(de-news.net) – Leaders of the Union parties have strongly opposed proposals for new taxes, particularly the Left Party’s suggestion to reinstate a wealth tax. The CDU/CSU rejected these proposals outright. Fritz Güntzler, the financial spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, argued that a significant portion of private wealth is not liquid and is instead tied up within companies, thus making it inaccessible to the broader public. According to Güntzler, any attempt to tax these assets would not only disincentivize crucial investments but could also potentially harm employment prospects, as businesses might struggle to cope with the additional financial burden.
The Left Party’s wealth tax proposals were also sharply criticized by the Federation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA). The BDA’s CEO, Steffen Kampeter, warned that such a tax could provoke an exodus of capital from Germany, as wealthier individuals and businesses might relocate their assets to countries with more favorable tax regimes. This potential outflow of capital could, according to Kampeter, further destabilize the economy by reducing the tax base and weakening investment in German industries.
In contrast, a study commissioned by the Left Party, and conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), suggested that the reinstatement of a wealth tax could generate up to 150 billion euros annually for the state. The study postulates that wealth exceeding one million euros for individuals and five million euros for businesses would be subject to this tax. The report’s author, Stefan Bach, characterized the proposal as a bold and ambitious concept. However, he cautioned that the tax might result in wealth being shifted abroad by those affected, which could significantly reduce the anticipated revenue. The potential for such asset relocations is a critical concern for the proponents of the tax, as it could undermine the financial stability that the tax is intended to support.
Laumann opposes tobacco and sugar tax hikes
In a separate policy debate, Karl-Josef Laumann (CDU), Minister of Health of North Rhine-Westphalia, opposed the widely backed proposal to increase taxes on tobacco and sugar products. Laumann argued that the timing of such discussions was inappropriate, asserting that the government should prioritize more urgent issues. Specifically, he called for a focus on stabilizing Germany’s healthcare system, which he considered to be in a state of financial imbalance. According to Laumann, now is not the time to burden the public with higher taxes, particularly when the healthcare system requires significant structural reforms to ensure long-term sustainability.
Laumann further proposed that healthcare expenditures should be directly linked to the revenue growth of health insurance funds. In his view, the current level of annual spending—approximately 500 billion euros—should be sufficient, provided that the system adopts a more revenue-oriented approach to budgeting. He emphasized that spending on healthcare, including medical fees and prescription drug costs, should not outpace the growth of the revenue available to the system. This measure, he argued, would help avoid deficits and ensure the financial stability of the health system in the future.
Laumann also raised concerns about a proposal put forth by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to include all civil servants in the statutory health insurance system. He warned that such a move could place a substantial financial strain on both the federal government and individual states, particularly those with large numbers of civil servants, such as teachers and police officers. Laumann pointed out that these states would face dual financial obligations: they would not only need to finance the healthcare costs for pensioned civil servants but would also be required to contribute to the employer share of health insurance premiums for newly hired civil servants. Laumann expressed skepticism about the feasibility of this proposed shift, especially considering the significant fiscal burden it would impose on state budgets. In his view, it is currently unclear how such a systemic overhaul could be financed without causing severe budgetary difficulties at the state level.
