Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

This would lead to even more people in this area having to sell their childhood homes because they can't afford the inheritance tax. Which in turn would result in locals being increasingly displaced and even more super-rich having their second homes here.

Perhaps another tax should be levied on second homes.

Which would lead to even more people in this area having to sell their parental homes because they cannot afford the inheritance tax. This, in turn, would result in locals being increasingly displaced and even more super-rich having their second homes here.

As is already the case, among other places, in Sylt or Lake Constance.

I am not among those who inherit, but I am nevertheless against taking (even?) more from inheriting people, except when it concerns families who have "earned" their money through crime or exploitation of others (in 1945 we could certainly have taken a bit more money from some families, but they were still needed). Of course, I would have preferred my parents to live at Lake Constance or on Sylt instead of in the Black Forest, but as the Rhinelanders so nicely say, "Mer muss och jünne könne!" ("One must also be able to grant [it to others].")

I do not assume that the general public benefits from higher inheritance taxes, but that the ruling party predominantly feeds its own clientele. Regrettable, but probably something to be accepted.

Which would lead to even more people in this area having to sell their parental homes because they cannot afford the inheritance tax. Which in turn would result in locals being increasingly displaced and even more super-rich having their second homes here.

As is already the case, among other places, in Sylt or Lake Constance.

I am not one of those people who inherit, but still I am against taking even more from inheriting people (yet?), unless it concerns families who have "earned" their money through crime or exploitation of others (we could have taken considerably more money from some families after 1945, but they were needed again/yet). Of course, I would have preferred that my parents were based at Lake Constance or Sylt, instead of the Black Forest, but as the Rhinelanders say so nicely, "Mer muss och jünne könne!" ("One must also be able to grant [something to others]").

One of the main reasons against higher inheritance taxes for me is that I do not assume that the general public would benefit, but that the currently ruling party predominantly feeds its own clientele, which I consider "unfair" and not a sufficient reason to take more money from people who do not belong to their own clientele. We could have done a lot for the public in our richer years (such as abolition of two-tier healthcare, free public transport, aligning pensions with retirement benefits, free school breakfasts and snacks, smaller classes, more efforts to prevent school dropouts, ...), but we did not. Regrettable, but probably to be accepted.

Abolition of the two-tier healthcare system, free public transport, adjustment of pensions to civil servant levels, free school breakfast and snacks, smaller classes, more effort for school dropouts, ...), we do not have. Regrettable, but probably to be accepted.

1. Abolition of the two-tier healthcare system, i.e. elimination of private health insurance, would lead to even more money from taxes flowing into the health fund. If everyone now switched from private insurance to statutory health insurance, the wealthier would only pay the maximum contribution (assessment ceiling).

2. Free public transport and then not being able to get on the train is not a solution. First, proper investment must be made in rail transport before considering something like that.

3. Who is supposed to pay for the increase in pensions by adjusting them to civil servant levels? Already, Norbert Blüm’s saying applies: "The pensions are secure, fun must be had." The first step would rather be the abolition of the civil servant hierarchy in many areas, especially in administration.

4. I am anyway in favor of abolishing child benefits. Instead, the money should be invested in free daycare centers, free food in daycare centers and schools, and also free excursions for children. Not infrequently, the money is not spent on the child as it actually should be.

5. School reform. Germany probably has the dumbest school system ever. How can you put children with learning difficulties together with other children with learning difficulties (secondary modern school) and hope they become smarter? I find it much better if primary school lasts from 1st to 9th grade and afterwards you can decide where the path leads. Of course, remedial teaching must also be guaranteed.

1. Abolishing the two-tier healthcare system, i.e., eliminating private health insurance, would lead to even more tax money flowing into the health fund. If everyone moves from private health insurance (PKV) to statutory health insurance (GKV), the wealthier ones would only pay the maximum contribution amount (assessment ceiling).

2. Free public transport but then not being able to get on the train is not a solution. First, proper investments must be made in rail transport before considering something like that.

3. Who should pay for the increase in pensions by adjusting them to pension levels? Norbert Blum's saying already applies: "Pensions are secure, fun must be." The first step would rather be the elimination of the civil servant tower in many areas, especially in administration.

4. I am in favor of abolishing child benefits anyway. Instead, the money should be invested in free daycares, free meals in daycares and schools, and also free trips for children. Not infrequently, it is not invested in the child as it should be.

5. School reform. Germany probably has the dumbest school system ever. How can you put weak learners together with other weak learners (main school) and hope they get smarter? I find it much better if elementary school goes from 1st to 9th grade, and only afterward can you decide where the path leads. Of course, remedial teaching must also be ensured.

Eliminating the contribution assessment ceiling in connection with abolishing private insurance would be a solution there. Additionally, a cooperative citizen insurance could make sense.

This is a bit of a vicious circle. The question of financing remains open. In my opinion, cheaper public transport, together with a fundamental change in urban infrastructure and the right to home office, is a pillar for the energy transition and the reduction of individual transport.

I basically agree with you on the civil service, even though I am a civil servant. Not every area needs to have civil servants. You just have to look at the interactions closely.

Families with children are financially heavily burdened, and mothers are often professionally restricted. And not everyone can afford to stay at home. Currently, we need more immigration of qualified people and, in the long term, a family-friendly environment if we want to counteract demographic change.

I won’t say anything more about schools. My son recently skipped a grade "on trial." After 6 weeks, he no longer had any deficits in English, German, math, and general knowledge. And English was new to him.
The class teacher then advocated putting him back in the old class because he was very, very tired during the 6th lesson while crocheting and could no longer concentrate.
Unfortunately, there is no money for a private school; a school change is now inevitable. In my opinion, the federal system fails completely here, and we have to ensure that schools are no longer authorities. It is simply impossible that partially talented children repeat a grade because they are not so good in other subjects. The math whiz has problems because of art, and the art genius has problems because he cannot distinguish between dative and genitive.

The class teacher then advocated for putting him back in the old class because he is very, very tired during the 6th period while crocheting and can no longer concentrate.

I admire you for your objectivity on this point. What this expert recommends is at least negligent. If he then stands out in the lower class because he is underchallenged, he will get some kind of "label" that will accompany him to his disadvantage throughout his entire school career. I have no children of my own but am appalled on your behalf. ;-)