Good morning, dear reader,
one often has the vessel right nowühl that there in the traffic light government simply no longer understand each other. It’s all the nicer when someone sees the light from time to time. This is what happened to the FDP politician Christoph Meyer these days, who understood what the Greens and their family minister Lisa Paus actually want with this basic child security.
Admittedly, Mr. Meyer has something wüformulated more tenderly than me. But we should only allow ourselves to be distracted (and perhaps amused) for a moment and then investigate the serious problem behind it. Mr Meyer told the “Tagesspiegel”: “With her current proposal, Ms. Paus drops her mask and shows that she is obviously primarily concerned with redistribution.”
you möGen accuse me of being easy to amuse, but I had to laugh when I read that. Not so much about the mask, although I have a few questions there too (What kind? And why is Frau Paus suddenly dropping it?). But about the part with the redistribution. Because fervently accusing Lisa Paus that the child protection scheme is about redistribution is a bit like accusing the SPD of wanting the minimum wage to make people finally earn more.
That is exactly the meaning and purpose of the Übung. The basic child security should redistribute, namely the money from those who have a lot of it to those who have little. social policy. Basically quite simple. And because it is so simple and we should assume that Mr. Meyer actually knows this, this example is a wonderful way to assess the actual question that is becoming a problem everywhere in the traffic light government: Wowür should the state spend its money, and who should benefit most from it?
Before we go through this with Mr. Meyer using the example of basic child security, it is helpful to be aware of two things. On the one hand: Strictly speaking, the state is almost unmöequaled not to redistribute. If he collects taxes and spends them on something, be it child support, heat pump subsidies or roads, no one ends up with exactly as much money as he or she paid in taxes. It’s also logical, otherwise you could leave people their money right away.
On the other hand, we should be aware that the money that the traffic light government can redistribute is actually becoming scarcer. This is not because the state takes less. According to estimates, tax revenues will even increase in 2023 because the economy is growing. It is due to the rising interest costs, but above all it is because the federal government wants to incur significantly less debt this time and at the same time does not want to raise taxes. This is particularly important for the FDP.
So, in short, it’s like this: The state redistributes anyway. The question is how much money he redistributes (and can redistribute) and who benefits from it.
Which brings us back to Mr. Meyer and the basic child security wyours. Because that’s exactly what the traffic light government is arguing about in this case. The FDP prefers not to redistribute more money than has already been redistributed for basic child security. She argues that the traffic light has increased child benefit anyway, and sees basic child security as a kind of administrative reform that bundles existing services and makes them more accessible.
Die Grünen but want to redistribute more. Lisa Paus wants an additional 12 billion euros for basic child security, the FDP only expects two or three billion more for administrative reform. And because the Greens know that the traffic light is short on cash, they have made a few suggestions as to where the money could come from. One of these suggestions is that climate-damaging subsidies such as the company car privilege could be removed. However, the FDP does not find it so good.
The latest idea of the Grünen is therefore, the child-free beträge to lower. “It is absurd that wealthy families are relieved much more of the child allowance than poorer families who only receive child benefit,” Lisa Paus told the “Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung”. And that is exactly the suggestion that got Mr. Meyer from the FDP so upset. It was “a slap in the face to millions of families,” he complained.
Which once again illustrates in concrete terms what the traffic light is doing when there are more and more problems: The partners often have fundamentally different ideas about who they are doing politics for. And what politics.
What’s up?
Robert Habeck ladt to the wind power summit. More wind turbines should be built on land faster.
Sweden’s parliament agreesüIt depends on whether the country wants to become a member of NATO. The approval of the parliamentarians is considered certain. However, NATO member Turkey must also agree. That’s what’s been wrong so far.
The British House of Commons votes üAbout Brexit rules für Northern Ireland. Trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should become easier and the Northern Ireland regional parliament should have more say.
How is the economy developing? The German Council of Economic Experts publishes its updated economic forecast for 2023/2024.
Die Minister of transport come together in Aachen for the conference. Die Minister of Agriculture meet in Busum.
