Very short-sighted. If my neighbor receives a subsidy or a grant, it does not just fall from the sky. So I have a disadvantage by having to co-finance this as a taxpayer.
A very simple way of thinking. Does a cyclist have a disadvantage if an electric car is subsidized? Does someone who can support themselves have a disadvantage because another person receives grants, e.g., in the form of top-ups? We all benefit when society is organized as well as possible with tax funds, because this provides us with a livable environment in which we can move freely and safely. This has nothing to do with the concept of redistribution, nor with a political mindset. One can disagree about what should be subsidized and what should not. Deriving a fundamental disadvantage solely because one has not been personally directly considered is shallow island thinking.
Yes, the cyclist does. Tax money could also be used for bicycle paths… Subsidies are financed through taxes. (Almost) no subsidies are sensible. The more subsidies there are, the more taxes have to be paid or spending has to be cut elsewhere.
A very simple way of thinking. Does a cyclist have a disadvantage if an electric car is subsidized? Does someone who can earn their own living have a disadvantage because someone else receives subsidies, e.g., in the form of supplements? We all benefit if society is organized as well as possible with tax funds, because we then get a livable environment in which we can move freely and safely.
This has nothing to do with the concept of redistribution, nor with a political ideology. One can disagree about what should be promoted and what should not. Deriving a fundamental disadvantage just because one was not directly personally considered is shallow island thinking.
Mega simple thinking. All this has led to us having the highest tax and levy rate among OECD countries. Especially due to measures that hardly make sense. What is the point of a child bonus for home construction in an industry that has no capacities available anyway? Builder A thinks he has to take it quickly. The construction company knows this and immediately adds something to the price. Construction capacities are tied up with A. B does not get the child bonus for home construction but has to pay higher taxes because of it. He also wants to build, but because demand for construction capacities increases due to A’s, B’s construction costs rise additionally.
Mega simple thinking. All of this has led to us having the highest tax and contribution rate among the OECD countries. Especially due to measures that hardly make any sense. What does a child-building grant lead to in an industry that has no capacities left anyway? Builder A thinks he has to take them quickly. The construction company knows this and immediately adds something to the price. Construction capacities are tied up with A. B does not get the child-building grant but still has to pay higher taxes because of this. He also wants to build, but since the demand for construction capacities increases because of the As, the construction costs for B also rise.
Did you actually take advantage of the child-building grant and the Bavarian homeownership allowance, or as an idealist deliberately get approval after 31.03.?