Why don't construction prices go down?

Why again? It already exists. It's just called sparkling wine tax. It didn't exist in the GDR but otherwise continuously since 1902. It was only briefly set to 0 from 1933-37.

Well noticed. And just as one could simply say: "We want to build boats, let's tax soda!" one could now also tax anything. Smoothies. Pork. Salad. Whatever. Compared to property tax, all of that would be ridiculously easy & quick to implement. You put a PR agency on it in advance that really explains to everyone how incredibly evil smoothies/pork/salad are, you appear in front of the cameras with a pained face and explain that you have to protect the people from it, and so on. Before you know it, alongside the sparkling wine tax, we have a smoothie tax. There's no legal remedy against that. A little protest here, a little demonstration there, done. The property tax is explicitly required by the highest court to be revenue-neutral – it doesn't even need a lawsuit from Björn/Alice/Hubsi because the Federal Constitutional Court will do it itself.

...
The property tax is explicitly required by the highest court to be revenue-neutral – there doesn't even need to be a lawsuit from Björn/Alice/Hubsi, as the Federal Constitutional Court will take care of it itself.

Just read an article on Focus describing the opposite. 3.2 million objections/lawsuits against higher property tax rates/tax assessments, which are being blocked by tax offices.

You cannot sue today against higher rates from 2025. It consists of two variables: property tax value and assessment rate. The former is currently being recalculated, the latter still has to be determined. No one can yet know what specific property tax will be levied in 2025.

The procedure is of course rather unfortunate. "Revenue-neutral" in practice also does not mean that every household pays as much as before, and nothing prevents municipalities from increasing the assessment rate in 2023 in order to then switch to revenue-neutral relative to 2023 in 2025. On the other hand, a higher assessment rate does not come out of nowhere. Local politics is easily accessible to every citizen, and in smaller communities there is a high probability that one even personally knows the municipal council members.

To have a somewhat reasonable life, a family income of maybe 7000 euros should now be considered sufficient. With 5000 euros you don't get far anymore.

Every citizen's basic income recipient like: " - "

After all, the sprawling welfare state also has to be financed.

Again the citizen's basic income recipients during harassment, scrutiny, and cuts: " - " The principals searching for teachers in their rundown schools: " - " The daycare center managers when new furniture is needed: " - " The patient after waiting 3 hours in the emergency room: " - " The nurse and assistant doctor when they have to work overtime again because Ameos*Sana*Asklepios otherwise don't generate enough profit: " - " Mr. Scholz meanwhile: "100 billion special fund and NATO 2%-target!" Mr. Lindner meanwhile: "8 billion tax reliefs for the top 1-5%! What can be distributed must first be (unearned - note by user) earned!" Ms. Paus meanwhile " - "

So if there is a monthly income of 5000 euros, then maybe 2800 euros go for repayment and interest plus the 920 euros ancillary operating costs for the house, leaving only 1280 euros for the rest. Not much anymore. Paying for groceries, vacation, car, etc. from that will be tough. That basically still ends up at citizen's basic income level.

To get from 5k net to citizen's basic income level in one sentence is quite a feat. Please don't take it personally, it just triggered me. I'm going to get a coffee now.

Just read an article on Focus that describes the opposite. 3.2 million objections/lawsuits against higher property tax rates/tax assessments, which are being blocked by tax offices.

Yeah, that was exactly the goal of the amendment, to have fairer taxation. That it goes down here and up there is just the nature of the matter. Very embarrassing for a magazine that they didn't understand "revenue-neutral". And why the objections are currently on hold, the editorial team could have inquired about that - but then the "saviors of the disinherited" role would of course be gone.

By the way: I will probably pay more property tax as well. Yep, so I've lived for many years at the expense of other people.

Yeah, that was exactly the goal of the amendment, to ensure fairer taxation. That it goes down here and up there is just the nature of the matter. Very embarrassing for a magazine that they didn’t understand "revenue-neutral". And why the objections are currently on hold, the editorial team could have asked that too – but then the "savior of the disinherited" role would of course be gone.

By the way: I will probably also pay more property tax. Yep, so I have lived for many years at the expense of other people.

Thanks for the clarification! I was already afraid that everyone in the forum would jump on the "Focus train"... read the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court and realize that the previous property valuation was extremely unfair. This is now being corrected. By the way, the "old" valuation as of 1/1/64 was terribly time-consuming... I hope that this time it will go faster.