bipartisan way, one would also come to solutions beyond party lines that represent a real improvement. Unfortunately, there are too many interests both politically and systemically that prevent this. CDU/CSU, SPD, Greens, and Left have already proven in the federal election that they can work on bigger issues together. The worst are not among them.

I assume that as a top earner you also hold a position with responsibility. The rule here is: "first things first." An example: It obviously makes no sense to take measures to optimize material loss in production operations when the overall construction is getting out of control. It is clear that the solution does not simply lie in raising the capital gains tax, as you quickly suggest only to dismiss your own proposal again. We throw money after people with annual wealth increases in the two-, three-, and even more digit million amounts. You, as a sole earner with 2 children, already pay the top tax rate starting from €140,000 gross. That is a lot of money for most, but in the contexts we are dealing with here, almost ridiculous. Even with double the income, you are still the one who has a cookie and faces rising but quite bearable, though fundamentally unfair, burdens. Look at the big picture. Those you repeatedly try to frame by name cause only a fraction of the financial burden you contribute to society. The middle class has only one cookie.

The eternal song of the left to demand tax increases or higher social contributions for incomes over 90k or 100k in the same breath.

The eternal song of the left to demand tax increases or higher social contributions for incomes from 90k or 100k in the same breath.

You are not reading. I clearly wrote that it is not about income groups under 300k. They can gladly be relieved. And that is possible too.

The thread has the potential to drift off again.
So just very briefly:
, the story quoted by exists in various versions and is meant to point out that the middle class (if it even still exists, meaning those who consider themselves part of it, so even people like Merz with his ridiculous 10-15 million) gladly lets themselves be used by the actual "pests" to shoot at those even more disadvantaged, in order to distract from who the real parasite is. It is an appeal not to be played against each other and manipulated.

So it’s not the citizens receiving basic income, social housing, and so-called total refusers or a few hundred million subsidies here and there that are the problem, but the ever-widening gap in income and above all wealth distribution.
When the top 1% owns about 35% of the wealth in Germany, i.e. more than the bottom 90% (33%) and, according to estimates, 100 billion euros in taxes are evaded annually and 120 billion euros in inheritances and gifts are transferred, then it is clear that increasing the capital tax rate has nothing to do with financial scope. It is rather about preventing a small group from accumulating more and more resources and thus power without creating a real societal added value.
Surely, some think here of incomes just over 100,000 euros because it’s probably such a nice round number. I personally wouldn’t find that helpful and when I talk about power I am certainly not referring to such persons. Personally—and I am not alone in this, many scientists see it the same way—my focus is more on the wealthy beyond 100 million net assets and incomes over 500,000 euros. The exact thresholds may vary, but that’s not really important; it’s about continuing the merit principle and making sure the curve is drawn firstly not too steeply and secondly without a cap.

Regarding income, I see measures more important than generally introducing higher social contribution rates, for example the abolition of the contribution assessment ceiling.

(I personally am also against absolute limits and for dynamic limits linked to the current macroeconomic situation, but these are details of design; one could also set in law that the limits are reviewed every 2 years or so.)

But as I said, incomes (from non-self-employed work) are mostly not the problem.
It is the ever-growing wealth of the super-rich that ultimately makes a society with functioning participation for all members impossible.

has meanwhile posted a few more explanations. Right, the problem and the necessary objective arise completely independently of one’s political wing orientation. As long as one wants to live in a functioning democracy, the problem is not the socially weak or migrants, but anarcho-capitalist libertarians who actually wish for a stateless plutocracy and a bunch of politicians who either talk themselves into or are bribed outright or imagine they could belong to it. What this leads to can be seen currently starting in the USA.

So, back to topic:
I haven’t really thought this through yet, but it is often rumored (and I find it plausible) that direct subsidies in the form of funding amounts or repayment grants or loans—that is, subsidies that increase the potential financing volume—only lead to higher prices (capture effects by executing companies).
This can be seen quite clearly with heat pumps, where the devices and installation are offered significantly more expensively here than, for example, in the UK (or even France, although there is also direct funding there, but it is only a relatively small absolute amount and not a %-share that is only very highly capped).
Wouldn’t a subsidy like in Italy, i.e. a discount on future tax payments, possibly be less harmful?
Yes, of course you have to pay taxes first, but I assume that for self-builders/home buyers.
I could imagine that this would somewhat curb the excessive pricing on the provider side since no more money is available at the installation time. You only save taxes in the future.