Guys, you heard Xando.
Zeitarbeit isn't as bad as people make it out to be and working 40 to 50 hours a week isn't a problem either..
Dude!! Come on..
In addition the FDP has learned nothing from the Euro crisis. They pound on contracts and want nations like Greece and Spain to reduce their expenses even more. As an economist I can only wonder about this opinion. You have to invest and increase demand, not stifle purchasing power. Other European nations will suffer if the FDP becomes part of the next government.
Guys, you heard Xando.
Zeitarbeit isn't as bad as people make it out to be and working 40 to 50 hours a week isn't a problem either..
Dude!! Come on..
Until last month i never had a unlimited contract and i still work 40 to 50 hours a week. Can it be tough? Sure but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Just ask the Japanese.
Not sure what kind of utopia you're living in but the days of 35h weeks are long over.
Last time I checked we elect people to represent our very own interests. Although I work more than 50h a week on a regular basis and my wife's a nurse, I see now reason to vote for a party which addresses someone else's interest.
So, I'm very, very sorry that I'm a selfish brick who's going to vote for a party which I deem is more in line with my very own interests than yours.
But at the very least I'm not running around calling other people out because they have a different opinion.
I think it's 100% ok to vote according to your own financial interests. I also think there's an argument to be made to not only vote for someone to represent your own interests but to vote for the party who you think has the best chance to lead society in a direction you agree with, independent from whether you benefit financially or not.Last time I checked we elect people to represent our very own interests. Although I work more than 50h a week on a regular basis and my wife's a nurse, I see now reason to vote for a party which addresses someone else's interest.
So, I'm very, very sorry that I'm a selfish brick who's going to vote for a party which I deem is more in line with my very own interests than yours.
But at the very least I'm not running around calling other people out because they have a different opinion.
That isn't the problem, and saying the Japanese have it worse says absolutely nothing.
40-48 hours a week is normal. I know. But letting you work 12 hours one day and call you back in 6 hours later for another 12 is nothing current law allows. 8 is max and 10 is under circumstances.
They also want to scrap the part of it that say that between two work days you need at least a break of 10 hours.
It's easy to say "I like to work/ like to work whenever I want". That's not what work laws are about. You need to think about the extreme situations.
This would make it worse for quite a few, partly in industries like gastronomy where it's skimming the illegal now and then already.
Are you saying you're voting without any kind of self interest in benefits for yourself?So electing a government to legislate is about trying to put your own interests over everyone elses? Following that logic you can justify about anything. Including making it intentionally worse for the poor or even minorities as long as you benefit, in theory. Following that Republicans over in America are doing everything right in gutting healthcare or not touching it at all so their constituents who don't want to pay taxes for healthcare can continue doing so at the cost of people who need it.
I'm sorry, but if you think that's what a democracy or even a society is, then we disagree completely.
Just ask the Japanese.
Until last month i never had a unlimited contract and i still work 40 to 50 hours a week. Can it be tough? Sure but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Just ask the Japanese.
Not sure what kind of utopia you're living in but the days of 35h weeks are long over.
They stopped fucking and reproducing.
I also think there's an argument to be made to not only vote for someone to represent your own interests but to vote for the party who you think has the best chance to lead society in a direction you agree with, independent from whether you benefit financially or not.
So just like the germans?
I missed clarifying financial interest in the final edit of my post, my bad.That's actually redundant.
The current working laws are backwards AF.
Legally i'm breaking the law everyday because i check my emails in the evening and in the morning or when i work on sundays. The current laws just aren't compatible anymore. A 48h week wouldn't even change much for people except they'd actually be payed the overtime they make anyway.
Are you saying you're voting without any kind of self interest in benefits for yourself?
If you can save 400€ per year in taxes do you vote for this party or for the party that'll increase your taxes by 400€?
Not sure what kind of utopia you're living in but the days of 35h weeks are long over.
Germanys demographic time bomb has been ticking for some time and it will fuck over everyone without private pension investments when it goes off.Not as bad I guess? But an aging population shouldn't be something to strive for.
So youre voting in your self interest. Thats exactly my pointAlso regarding taxes I'd rather work less than what the FDP wants me to do, and pay 400 more in taxes because 400 euros per year is nothing compared to valuable free time.
I missed clarifying financial interest in the final edit of my post, my bad.
Well financially it would probably make more sense for me to vote FDP, but looking beyond my own financial interested I cannot vote for them. I will gladly pay higher taxes or whatever is necessary to ensure a fairer society overall.
you're still voting for a party who you think represents your very own interests at most, all things considered. The fact that some of your motives are altruistic doesn't change that.
Altruism is literally concern for the interests of others.
At this point we're going into semantics.
You're saying that since acting in the interests of others is what I want, it's in my interest and thus I'm doing it solely in my interest.
That's a pretty roundabout way of saying I'm not acting in my interests at all.
Christian, is that you?Until last month i never had a unlimited contract and i still work 40 to 50 hours a week. Can it be tough? Sure but it's nothing out of the ordinary.
Just ask the Japanese.
Not sure what kind of utopia you're living in but the days of 35h weeks are long over.
The current working laws are backwards AF.
Legally i'm breaking the law everyday because i check my emails in the evening and in the morning or when i work on sundays. The current laws just aren't compatible anymore. A 48h week wouldn't even change much for people except they'd actually be payed the overtime they make anyway.
Isn't it sad that we have to work longer and longer despite the technical progress? I know some people enjoy that and their women raise the children while they are away but that only works because they make a lot of money. What if both parents have to work and school is over on half past tvelve?
The current working laws are backwards AF.
Legally i'm breaking the law everyday because i check my emails in the evening and in the morning or when i work on sundays. The current laws just aren't compatible anymore.
Yeah, no. Thats not going to happen.A 48h week wouldn't even change much for people except they'd actually be payed the overtime they make anyway.
The only good thing about 09-13 was the FDP missing the 5% hurdle in 13.Anyone remember them tax breaks between 2009-2013?
I currently dont have the numbers and the whole SPD program in front of me and in mind but dont they want to give people a relief through more social support from the state? Or do I mix something up?
Looking at who will be included in the new Spitzensteuersatz and other tax ranges when Linke or SPD would get their wish, that would actually negatively impact me financially.
And I am not filthy rich by any stretch of the imagination, let me tell you that. I think they're taking from the wrong people by taxing the Mittelstand (Selbstständige in particular) too highly.
Surprisingly with the plans of Die Linke even people with a yearly income of 120,000 will get a huge tax break. Between 150,000 and 200,000 it switches to a tax increase.Fuck poor people, I want muh tax break.
It's basically this all over again, heh?
Look at all them poor "middleclass" simply being Entgeignet just like that.
Surprisingly with the plans of Die Linke even people with a yearly income of €120,000 will get a huge tax break. Between €150,000 and €200,000 it switches to a tax increase.
Um untere und mittlere Einkommen zu entlasten (was übrigens auch die SPD angekündigt hat), will die Linke etwa den Grundfreibetrag auf 12.600 Euro anheben. Dafür sollen Großverdiener und Vermögende stärker besteuert werden. Der Spitzensteuersatz soll von heute 45 auf 53 Prozent steigen. Er soll ab einem zu versteuerndem Jahreseinkommen ab 70.000 Euro gelten, das entspricht etwa einem Bruttoverdienst von 81.000 bei einem Alleinstehenden ohne Kinder.
Danach greift eine zweistufige Reichensteuer: Ab Jahreseinkommen von 260.000 Euro werden 60 Prozent fällig, ab einem zu versteuerndem Einkommen von einer Million Euro 75 Prozent. Dazu kommt eine Vermögenssteuer von fünf Prozent auf alle Vermögen oberhalb einer Million Euro.
What does this text have to do with his claim? There are quite a few computation steps needed from the information on the tagesschau website to obtain the threshold from which higher overall taxes need to be payed. The much larger amount of tax-free income has a significant influence, also the change in progression steps does as well. I do not know if his numbers are correct, because it is not easy to compute this, but just becaue the top tax rate is bigger starting from a yearly income of 81k€ (twice the average income in Germany), it certainly does not mean that you need to pay more taxes overall from this point onwards. You need to earn significantly more to have higher overall taxes.
In their concept they say the top tax should reach 53% at 65,000 / year already, so this explains the discrepancy. So you pay more taxes starting from 81,500 / year in the left's concept. But even with the left-most viable partya tax increase starts at almost twice the average wage.The numbers already include the threshold for tax-free income. Even the Linke's own program refers to the number I cited:
I strongly doubt that their explicitly stated "rule of thumb" is inaccurate...
The entire progression can be seen here and also contradicts your numbers:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtscha...ei-spart-der-waehler-am-meisten-15187706.html
In their concept they say the top tax should reach 53% at 65,000€ / year already, so this explains the discrepancy. So you pay more taxes starting from 81,500€ / year in the left's concept. But even with the left-most viable partya tax increase starts at almost twice the average wage.
That document is from 2011, why are you even quoting it, when their 2017 program has the updated numbers?
That document is from 2011, why are you even quoting it, when their 2017 program has the updated numbers?
Because this is still the only full concept one can easily find.
OK, so this should settle it wrt peoiple who earn >120k per year. I still wonder, if people say that the wrong people are taxed more by the left tax concept, who are the right people, because according to the chart you have posted, only the top 10% would have to pay more taxes, everyone else would get a taxbreak.
Careful. The second chart shows the difference in relative contribution to the state's total amount of tax income (under the specific model), not the absolute tax load per income. Since the top 10% would pay more, the relative contribution of the rest would go down even if they'd pay the same tax in absolute numbers.
To see who would pay more or less money, you just have to look at the first line chart and compare it to the grey line chart, which shows the current tax model.
Since the overall tax load would be lower under the left model than it is now, it still follows that the tax load of the 9th percentile would be lower. For some people in the upper half of the 9th percentile it might still be true that their tax would end up higher.Careful. The second chart shows the difference in relative contribution to the state's total amount of tax income (under the specific model), not the absolute tax load per income. Since the top 10% would pay more, the relative contribution of the rest would go down even if they'd pay the same tax in absolute numbers.
To see who would pay more or less money, you just have to look at the first line chart and compare it to the grey line chart, which shows the current tax model.