Coalition Agreement 2025, New Building Funding

I think that the state has relatively little ability to directly influence housing construction, unless they build themselves directly. What would be possible is to finally reduce the ancillary wage costs, especially for people with low to middle incomes. The best minimum wage is useless if cold progression kicks in. The essential aspects for me have already been partially addressed. A reform of the contribution assessment ceiling would be urgently necessary and would immediately help the social budget. Then tackle tax waste and combat tax evasion. And for me, it also means that job seekers must accept work. For me, without any ifs or buts. What does "reasonable" mean in this context? Every job that complies with the rules in Germany is reasonable. Companies are looking for work, people should work.

Also a quick off-topic again

What could be possible is that the ancillary wage costs, especially for people with low to medium incomes, are finally reduced. The best minimum wage is worthless if bracket creep kicks in.
The essential aspects for me have already been partially addressed. A reform of the contribution assessment ceiling would be urgently necessary and would immediately help the social budget.

There is already the sliding scale for social contributions for incomes up to 2000 euros per month. One could also consider a dynamic adjustment there, e.g. setting the limit at the minimum wage for a 40-hour week.

Keyword progression:
One should also think about the new plans that pensioners may earn 2000 euros/month tax-free. Why pensioners? What about the current part-time worker who wants to increase hours and ends up in the tax progression? Besides, this is again a special rule. It would make much more sense to revise the tax tables themselves, subject them to a certain automatic dynamic, in order to flatten the progression rate or to adapt it back to the realities.

A few examples of what is unreasonable:
Single parent in non-negotiable shift work.
PhD engineer cleaning toilets (I would also consider this an economically unreasonable waste).
A person who can work a maximum of 6 hours per day for health reasons (provable) should be sanctioned because they have rejected a 40-hour position.

You are indeed asking the right question, but unfortunately your own answer falls far short.
And personally, I do not want a single employee of the Employment Agency to decide whether someone is able to work or whether a particular job is reasonable for a given person.

First of all, the state should create more jobs before resorting to forced labor through coercion.

I do not want the state to waste resources (I mean time and personnel, not money) putting out a capitalist smokescreen before (actually I don’t want it at all) it tackles the Big Buckets (in the multi-layered sense): tax evasion, unjust tax avoidance (need for exemption review), and undeclared work (where again mostly the big players are relevant, the cleaning lady or someone cutting neighbors’ hair over the bathtub are simply unimportant).

Yes, the pensioner story sounds good at first. But it is just a smokescreen.
First, we do not have enough jobs! The skilled labor shortage is very industry-specific and in many sectors (automotive) the trend has already reversed again.
Precarious jobs are not affected by this at all.
But those who have worked their lives in these jobs (and are correspondingly qualified) are the pensioners who would even take up this chance. The highly educated engineers who are still needed in some areas no longer want to work and do not need to (financially). Those who do want to are not dependent on the €2,000 tax allowance to do so – they are intrinsically motivated, just restless.
Where the shortage is most glaring, e.g. care work, money is not the main problem but the inhuman working conditions. Someone who has retired from the job usually cannot do it anymore.

Next are the tax-free overtime hours. Again, first stimulate the need for the extra work.
How do you prevent loads of full-time workers then nominally reducing hours to part-time contracts and doing overtime on that basis (it may be that there are already approaches for this, but I think it is a legitimate question)?

Wouldn't a subsidy like in Italy, i.e. a discount on future tax payments, possibly be less harmful?

That would be "extremely antisocial" because the highest tax rate payer would get more back than the cashier at Aldi. That won't work with the SPD. As I said, the SPD is not the party of workers and high performers but of Hartz IV recipients and welfare beneficiaries. That's why they stand at 15 percent and even below 10 in the East.

No, the waived tax could be an absolute amount again. So under no circumstances would it be settled over years. Your statement about the SPD is simply nonsense. For the last 25 years, the SPD has pursued absolute pro-business and pro-rich policies with the slight restraint together with the Greens, where they were also unable to keep the FDP in check...

Rent control, housing allowance (plus), etc. have brought us to where we are today.

No. The cause was that municipalities sold off building land and housing developments when everyone thought saving was the most sexy thing. Afterwards it became obvious: Social housing in public hands was lacking. Of course, this was not foreseeable, super-complex correlation and all. What you mentioned are the symptoms.

Am I writing like the second? Second what?

That is right before the quoted sentence!?