German welfare state 'can no longer be financed' — Merz
-
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.
I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it's the same thing right?
-
I mean if the billionaires own the houses and factories and land it's the same thing right?
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
That's conservationists that conserve things. Conservatives work to consolidate power, reinstate kings. Like Donald and the conservative republicans.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.
They should probably be executed for breaking the country's welfare systems.
-
The German chancellor has called for a welfare reform, putting him on course for a possible clash with the SPD.
For starters, cancel the fucking F-35 order and tell Rheinmetall's lobbyists and investors to shove it.
-
Sure it can.
Just raise taxes on the wealthy.
Just fucking start collecting the existing taxes on wealth
They are in the law already, they just haven't been collected in over twenty years
-
If they want to operate in the world's 3rd largest economy, they will not.
A wealthy country’s market for selling goods has value that can’t be taken elsewhere. But production, jobs, and profit can absolutely be exported. We have a lot of problems from not operating as one globe and the way businesses can flee from one country to another to find the most favorable conditions to exploit is one of those problems.
-
Are you referring to SPD? They haven't bothered with actual left-leaning politics for a while. Die Linke is our party on the left, and they are experiencing a renaissance right, but unfortunately not nearly as much as the far right.
To answer your question: Most German voters are centrists with a mix of vaguely conservative and social democratic views. And they've been exposed to economic anxiety narratives and xenophobic fear-mongering for the past two decades, while lacking the political education to smell the populist bullshit for what it is in a social media environment defined by anti-intellectualism and fake news.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/germany2025
Spd is a right leaning party no I'm talking about die linke
