Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Feed
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB Playground

  1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. World News
  4. German welfare state 'can no longer be financed' — Merz

German welfare state 'can no longer be financed' — Merz

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved World News
world
63 Posts 35 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • T toad31@lemmy.cif.su

    Sure it can.

    Just raise taxes on the wealthy.

    G This user is from outside of this forum
    G This user is from outside of this forum
    ghen@sh.itjust.works
    wrote last edited by
    #50

    It's like telling people that jump from diet fad to diet fad all they need to do is count calories.

    We all know the solution, none of these countries are doing it

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
    • K kibiz0r@midwest.social
      • Print 1bn in welfare
      • Welfare ultimately gets spent into rich folks’ coffers
      • Tax that 1bn back out of the rich
      • Net cost: zero

      What’s “unaffordable” here?

      gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
      gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
      gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      wrote last edited by
      #51

      The worry is:

      • the german government prints 1bn euros and hands it out to the people
      • the people will spend 300m of it to buy furniture, cars, smartphones
      • that money goes to companies abroad, to billionaires abroad, and can't be "taxed back"

      The solution is:

      • literally create import tariffs that make importing goods from other countries more expensive, so people are incentivized to spend money on domestically produced goods
      • now the money flows back to domestic billionaires,
      • where it can be "taxed back"
      1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • P petrjanda@gonzo.markets

        Fully agree. The big problem is Germany industry is in the shits and can't afford to finance the welfare state anymore. Military spending is all debt.

        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        wrote last edited by
        #52

        the german industry produces more goods than it ever has in its entire history. that growth has slowed down to close to zero simply means that it's literally at its peak.

        explain to me why there aren't enough resources to go around for everyone?

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de

          IMO the borders need to be closed first before taxing the rich works well enough. Allow me to explain:

          If you tax the rich today, they drop the german citizenship and become carribean citizens tomorrow, and then you can't tax them anymore. All the while they hold on to their companies in germany.

          Instead, it has to be illegal to invest inside germany (above a certain threshold amount) if you don't have german citizenship. This way, the rich can't flee. They have to keep german citizenship to hold on to their companies, and then they can be taxed.

          G This user is from outside of this forum
          G This user is from outside of this forum
          gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
          wrote last edited by
          #53

          Although I appreciate the thought here, and I think the investment idea may even be good regardless of what I'm about to say, that's not exactly how this works. If you tax the assets the rich own, where they own them, it doesn't matter where they go. And they can't live in Germany and not get taxed, so they can change citizenship all they want if they live here they will get taxed here. And based off of the most recent studies/reports I've seen (but not read) rich don't actually move when taxes go up - which makes sense. People have lives, family, friends, favorite restaurants and hobby spaces.

          The rich will try to dodge the taxes, they may even succeed but we don't have to legistate a bullet proof solution we just have to agree:

          1. the rich need to be heavily taxed (I'd even say out of existence)
          2. taxing the rich is possible via various methods
          3. taxing the rich would solve and/or reverse most of societies problems so everyone should talk and support it.

          But yes, I'm a big fan of no outside investment. I'm also a fan of government investment requiring ownership purchases. I'm also a fan of requiring companies to be partially or totally owned by their workers. And I don't think anyone should have a net worth over let's say 50 million.

          gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG 1 Reply Last reply
          4
          • G gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world

            Although I appreciate the thought here, and I think the investment idea may even be good regardless of what I'm about to say, that's not exactly how this works. If you tax the assets the rich own, where they own them, it doesn't matter where they go. And they can't live in Germany and not get taxed, so they can change citizenship all they want if they live here they will get taxed here. And based off of the most recent studies/reports I've seen (but not read) rich don't actually move when taxes go up - which makes sense. People have lives, family, friends, favorite restaurants and hobby spaces.

            The rich will try to dodge the taxes, they may even succeed but we don't have to legistate a bullet proof solution we just have to agree:

            1. the rich need to be heavily taxed (I'd even say out of existence)
            2. taxing the rich is possible via various methods
            3. taxing the rich would solve and/or reverse most of societies problems so everyone should talk and support it.

            But yes, I'm a big fan of no outside investment. I'm also a fan of government investment requiring ownership purchases. I'm also a fan of requiring companies to be partially or totally owned by their workers. And I don't think anyone should have a net worth over let's say 50 million.

            gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
            gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
            gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            wrote last edited by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
            #54

            So you're saying the assets (factory, houses, land) should be taxed directly, instead of the billionaires?

            Interesting idea, i need to think about it.

            Edit: after having thought about it, i'd like there to be a "exempt tax amount", i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don't pay any wealth taxes. if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that'd be difficult. It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

            G 1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • microwave@lemmy.worldM microwave@lemmy.world

              The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.

              E This user is from outside of this forum
              E This user is from outside of this forum
              eternal192@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              wrote last edited by
              #55

              Friedrich Merz is Germany's Kier Starmer and if you don't understand what i mean go check on UK and how well they are doing under Starmers government and you'll understand.

              1 Reply Last reply
              2
              • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de

                So you're saying the assets (factory, houses, land) should be taxed directly, instead of the billionaires?

                Interesting idea, i need to think about it.

                Edit: after having thought about it, i'd like there to be a "exempt tax amount", i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don't pay any wealth taxes. if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that'd be difficult. It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

                G This user is from outside of this forum
                G This user is from outside of this forum
                gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
                wrote last edited by
                #56

                I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it's the same thing right?

                gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • G gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world

                  I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it's the same thing right?

                  gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                  gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                  gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                  wrote last edited by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                  #57

                  After having thought about it, i’d like there to be a “exempt tax amount”, i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don’t pay any wealth taxes.

                  • if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that’d be difficult.
                  • It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

                  does that make sense to you?

                  G gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG 2 Replies Last reply
                  0
                  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de

                    After having thought about it, i’d like there to be a “exempt tax amount”, i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don’t pay any wealth taxes.

                    • if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that’d be difficult.
                    • It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

                    does that make sense to you?

                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    G This user is from outside of this forum
                    gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
                    wrote last edited by
                    #58

                    That makes sense. My point isn't to tax the property it's that the property is taxed, if that makes any sense. You tax based on the property, it traces to the owner, the owner gets taxed based on the property. If the owner lives in Beijing or Antarctica the property is still here and gets taxed, they can't avoid it by moving unless they can take the property.

                    So in that case, an exempt amount is fine. I'd just want it to be steep up to a point where it's 98 or 100%.

                    No one gets a third house before everyone gets one kinda thing. And also no one is allowed to have enough wealth they can destabilize democracy or even a city.

                    gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG 1 Reply Last reply
                    1
                    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de

                      He's not "conservative", he isn't conserving anything. He isn't conserving the living standard of the people. He's just a dumbass posing as a conservative, while actually wreaking havoc on our collective future.

                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      P This user is from outside of this forum
                      pollo_jack@lemmy.world
                      wrote last edited by
                      #59

                      That's conservationists that conserve things. Conservatives work to consolidate power, reinstate kings. Like Donald and the conservative republicans.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1
                      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de

                        After having thought about it, i’d like there to be a “exempt tax amount”, i.e. if you own less than $10m, you don’t pay any wealth taxes.

                        • if you do taxation solely on a per-asset basis, that’d be difficult.
                        • It would be better if the person gets taxed and not the asset itself. Sothat you can deduct a tax-exempt amount per person, not per asset.

                        does that make sense to you?

                        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                        gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                        wrote last edited by
                        #60

                        As a follow-up, my ideal taxation plan looks like this:

                        When doing new, big projects, it makes sense to try them out on a small scale, then see how it goes and scale it up later. For an initial set of parameters, i propose the following:

                        Assume you live in country CNTRY.

                        • If you own less than the tax-exempt amount, you pay no wealth taxes at all. The tax-exempt amount is $10m.
                        • If you're a citizen of country CNTRY, no matter where you live, your total wealth gets calculated, and you have to pay wealth tax on everything above the tax-exempt amount to the country CNTRY. The tax rate is 3% annually. E.g. if you own $25m, the tax-exempt amount is $10m, and the non-exempt amount is $15m, so you pay $450k annually.
                        • If you're not a citizen of CNTRY, there is no tax-exempt amount for you and you have to start paying wealth tax on everything you own inside CNTRY. This is to avoid tax-avoidance schemes, like people investing in other countries to avoid paying taxes in their own countries. E.g. a person owning $250m might invest in 25 different countries, where in each of them the tax-exempt amount is $10m, sothat they don't pay taxes in any of the countries.
                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • G gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world

                          That makes sense. My point isn't to tax the property it's that the property is taxed, if that makes any sense. You tax based on the property, it traces to the owner, the owner gets taxed based on the property. If the owner lives in Beijing or Antarctica the property is still here and gets taxed, they can't avoid it by moving unless they can take the property.

                          So in that case, an exempt amount is fine. I'd just want it to be steep up to a point where it's 98 or 100%.

                          No one gets a third house before everyone gets one kinda thing. And also no one is allowed to have enough wealth they can destabilize democracy or even a city.

                          gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                          gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.deG This user is from outside of this forum
                          gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
                          wrote last edited by
                          #61

                          Semi-related, my ideal taxation plan looks like this:

                          When doing new, big projects, it makes sense to try them out on a small scale, then see how it goes and scale it up later. For an initial set of parameters, i propose the following:

                          Assume you live in country CNTRY.

                          • If you own less than the tax-exempt amount, you pay no wealth taxes at all. The tax-exempt amount is $10m.
                          • If you're a citizen of country CNTRY, no matter where you live, your total wealth gets calculated, and you have to pay wealth tax on everything above the tax-exempt amount to the country CNTRY. The tax rate is 3% annually. E.g. if you own $25m, the tax-exempt amount is $10m, and the non-exempt amount is $15m, so you pay $450k annually.
                          • If you're not a citizen of CNTRY, there is no tax-exempt amount for you and you have to start paying wealth tax on everything you own inside CNTRY. This is to avoid tax-avoidance schemes, like people investing in other countries to avoid paying taxes in their own countries. E.g. a person owning $250m might invest in 25 different countries, where in each of them the tax-exempt amount is $10m, sothat they don't pay taxes in any of the countries.
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • microwave@lemmy.worldM microwave@lemmy.world

                            The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.

                            softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
                            softestsapphic@lemmy.worldS This user is from outside of this forum
                            softestsapphic@lemmy.world
                            wrote last edited by
                            #62

                            They should probably be executed for breaking the country's welfare systems.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            3
                            • microwave@lemmy.worldM microwave@lemmy.world

                              The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.

                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              G This user is from outside of this forum
                              gammelfisch@lemmy.world
                              wrote last edited by
                              #63

                              For starters, cancel the fucking F-35 order and tell Rheinmetall's lobbyists and investors to shove it.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              1
                              Reply
                              • Reply as topic
                              Log in to reply
                              • Oldest to Newest
                              • Newest to Oldest
                              • Most Votes


                              • Login

                              Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              0
                              • Categories
                              • Recent
                              • Popular
                              • World
                              • Users
                              • Feed