Why don't construction prices go down?

  • Erstellt am 2023-05-15 08:17:32

Maschi33

2024-07-06 13:43:00
  • #1
4 with factor + have allowances entered
 

Tolentino

2024-07-06 17:39:03
  • #2
Many equate the tax class combination 3/5 with [Ehegattensplitting]. Since there is frequent talk that some parties want to abolish the splitting and now specifically want to abolish the 3/5, this is often seen as the implementation of this goal. However, in my opinion, it is not communicated offensively enough that this is not the case.
 

MachsSelbst

2024-07-06 20:56:48
  • #3
That's also correct. The classic example, the childless marriage between a dentist and a housewife does not need to be taxed particularly favorably. It would make more sense to distinguish between "with child" and "without child," for example also leaving single parents in tax class 3.

Unmarried couples, on the other hand... Critical, since marriage also cements special obligations that unmarried couples do not have towards each other.
 

nordanney

2024-07-06 21:19:07
  • #4
Currently, for single parents, it is tax class 2 = relief amount due to/child. But not as good as tax class 3.
 

Tolentino

2024-07-06 23:22:40
  • #5
That is the next misconception, which, however, is also spread by all parties. The splitting is not intended to promote the family (regardless of whether with or without children). Rather, it serves to prevent a disadvantage. As correctly writes, there are obligations arising from marriage (e.g., maintenance obligations), and thus there would be a disadvantage compared to couples assessed separately. The supposed disadvantage of women is due to other factors and must be addressed differently. For example, by abolishing the 3/5 combination. But that leads too far here now, I think.
 

nordanney

2024-07-06 23:37:42
  • #6
That is planned now. Nothing more and nothing less. No one is touching the splitting.
 
Oben