Financing comparison: past vs. today

Income is already taxed. When 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 instead pledge them as collateral for a loan."

I think you had a different part in mind when you quoted it.
Regarding the quote: I mean absolute numbers as exemptions and assessment limits. Actually also absolute administrative and fines. Everything must be switched to relative values. In my opinion.

Regarding your comment: Yes, of course it is already taxed. It would just be taxed additionally so that the inheritance tax does not have to be paid all at once. Whoever wants to and can should pay it all at once and get a discount, similar to BAföG.

I keep wondering why this envy debate is always brought up. At some point, somebody built a company, took a risk, creates jobs, works significantly more than 35 hours a week, and earns money with it. The money is regularly taxed and he doesn't spend it but saves it for the children. Why should this money be taxed 100% in the event of inheritance?
I clearly predict capital flight or something similar that makes staying in Germany completely unattractive for those families (who support the state through their taxes)..
We have to make sure money efficiently reaches those who need it. When I think of the expensive and ridiculous fuel discount...

It has nothing to do with envy. See answer from further below.

A 100% meritocracy would only be one in which 0% is inherited. Of course, those who dream of this haven’t thought that far.

Overall, inheritance taxes are needed so that wealth does not concentrate in a few families due to compound interest effect to such a degree that after a few generations, almost everything belongs to a few families. Where is the threshold to start and where is the limit of the rate? Who knows… 100% immediate is obviously nonsense.

I can save myself the sermon I already formulated in my head. That's exactly what I mean!

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

Why? Are only working people valuable to you?

1. Unemployment benefits remain, afterwards Hartz IV under special circumstances. E.g. illness, very old age, etc. Nowadays there is enough work and the rule is whoever looks will find.

I claim that everyone who remains in Hartz IV long-term has some serious problem. Nobody really voluntarily endures it longer than a year, whether they are lazy or not. This usually has to do with physical, mental, or social illness/developmental disorder.

2. Support for foreigners (I am one myself) according to the Scandinavian principle. Everyone can come, but does not get immediate aid (exceptions like war, etc. of course excluded). To stay, the person must prove after 1 year they have a permanent job and language skills.

I would basically agree with that, but I also claim that most would do this if they were allowed. The problem is rather that most are not allowed to work.

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

So the first half is absolutely right, but name me a really successful privatization...

Generally:
Parasites are not long-term Hartz IV recipients. Multimillionaires who park their money somewhere and do Cum-Ex deals. Those are parasites!

How do you come to the end of 20s? Abi at 18, Bachelor at 21, and then Master at 23. That's what the timeline looks like. I don't understand how you come to the end of 20s. Alternatively, start a dual study program in a company at 18 and receive a salary continuously during the studies.

Well, for my part, I was born in September and took 13 years to get my Abi. Accordingly, I was just 20 when the first semester started. Then 5 years of study to the Master’s (comfortably within the standard period), and I was 25 at the start of my career. By the way, that was without wasting a year with mud seals at the Bundeswehr or doing helper jobs in a nursing home (a friend of mine was a kitchen assistant... very social...), otherwise it would have been 26. That is quite a small difference compared to your timeline.

Also the first half is absolutely correct, but name me a truly successful privatization...

These courses for the unemployed are already a privatization. The state itself does not conduct courses. This is purchased as a service. Even though I personally find these courses stupid, they might be useful for the long-term unemployed.

I have gained some insight into the work of the employment agency through an acquaintance. Yes, in theory, courses are useful. But not everyone for everyone. In practice, people are placed in courses so that they disappear from the statistics. Because anyone who is in a program is no longer considered unemployed for the duration of the program... It is just not quite as relevant at the moment because overall unemployment numbers are not that high anymore. But we'll see what happens when the recession really hits and settles in.

I think you had a different part in mind when you quoted. Regarding the quote: I mean absolute numbers as exemption limits and assessment limits. Actually also absolute regulatory and penalty fines. Everything has to be changed to relative in my opinion.

Regarding your comment: Yes, of course this is already taxed. It would just be taxed separately so that the inheritance tax does not have to be paid all at once. Those who want and can should pay it all at once and get a discount, similar to Bafoeg.

This has nothing to do with envy. See the answer from further below.

I can save myself my sermon already formulated in my head. That's exactly what I mean!

Why? Are only working people valuable to you?

I claim that everyone who stays in Hartz IV long-term has some serious problem. Nobody really voluntarily stays longer than a year, whether lazy or not. It usually has to do with physical, mental, or social illness/malformation.

I would basically agree with that, but also claim that most would do the same if they were allowed to. The problem is rather that most are not allowed to work.

So the first half is absolutely right, but name me a really successful privatization...

In general: Parasites are not long-term Hartz recipients. Multimillionaires who park their money somewhere and do Cum Ex deals. Those are parasites!

Here I have to say that you generalize a lot and that makes such a discussion pretty difficult.

1. I wrote that social benefits should be cut, not abolished. Used more efficiently instead of throwing money out the window. Using BER as an example. You can build an airport well for 3 billion, but you can also build an airport for 10 billion which is just as good as the 3-billion one.

2. The claim is definitely not 100% true. And the difference between; you can't work because of health reasons and you stay at home because it's more comfortable; has to be figured out.

3. Regarding foreigners, I agree with you. My wife was a teacher for DAZ (German as a second language) during the refugee wave back then and taught German in refugee homes. A big problem was that this German course was voluntary. So at first there were 20 students, but over time it became fewer and fewer because getting up at 9 a.m. was just too early. That was a fact back then. And I blame the government for that. They should have tied learning German to financial support. But yes, work permits also have to be issued faster.

4. In general. Again, that’s the government’s fault. Many things could be fixed quickly. For example, paying taxes in the country where they are earned or not giving people opportunities to easily "hide" their money.

We often talk about not needing laws, e.g. 130 on the highways. But I believe that humans are incorrigible (I include myself) and need laws and regulations so they don't do stupid things.

Recently heard a funny saying on the radio. It is said: "The smarter one gives in." What is the consequence of that? The stupid ones rule the world :cool:

1. I wrote that social benefits should be cut back, not abolished. Use them more efficiently instead of throwing money out the window.

It came across differently, but as far as it is formulated here, I agree (nonsensical courses to polish statistics). My approach, however, would not be to cut Hartz IV, which you specifically mentioned and to which I responded specifically.

Using the example of BER. You can build an airport well for 3 billion, but you can also build an airport for 10 billion that is just as good as the one for 3 billion.

Even though I am sure that airport construction was not financed from the social spending budget, I find this a funny example because it was basically a job creation measure. Seriously, the problem of chronically missed budgets in major construction projects is another. It has more to do with procurement guidelines and underestimated planned offers, etc. But I know what you mean and yes, one can certainly also do something about the efficiency of our spending.

In general. This is again the government’s fault. Many things could be fixed quickly. For example, paying taxes in the country where they are earned or not giving people opportunities to easily "hide" their money.

Fully agree. Unfortunately, not quite easy to implement. The other countries have to cooperate as well. However, as far as I know, we are currently modifying the double taxation agreements. Negotiations are ongoing with several countries.

But I believe that humans are incorrigible (I agree with that) and require laws and regulations so they don’t do stupid things.

Now you are generalizing. Honestly, I believe that most people – if given the opportunity – want to do something (work) and also want to fulfill themselves without harming a third party. It is the few idiots for whom, unfortunately, you need strict laws or prohibitions so they do not exploit others. Unfortunately, much of the behavior is not really obvious; that’s why you have to steer with taxes – and close loopholes.