New regulation of property tax from 2020

explained it perfectly.

Since Helmut Schmidt, there has been the idea that corporate profits should be touched as little as possible because then, come hell or high water, they create jobs with the money. Since the "spiritual-moral turnaround" under Kohl, this has also been applied: profits are always to the advantage of all, private is always better than state.

And because it works so wonderfully, today as a sole breadwinner you can no longer do what your parents still could. Specifically:

Through restraint in wage increases, bracket creep, VAT increases and contribution caps on the one hand and reduction of corporate taxes, capital gains taxes below income tax, tax loopholes for corporations and a drastic scaling down of state auditors on the other hand, a redistribution takes place, through which a few benefit more from growth and a large majority correspondingly less.

The justification for this is that the market always distributes profits in an optimal way, which is why this policy benefits everyone.

I would say: running...

The goal of taxing undeveloped land more heavily is definitely missed.

I don’t know the goal – who stated it? Property tax is a kind of wealth tax. I don’t know anyone who has wealth and likes it. In principle, it’s not wrong that people who have more also contribute more. The calculation includes an income estimate. So one could say that property tax is also a kind of income tax. Income taxes always affect prices and are distributed across products. In the case of rentals, property tax is passed on directly; that is not the intention of the wealth tax. Some real estate is taxed less than others. This includes a preference for single- and two-family houses as well as agriculture and forestry. We, as homeowners, should be happy about that. The uncertainty is stupid – no one knows what their house will cost in the coming year or how the tax reform will affect rents. Many people have to budget tightly. Therefore, quick clarity now would be good.

To the argument. The state taxes so high, we both have to work today. In the past, one salary was enough:
A look back at the 1970s, when I was a teenager. One earner was normal. Two earners an exception. People lived much more modestly. Our family car was a Kadett station wagon. There was only 1 car. Going to a restaurant was almost never done. Vacation was in the Harz Mountains. Clothing: once a year to Karstadt in Kiel, otherwise there was nothing new. Food: often without meat or shoemaker’s steak. We had just one TV in the house. And that was, as it felt, an endlessly long time a black and white set. School trips were called hiking days and cost nothing because you actually hiked. Etc. So one income was enough. It would be enough today, too. Bet? K.

No Karsten, it’s not enough. That’s the crux of the matter.

Or do you seriously believe that dual earners today, who still have to count every penny, live that much differently?

- don’t go to restaurants either
- only have one TV as well. It’s flat nowadays but after recalculating, it doesn’t cost more than the old tube TV.
- vacation: They don’t do it excessively either. But you with your Harz: overcrowding with German tourists wasn’t the Harz in the 60s and 70s, more like Lake Garda.
- do you often need two cars if two people are working?

- The wage share was simply higher back then (THE argument above all).

So, now Dagebüll is cheering because the tax is going down, and Sylt is crying because it’s going up. So what. Syltringers can handle that.

The argument also comes up repeatedly in the media, but I really don’t understand why that should be the case. The standard value in municipality A decreases and thus the total tax revenue there. So what do you do to fill the hole in the cash register? Raise the multiplier! The same applies inversely to municipality B. Sudden surplus of income and the population is raging. Consequence? Lower the multiplier! This would only work within municipalities at all if you compare "good" and "bad" residential areas there. But definitely not, as is always claimed, metropolitan region A with rural area B or Westland X against Eastland Y.

Actually, I just wanted to vent my joy about Master Scholz's handling of the new regulation. The good man, of course, never comes up with the idea not to re-regulate the matter and thus abolish the property tax. Otherwise very interesting here; especially Dr. Hix. Yes, the guy who paid for his house in cash, who once casually inquired about KfW things (it’s not written anywhere that you have to be poor for that), who then thought, due to the rather complicated procedure: whatever, I’ll just drop it; this guy gets upset when taxes are never abolished but always new ones are invented or old ones reshaped. And that has absolutely nothing to do with an antisocial or socially hostile attitude towards life. I have seen a state that thought it had to pay for everything for everyone go bankrupt. Thank God I was still young enough to start over. I’ve never wanted nor expected anything for free. But when I see today how our state keeps creatively tinkering with new taxes, I’m not exactly pleased about it. I think less about myself and more about our children; when you see their tax rates, you just start having your thoughts. Multiple taxation (first income tax - ok - then taxes again on the house built from taxed income - not ok for me) can be liked by all here, but not by me. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the single mother in the apartment block. Whoever really needs help should get it. As for the "personal address": it does not affect me in the least: just because someone makes up some twisted things about what kind of attitude towards life I might have, doesn’t mean I have to change my life. We have been donating measurable amounts every year to Bread for the World, Red Cross, and a nearby children's hospice for a long time. I do not feel antisocial or however else that was euphemized or openly described here. You have to give back as well, but I prefer to give personally like that rather than anonymously to an airport without planes, which is never finished and always just gets more expensive. That’s where tax money disappears, just as an example. The people who collect the tax money are often too stupid to spend it sensibly and effectively again. But back to the topic: If reasonable allowances were introduced for the property tax angemessene Freibeträge, I would find it ok. It would spare the "average Joe" who worked hard and saved for his little home and wouldn’t kill professional landlords, but it would bring something for the needy into the state treasury. But that probably won’t happen.