> - Pensions: The outgoing government decided on a cut in future pensions. The
> Greens agreed their should be some cuts. The SPD promised to reverse the
> already decided cuts.
The Greens have also made it clear they want higher pensions for working women, who are heavily discriminated against in the current system (due to Germany's abysmal female labor participation rate, the result of lousy childcare funding and deep-rooted sexism).
> - Taxes: The Greens want to reduce the tax rate on the higest incomes to 45%
> percent. The SPD is somewhat unclear om this issue, but it seems Lafontaine
> is more in favour of a 49% rate.
> This issue is a highly symbolic one, because every percent of reduction
> serves as an indicator how far the specific party one to make concessions to
> huge income earners and the bosses.
But they would also abolish all the tax breaks, shelters and other goodies which enabled half of Hamburg's millionaires to pay no income tax in 1995 alone. The biggest tax cuts would be for the lowest income earners, who would receive big breaks on their tax bill; the Greens also want to increase the Kindergeld or Federally-funded child support for all children.
> Tax on property ( Vermoegenssteuer ). The election platforms of both SPD and
> Greens proposed to reintroduce it. But in an interview with Frankfurter
> Allgemeine Zeitung the spokesperson on fiscal issues argued against a
> reintroduction. (Source FAZ oct. 1st).
The Greens' Magdeburger program calls for a 1% wealth tax, plus a special solidarity tax of 2% on the superrich, which would last 15 years or so. They'd also like to see a Tobin tax on financial transactions. Wealth of up to 400,000 DM would not be taxed.
> Tax on petrol: The Greens want to increase this tax considerably. I doubt
> whether this is a progressive measure, because it will hit primarily
> woking-class people, who need a car to get to work. In the end it means the
> Greens are arguing the consumption of working class people is too high.
Most people in Germany could take mass transit if they really wanted to; its population density is one of the highest in Europe and mass transit is quite good, on average. The tax on gasoline is designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions which happening to be heating up the atmosphere, not to punish the poor; who anyway would receive big reductions in their income taxes, so the net effect would still be positive for them.
Let's be clear about one thing: the Greens are arguing that consumption in its present form is unsustainable, and that just increasing the GDP by doubling the number of Mercedes on the roads will lead to ecological ruin, which it indeed will. It is true, of course, that the Greens are weak on the specifics of an alternative consumption standard -- but they are talking about investing in the eco-industries, renewable energy, and are inching towards a vision of a high-tech, software-driven economy characterized by generous welfare provisions for all, heavy taxation of the rich, and eco-friendly spending on the world peripheries.
-- Dennis