The tightrope walk of the evening: Finance Minister Olaf Scholz had to explain why on the one hand "the fat years are over," as he had warned at the beginning of the year - on the other hand, but in his opinion enough money is there to finance about the SPD pension plans. "We still have growth and decent tax revenues," complained the vice-chancellor. Germany has a budget of 350 billion, because it is about "priorities". And "cohesion," as the basic rent makes it, is not a bad thing.
When Deputy CSU Chairman Manfred Weber objected, "the money is getting less", Scholz corrected: "less more". In the role choice between strict treasurer and SPD party politician decided the "double Scholz", as he was called in a single player, for a clear both-as-well.
The GroKo consensus of the evening: The two representatives of the coalition parties agreed on the objective of a land rent, the importance of the "black zero" and budget stability. While the business journalist Carolin Roth asked if the "black zero" was not a "vanity project" and instead pleaded for investment, Scholz said he had always found the prohibition of new debt correct. By the way, stable finances are also an "important category" for companies.
Federal Finance Minister @OlafScholz (SPD) assumes that the SPD can enforce their concept of a basic pension without means test in the grand coalition.
Entire program can be viewed at ➡️ https://t.co/GbHHwr4RjK #SPD #basic #household #social #GroKo pic.twitter.com/XQ2aM4fFqr
Manfred Weber warned against Scholz and SPD from promising "new social projects". However, he responded with a clear "no" to the questioning of the relevant Union criticism of whether he was "afraid of Olaf Lafontaine".
The GroKo dissension of the evening: The well-known different positions for need testing of the basic pension and the complete abolition of the solidarity surcharge were also exchanged in this round. While Scholz was sure that he would be able to convince the coalition partner, in both cases Weber received support from Clemens Fuest, the president of the Munich Ifo Institute.
In the need test, it must remain, explained the economist, because without them, the measure was "unfair and not accurate". The welfare state must be precise. And the solos have to go, "very clearly". There was a promise in this regard. To say that his complete removal would be "a gift to the rich" goes too far. Who wants to ask large earners to checkout, just need to raise the top tax rate.
Voice # 87: Red is red, black is black - is Camp Campaign coming back?
- Subscribe to
- Apple podcasts
- Spotify
- Deezer
- Alexa
- RSS
All podcasts
The evasive maneuver of the evening: Scholz's refusal to respond to Illner's three-fold question, which "would make citizen's money and ground rent on the clock," was almost comic. After an evasive digression about the "morality" that the minimum wage is still too low, he told the presenter, "This will not cost as much as some now think."
When Illner once again insisted that it would be nice if he could now name a number, he reacted almost defiantly: "Yes, but I do not want to." This must be "calculated in the concrete reform".
ZDF / Claudius Pflug
Scholz at "Illner"
It was much easier for him to pay off when he explained why it was good to get rid of the solos for 90% of payers but not top earners: "We do not have to give someone who earns a million a tax relief of 20,000 euros . " Similarly, he was against that, a Dax executive committee, "who earned five million, over 100,000 euros tax relief".
The case study of the evening: As an employee who could not do much with the announcement "The fat years are over", Daniel Turek was invited. A logistician at a Charité subsidiary, since being outgrown, earns 1900 euros gross a month and can not feed his family on his own. "We did not experience fat years," he clarified - and found the fact that nothing had arrived from the much-vaunted boom with him simply "frightening".
The self-criticism of the evening: "We have a too large low-wage sector," said Scholz after this intermezzo, and Green Party leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt admitted to Illners question whether she has a bad conscience because of Agenda 2010, "It was one other time, there were many more unemployed, but we made mistakes. " It was not planned that temporary work would become a permanent sector.
The framing of the evening: A fine example of the much-discussed concept of framing was offered when Göring-Eckardt demanded that Germany, as a modern industrial state, need an immigration law in view of 150,000 vacancies in the craft sector. Manfred Weber hastened to assure that Horst Seehofer had initiated the Law on Migration for Personnel, a "milestone". Because that's why it is also "we do not want immigration in social systems, as perhaps the Greens want."