Financing comparison: past vs. today

The state has enough, so do we. There is only gross mismanagement. A look into the Schwarze Buch der Steuerzahler, and everyone knows what's going on. Before generating more revenue, waste by politics must first be fought

But the Schwarze Buch can only capture mismanagement of SPENT money. The gross mismanagement through UNSPENT money cannot appear anywhere as a number. It has been known for 30 years that every euro invested in early childhood education and care returns about a factor of 4 - very long term, of course. That is exactly why for 30 years there has been crazy investment in kindergartens, recruiting and well paying educators, steadily improving working conditions… Why do I tell you this? Because it would not necessarily be cheaper if you invest sensibly. It would only mean a lot of money going elsewhere, possibly even more than before, if you look at what it costs to get what we really want: functioning infrastructure, good education for everyone, livable public space, efficient administration, etc. etc.

Oh, an important point is that these absolute limits have to go. They change way too much. They have to be somehow linked relatively to other key figures.

Income is already taxed, after all. If an entrepreneur pays themselves a managing director's salary or distributes a dividend. You would just have to close the loopholes like "I don't sell my Tesla/Amazon/... stocks but deposit them as collateral for a loan."

Unfortunately, the publication is not so precise on the topic of 100%/110% financing – this form was still allowed "back then." If this actually applies in almost 50% of cases (sounds like as an aside, so equity=0€, seems a bit much to me), you can, of course, assume that the average of all with equity is then higher.

One problem is that in many markets you just leave an incredible amount of money lying around in incidental costs. House or apartment for 600k, 12% incidental costs then are 72k that are irrevocably gone and also missing in the equity. And here we are not yet in the area of the really hot markets. Then you still have surveyors, moving costs, a few new pieces of furniture, a kitchen, terrace furniture, garden tools, and without extravagances that quickly goes towards 100k that the bank does not want to finance for you. And although you actually saved properly, the loan-to-value ratio is then ruined.

However, the black book can only capture mismanagement of SPENT money.

The gross mismanagement through UNSPENT money cannot appear as a number anywhere. It has been known for 30 years that every euro invested in early childhood education and care returns about fourfold – very long-term, of course.
Precisely for this reason, for 30 years, crazy investments have been made in kindergartens, educators have been recruited and well paid, and working conditions continuously improved…

Why am I telling this? Because it would not necessarily be cheaper if one invested sensibly. It would just redirect a lot of money elsewhere, possibly even more than before, if one looks at what costs what we really want: functioning infrastructure, good education for everyone, livable public spaces, efficient administration, etc. pp.

Yes, that’s correct. There are many points where investments need to be made. However, more revenue does not have to be generated for that; first, inefficient management must stop. If THEN it is still not enough, we can discuss further.
I also keep wondering why this debate about envy is stirred up. At some point, someone built a company, took a risk, creates jobs, works significantly more than 35 hours a week, and earns money doing so. The money is regularly taxed, and it is not spent but saved for the children. Why should this money be taxed at 100% in the event of inheritance, please?
I clearly foresee capital flight or similar, which would make staying in Germany completely unattractive for these very families (who support the state through their taxes).
We have to make sure that money efficiently reaches those who need it. When I think of the expensive and ridiculous fuel discount...

Yes, that is correct. There are many areas where investment is necessary. But that does not mean more revenue has to be generated, rather ineffective management must stop first. If THAT still is not enough, then further discussion can take place.

Inefficient and sometimes ineffective management is the price we pay for having a say. Democracy inevitably produces a certain type of politician and is by nature an incredibly inefficient form of government. We accept this because of its advantage in being able to vote out governments and having opportunities for participation. In democracy, nothing is used more than the right not to take advantage of participation opportunities.

I keep wondering why this envy debate is brought up. At some point, someone built a company, took a risk, creates jobs, works significantly more than 35 hours a week, and earns money with it. The money is properly taxed and he does not spend it but saves it for the children. Why should this money be taxed at 100% upon inheritance, please?

Well. This also has to do with the fact that unfortunately the term "performance society" haunts society. A 100% performance society would only be one in which 0% is inherited. Of course, those who dream of this have not thought that far. Overall, inheritance taxes are needed so that wealth does not concentrate in a few families through the compound interest effect, so that after a few generations almost everything belongs to a few families. Where is the threshold to start and where the limit of the rate? Who knows… 100% immediately is of course nonsense.

However, the black book can only capture mismanagement of SPENT money.

The gross mismanagement through NOT SPENT money cannot appear anywhere as a figure. It has been known for 30 years that every euro invested in early childhood education and care returns about fourfold—very long-term, of course.
Exactly for this reason, kindergartens have been heavily invested in for 30 years, educators recruited and well paid, working conditions continuously improved…

Why do I tell this? Because it would not necessarily be cheaper if one invests sensibly. It would only direct a lot of money elsewhere, possibly even more than before, if one looks at what it costs what we really want: functioning infrastructure, good education for everyone, livable public spaces, efficient administration, etc. pp.

Even if it displeases many, I would significantly cut social benefits.

1. Leave unemployment benefits, then Hartz IV in special cases. For example, illness, very old age, etc. Nowadays there is enough work and the rule applies: those who search will find.

2. Support for foreigners (I am one myself) according to the Scandinavian principle. Everyone can come but does not receive immediate assistance (exceptions like war, etc., of course, excluded). To stay, one must be able to prove a permanent job after 1 year as well as language skills.

3. More efficient job placement. Away from courses that nobody needs, towards possibly privatization of the sector.

That would already be a few billion that we could simply save annually.

You cannot not pay H4, because this is the subsistence level.

What is the alternative? Then the incompetent and parasites (yes, they exist) simply die out?
Or loiter around homeless in the city?

What you say does exist. You can observe the results live in the USA.