Carsten Schneider (32), SPD member of parliament has earned for itself. " Maybe not about the country, but the man who represents himself, despite his young age for almost 10 years in the German parliament. Since the pension rights are safe, excluded life experience outside of the city politics and operating largely a function of the promising List maximum space.
Now he has "free basic income-¬" last week with Spiegel Online a comment to let off the drives of the welfare state mafia tears of joy in his eyes. Individual justice is in place to produce a socially unjust basic income, as formulated by the Thuringian Minister President Dieter Althaus. Finally, the low incomes in Althaus model are taxed at 50%, the high only at 25%, says Schneider. Scandal, redistribution from bottom to top. The social policies was quickly into the drawer label "socially unjust". The SPON "guest commentary" was released in time for a meeting of the Market Economy Foundation on "citizen's income or free basic income 'on the last Wednesday in the hallowed halls of the Bundestag, the CDU / CSU faction in the parliament hall. They had with the anthroposophic Großdrogeristen Götz Werner and the Thuringian Minister President Dieter Althaus invited the two protagonists of basic income and basic income in order to make the critique of economic professors Clemens Fuest and Horst Siebert. Who now reads on, be warned. It is in principle. And it takes a little longer.
THE NEEDS
The German welfare state creates the demand, he met, for decades, he himself is growing more, but rising poverty and unemployment. An example of total failure. 138 of over 150 social assistance transfers from the clothes for newborns up to the social welfare pension, of labor, social agencies and utilities, student loans, child, or housing benefit authorities managed allotted, awarded. Alone in the employment services employed 90,000 people, unfortunately I have no statistics on the total number of employees on hand, but most of the DAX companies are likely to have fewer staff, always in Germany. The distributed volume accounts for about half of the German domestic product, more than 700 billion €, of which about 2 / 3 of the double fiction of the so-called "contributions" acquire with the citizens' rights "against the social subject.
The contributions consist of taxes of wage and salary earners, which consist of employer and employee contributions. This funding is in solidarity, because the employer to participate with their contributions. To make the illusion complete, and the "society" to become an accomplice to get the officials of employers 'and workers' organizations and vote on the boards of the so-called self-administration. The amount of the transfers and forced tributions but not the self-administration, but the legislature.
fact, these contributions are part of the income earned by the employee and not supportive to the plan to the system: the company employs the employee does not remain the employer's contribution from the end. For the entrepreneur it is annoying that he labor costs at three and not be remitted to an account. The payroll records must not only calculate the respective shares, but also carry out "On-Off" with financial and social security administration, and communicate with the tax office.
Althaus reflects the cost of the welfare state bureaucracy, with € 3.8 billion, which seems quite low and certainly does not include the costs of bureaucracy in the company. In any case, it is still twice that of the total outlay, the international community for the exploration of their potentially greatest threat of "climate catastrophe".
the unconditional basic income or negative income tax
Götz Werner is a visionary. He believes in the good in people and wants to do good. Everyone should get a free basic income, which guarantees him more than just existence. And to be financed by the abolition of the welfare state through a consumption tax, which is a mega-tax. The apple is to be taxed only when it is peeled and do not if it grows.
Althaus' model is a highly modified version of negative income tax of Milton Friedman, mixed with the basic income. Low earners receive € 800, € 400.00 big earners, pensioners and child 500 additional premium. The person will be deducted a lump-sum insurance premium of 200 €. Low earners have to pay up to 1600 € 50% tax on earned, big earners 25%. This angered the Lord especially Schneider, just like his Vice Presidents Grotthaus in the panel discussion that would have to know as a former mayor of Oberhausen, that the current welfare state structural change the Ruhr region has not mastered. One can probably assume that the men face more stupid than they are. The higher tax rate is a compensation for the original double the citizen's income, the effect will be negated by a higher income.
The tear
Then comes the economic expertise to speak. In the form of university professors, Clemens Fuest, University of Cologne, Institute of Public Finance and Horst Siebert, chief emeritus of the Institute of Economics in Kiel.
Fuest, a member of the liberal Kronberger circle, with the help of the "micro-simulation model" of his institution on the data base of "FAST / SOEP" the effects of Althaus model with a variant having a higher credit (60 instead of 50%) and a higher flat tax provides 30 instead of 25%. As with all these models, the result is completely determined by the assumptions that lead to the design model. As can be simulated as often.
With FAST / SOEP is called an econometric model that can estimate based on statistical surveys from the past behavior in the future will be. And that's the problem: statistical or micro-economic data is only aggregated from the past, but not for the future.
Fuest hypothesis is: Single women do not work if they receive a citizen's income. They prefer to educate their children then. Has he said so. Therefore, they are no longer available for work and financial needs increase. In sum, making a decline of 900,000 to 1.5 million full-time employees. This creates a higher financial cost for benefits between 73.3 (Althaus) and € 10.9 billion.
Fuest calls as an alternative to the combined wages. Only those who get work, even what to do so, that it is enough to live. The rest of the welfare state remains as it is. This has an effect on employment. So social transfer number 139th A complex society requires just a complex welfare state and a complex tax system. Fuest said. The man makes his own tax return? Who probably makes the tax return for his secretary. And the student loan account of its students? Himself? Hardly.
Siebert Then take the floor and turns to Götz Werner: Germany had no oil wells, that they could finance an unconditional basic income. Hartz IV have finally led to a reduction of the expected wage, the wage expected by the unemployed to work again. By 20%. The unconditional basic income would probably increase again. The acquisition of morality of the young generation would be undermined by an unconditional basic income. The young people have no incentive to build human capital, that is to educate, to learn a trade, a course of study, etc. successfully. What you could to earn in the informal sector would always extend to life. To finance the basic income, an income tax of 78% would be required. O-Ton: "The risk in the Sahara to risk his life seems low given the opportunity, as Nigerians his income to the 46-ig-fold increase. In addition to a huge migration out of Africa would also all EU citizens to Germany who work unwillingly. Would be added to the consumer tourism from Germany to other European countries that have lower tax. The entitlement would force, increased the political economy. Werner had not provided financial accounts. Social security contributions for the financing could not be spent. A basic income of 1,500 € per year would amount to finance costs of EUR 1.5 billion per year. Then were left for employment, the capital factor is 200 billion €. That is impossible.
not what was discussed: On behalf of the Institute Althaus, Siebert headed the past, has estimated the opposite of what had Fuest "calculated" Thomas Straubhaar and his colleagues estimate by the Institute for World Economics, 1.17 million new full-time jobs would be created and improve the financial situation of the welfare state around € 46 billion, as the largest employment effects can be achieved with lower income than structural reasons for the low-skilled workers, whose unemployment for more than three decades is increasing.
Straubhaar said, by the citizen's income would more people be able to pursue even a job that finances alone do not make a living. They would be inclined therefore, now accept bodies that did not exist before. Fuest and Siebert expect the opposite. They fear that more people want to ever engage in any gainful employment. You want a living social transfer subject to the obligation to work, ie a combined wage instead of the citizens money. The associated administrative burden they consider negligible.
Then, the parties represented in parliament had their say. SPD, however, skeptical Green, FDP money for citizens with means-tested and the Left Party for the unconditional basic income. The difference between FDP and Althaus had the least to those between the Left Party and Werner. The description of the usual party banter will save me.
THE KEY TO SUCCESS: THE NEGATIVE PROGRESSION "
Sometimes you develop even economic ambition. Therefore, a proposal mediates between Althaus and professors. Hartz IV offers little incentive to take additional legal jobs, because that is the "recipient" additional remaining share of wages too low. In order for the unemployment benefit II is now practically the minimum wage on a monthly basis. Only if you earn at least as much as ALG II, and housing assistance to bring together, it is worth taking up work. The reduction of the expected wage, which advocates Siebert correctly is not the consequence of the introduction of ALG II, but comes about because of the absence of unemployment benefits. This paid from tax revenues transfer power was based not on the breadline, but early in the earnings of the. Therefore, he had an incentive to take even a job if they roughly matched his previous earnings. Now he gets to the end of the unemployment benefit only the ALG II, he / she is so much better when he achieved a lower than his original income, as long as it is a little above the Hartz IV set.
It's the same with the public money. However, already the Althaus - an improved model of incentive as Hartz IV, as it were sliding enter the job market. Because from what is added to the deserving unemployed, Althaus wants him only deduct half of the citizens money. This improves the incentive of every citizen to the status quo in all cases and should precisely the tendency to increase employment. It has the same effect as the combined wages, only on a voluntary basis and not based on coercion. The state does not need regulatory action. Simultaneously, the unemployed pay no taxes. The citizen's income for earners in Althaus leads to a misunderstanding. For defacto the burden on high earners and low-income people in about the same, because the one getting double the money of other citizens.
spoke, however much that would return from the Althaus-variant to the original negative income tax. The citizen's income is equal to exactly half of the basic tax allowance. In order to work incentives strengthen, runs the credit of their own merit but not linear, but progressive. The less I earn in addition, the more I can keep it. The more I earn in addition, the higher the credit to the citizens money. The double deduction, the citizens who earn more than twice the citizen's income, which almost made the same tax, sourcing the citizens money. The main objection by Fuest, the less incentive to work is offset by the negative progression. It is always worth something to earn added. If you make of the first 100 € do not require you, then you will be quick to take up work. If by the second 100 € nur 12,5 %, von den Dritten 100 € 25 % abgezogen werden, erhalten gerade die besonders niedrig qualifizierten einen Anreiz, sich an der Wertschöpfung zu beteiligen. Und durch diese Beteiligung wird bereits ein Teil des Einkommens wieder durch Einkommens- und Gewinnsteuern bei anderen zurückgeführt.
Entscheidend für das Gelingen des Konzeptes ist die wirksame Unterbindung der Schwarzarbeit. Dies kann nur durch eine grundsätzliche andere Anwendung der Einkommenssteuer erreichen. Dienstleistungen, Immobilien und Güter, die auf der Basis von Erwerbsarbeit entstehen, müssen grundsätzlich abzugsfähig sein. Nur so werden die Auftraggeber automatisch darauf bestehen, dass „mit Rechnung“ gearbeitet wird. Wer also sein Auto reparieren lässt, sein Dach neu decken lässt oder eine Wärmeschutzdämmung in seinem Haus anbringen lässt, Sonnenkollektoren auf dem Dach installiert, kann dies etwa bei einer „selbst genutzten Immobilie“ genauso von der Steuer absetzen können, wie bei einer „Fremdgenutzten.“ Damit entstünde die Steuerpflicht nicht beim Einkommen des Bürgers, sondern beim Gewinn des Unternehmers.
Bedenkt man, dass der Anteil der Schwarzarbeit in Deutschland heute 17 % des Inlandproduktes beträgt, also rund 300 Mrd €, so ergeben sich bei einem angestrebten Steueranteil von 25 % (neben der Gewinnsteuer fallen die Einkommenssteuern der Mitarbeiter als zusätzliche Einnahmen und die niedrigeren Aufwendungen an Bürgergeld an), so wären so rund 75 Mrd € zusätzliche Einnahmen zu erwarten. Dass ist ungefähr die Deckungslücke, die Fuest dem Althaus-Modell unterstellt. Das weist auf den geringen Erkenntniswert der ökonometrisch-basierten Modelle hin.
Zum Bürgergeld gibt es genauso wenig eine Alternative wie zur Flat-Tax á la Kirchhoff, deren Erklärung auf den besagten Bierdeckel passt. Althaus hat aus dem Scheitern von Merz und Kirchhoff in der real-existierenden Parteiendemokratie übrigens seine Konsequenzen gezogen und organisiert seine „Bürgergeld-Initiative“ bewusst außerhalb der CDU. So wehte wieder einmal ein Hauch von Merz durch den CDU-Fraktionssaal. Und das im April.
0 comments:
Post a Comment