Merkel: 'nein' to gay equality on tax and kids

[Xaito]

The "traditional" family model can be extended to the point that it also includes gays.

It can, but it doesn't have to.
If we for example want people to put solar cells on their roofs, we subsidize it - people who aren't interested won't get any money.
If we want to promote the traditional family model, we subsidize it - people who aren't interested won't get any money - we don't have to pay anybody out of political correctness. Subsidization is partial by nature.
The only way gay couples could fit into this is if we wanted to also promote adoption for gay couples - which we don't at the moment and which is a separate matter.

[Seek]

What's so unfair about general taxation? Don't you profit every day from infrastructure that couldn't be created and maintained if citizens didn't do their part and contributed to the society? I think VAT is much more unfair than anybody tossing in a few coins into the pool, especially with regard to regular consumer goods.
Besides, the demographic change is a problem which affects the society as a whole and we're not even talking about higher income taxes for childless couples but simply tax reliefs. There's no "socioengineering" in that. It's simply sink or swim.

you said it yourself: you use something and pay for it. income tax is a totally different thing because the amount of money you pay has absolutely nothing to do with how often you use the state built infrastructure. hence the "unfair" part. Since consumption is what drives an economy and with it the use of infrastructure it's more fair that members of society pay their taxes according to the amount of goods and services they consume.
Usually taxes follow the pattern of more or less directly charging for consumption of commodities provided by the state. Income tax doesn't.

higher taxes for one group and tax reliefs for the other have the same effect. tax reliefs are easier to sell to the voters though...

you might want to look up social engineering in a dictionary if you don't think tax policy is used for exactly that...

[muck]

I do know what socio-engineering is, thanks for the kind advice, and yet I beg to differ. Strictly speaking tax reliefs for married couples with children are simply an effort in establishing tax equity. Children are a cost factor. They're not liable to taxation yet they contribute to a household's tax load - the system reacts by ensuring that increased VAT-related income losses are compensated for with reduced income tax rates.
The motivational side effect isn't socio-engineering in disguise; the system does not mean to modify the society in any given way but simply secure its continued existence. That is an innocuous cause.

And I don't buy either VAT would be a fair form of taxation.
Foreigners may take a different view on that principle but the constitution of the very same nation Merkel leads says this: all persons shall be equal before the law. My understanding of equality boils down to "equal rights, equal duties" - in this context an obligation to make a contribution to the society and the common weal.
However, there is no apparent connection between the consumption of goods and why the state's infrastructure needs maintenance. In other words, your tax burden doesn't really reflect how frequently you use the state's infrastructure.
Moreover, quite a few of a state's responsibilities are maintained to the immediate benefit of every citizen - ranging from complex matters such as national defense to basics like sewage supply. Their indiscriminate usage justifies indiscriminate taxation as far as I'm concerned.
An entirely VAT-based taxation would lead to absurd scenarios like a lone household with a yearly income of 100k paying less taxes than a family of five who lives on 50k a year. One doesn't need to be a bleeding-heart Socialist to perceive such a situation as unjust.
Flat taxation is the way to go I think, for all I care maybe moderately designed in order to accommodate the Prussian principle of "from each as he can give" (for example a flat tax of 15% on low incomes, 17% on the middle class and 20% on the upper class - just numbers out of the blue by the way). The financial crisis has led to lots of jealousy and populistic rants against earners of high incomes; I can only encourage people who seriously think a top income tax rate of 75% would be justifiable to volunteer for the same tax rate on their dough. With that being said, fundamental opposition to income-based taxation is bordering the opposite extreme.

It can, but it doesn't have to.

That's all one needs to know.

[Mackie]

x2
Pretty much what muck says. VAT only would only hit the middle class and lower incomes.

[Seek]

let me state this clearly: I'm not trying to convince anyone to abolish income taxes.

I do know what socio-engineering is, thanks for the kind advice, and yet I beg to differ. Strictly speaking tax reliefs for married couples with children are simply an effort in establishing tax equity. Children are a cost factor. They're not liable to taxation yet they contribute to a household's tax load - the system reacts by ensuring that increased VAT-related income losses are compensated for with reduced income tax rates.
The motivational side effect isn't socio-engineering in disguise; the system does not mean to modify the society in any given way but simply secure its continued existence. That is an innocuous cause.

The coalition says otherwise in its contract...

And I don't buy either VAT would be a fair form of taxation.
Foreigners may take a different view on that principle but the constitution of the very same nation Merkel leads says this: all persons shall be equal before the law. My understanding of equality boils down to "equal rights, equal duties" - in this context an obligation to make a contribution to the society and the common weal.
However, there is no apparent connection between the consumption of goods and why the state's infrastructure needs maintenance. In other words, your tax burden doesn't really reflect how frequently you use the state's infrastructure.

what do you think had to happen before you went to the store and bought some bread and milk? it had to be transported to the store somehow don't you think? and who pays for the transport? in the end it's the consumer. so why shouldn't the consumer also pay for the damages to infrastructure caused by transporting those goods to the store?

Moreover, quite a few of a state's responsibilities are maintained to the immediate benefit of every citizen - ranging from complex matters such as national defense to basics like sewage supply. Their indiscriminate usage justifies indiscriminate taxation as far as I'm concerned.

youre' wrong with your use of examples. sewage disposal is not being paid for by taxes. Defense is, but taxes were never designed to be fair. There is no constitutional rule that taxes can only be raised for a certain service in return. Let's take the fuel taxes as an example. those were introduced as a tax to pay for road infrastructure, but how many roads were actually improved with that money? it was all spent on other things. hence my idea of fairness of taxes measured by the volume of consumption.

An entirely VAT-based taxation would lead to absurd scenarios like a lone household with a yearly income of 100k paying less taxes than a family of five who lives on 50k a year. One doesn't need to be a bleeding-heart Socialist to perceive such a situation as unjust.
Flat taxation is the way to go I think, for all I care maybe moderately designed in order to accommodate the Prussian principle of "from each as he can give" (for example a flat tax of 15% on low incomes, 17% on the middle class and 20% on the upper class - just numbers out of the blue by the way). The financial crisis has led to lots of jealousy and populistic rants against earners of high incomes; I can only encourage people who seriously think a top income tax rate of 75% would be justifiable to volunteer for the same tax rate on their dough. With that being said, fundamental opposition to income-based taxation is bordering the opposite extreme. That's all one needs to know.

What would you say about a tax on any kind of transaction of currency and commodities as the only form of taxation? Even Rich people would be taxed quite dramatically by that while the middle class families would have more money in their pockets because the state doesn't take income taxes from them? Sounds actually quite fair, doesn't it?