Why don't construction prices go down?

Something like
- the abrupt ending of the e-car subsidy
- the failed heating law/building energy law
- flop Intel Magdeburg for almost €10 billion
- flop Thyssen with green steel subsidies
- flop climate protection contracts

Economic policy by Habeck, whom I personally consider one of the best Greens, so far meant endless subsidies and no plan. No idea what the market wants and needs, but rather driven by an ideology.

I am totally glad that Lindner exists because he triggered new elections. Politically many things are good too, but unfortunately not very social.

But there are some things that
a) were either only decisions carried out by predecessors
b) or were set up exactly like that due to compromises especially with the FDP

not to mention that the heating law, despite all its weaknesses, by far did not say what a big campaign allegedly claimed it did. And this campaign was again significantly initiated by the FDP.

So sorry, but for anyone who is not completely blind, the eternal saboteur let the coalition collapse here. If you wanted out anyway, there are other ways to do it - but the necessary character for this has long completely disappeared in the leadership of the former liberal party. It was different once.

(This is not to say that Habeck is a great economist)

In order to provide relief in the lower income brackets, the Greens want to moderately increase the income tax on high incomes. From a taxable income of 100,000 euros for singles and 200,000 euros for couples, the tax rate should be raised to 45% by means of a new bracket. For top earners with a taxable income of 250,000 euros or 500,000 euros respectively, the tax rate should increase to 48% through another bracket. This tax increase affects about 2% of income taxpayers. The vast majority will be relieved by the higher basic tax allowance.

The wealth tax should only apply from high assets of more than 2 million euros per person and amount to 1% annually. To avoid overburdening companies, benefits for business assets should be introduced to the appropriate extent and investment incentives created at the same time.

And I would call that left-wing propaganda. In Germany, the top tax rate applies at an annual income of 66,000€. That corresponds to 3,400€ net in tax class 1. You can’t really make big leaps with that at least in our latitudes. And it is exactly these people the left-green crowd is talking about when they mention strong shoulders and all that nonsense.

I want to say something about the top tax rate. It is often implied that if you earn so much that you fall into the top tax bracket, you pay that rate. Wrong! You always pay your average tax rate. And that could even decrease if the lower tax-free thresholds were increased instead of capping the top rates. Just saying. And that’s not propaganda, but simple math. (Well, but then smaller incomes would spend more money afterwards and somewhat boost our economy. Obviously, nobody really wants that…)

And that is exactly the problem, isn't it? People are afraid that it's not about the large fortunes, but about their own moderate prosperity. And with this, they have been ensuring for over 100 years that the middle class does not identify with poorer people. Until 1997 there was a wealth tax, and when considerations are made to reintroduce it, figures like >2 million euros come into play. And not everyone above the top tax rate.

I can only go by what has been decided and not what is being discussed. That rarely aligns in politics. For example, I find it outrageous that the solidarity surcharge is still charged for high earners from around 75k€ as well as for capital gains. A wealth tax will, for example, also affect many landlords, who will then pass it onto the rent. It is then similar to a CO2 tax: everyone pays more and the state has more money to redistribute. Truly rich or wealthy people can certainly avoid such restrictions...

I want to say something about the top tax rate. It is often implied that if you earn so much that you are in the progression at the top tax rate, you pay it as well. Wrong! You always pay your average tax rate. And that could also decrease if exemptions at the lower end were increased instead of capping the top. Just saying. And this is not propaganda, but simple math. ( well, but then smaller incomes would spend more money afterward and boost our economy a bit. Obviously, nobody really wants that…)

I am aware of that. But it still means that every euro above the top tax rate threshold is taxed with this rate. Which does not really encourage extra work or salary increases, and that already happens with very small absolute amounts. Higher exemptions, for example at the level of the minimum wage, i.e. about €24k, would of course also be an approach.

It gets even more absurd. At my children’s elementary school, 3 out of 4 toilets are now broken. The toilets are from 1981, the year the school was built. No toilet seats, cracked porcelain, broken tiles. Calcified faucets and only cold water. Parents had offered to donate money and labor for the replacement. Not possible. A specialist company must do it after a tender, and there is no money for that.

However, you can only really hold the municipality accountable for this. While they do not make the regulations for the tender process, it is their fault that no investments have been made since 1981. And yes, it is very difficult for municipalities to raise the necessary equity capital to claim shares from the state. But it is possible. Although it’s not absurd, it is really bad. Toilets should still work properly.