For millions of citizens in Germany, the commuter allowance is as naturally part of the tax return as the identification number: According to the Federal Statistical Office, around 18.4 million commuters used the car for at least part of the journey to work and can thus reduce their tax burden.
Corinna Budras
Business correspondent in Berlin.
Follow I follow
Manfred Schäfers
Business correspondent in Berlin.
Follow I follow
The automobile club ADAC refers to an estimate by the Federal Ministry of Finance, according to which 11.6 million taxpayers were relieved of 5.1 billion euros in this way in 2019. That corresponds to an average of 440 euros per head. It was only at the beginning of the year that the flat rate for frequent drivers was increased from 30 cents to 35 cents, at least from the 21st kilometer. That should serve a “social” purpose: The CO2 tax and rising petrol costs are driving up the costs, many normal earners cannot keep up.
But the criticism of the commuter allowance is getting louder and louder, after all, it reveals the conflict between tried and tested tax rules and effective climate protection more clearly than anywhere else.
The Federal Environment Agency therefore lists them under the category of “climate-damaging subsidies”, although the term subsidy is actually inappropriate here, as tax lawyers never tire of emphasizing.
The authority puts the total extent of the climate-damaging subsidies and thus misdirected funds at 65 billion euros per year.
Does the commuter flat-rate set the wrong incentives?
“The commuter allowance acts as a sprawl bonus,” says Andreas Burger, head of the department for economic and social-scientific environmental issues at the Federal Environment Agency, in the FAZ podcast for Germany. It creates an incentive for people to move from the inner cities to the suburbs. Christian Hochfeld, director of the Agora Verkehrswende think tank, sees it similarly: In terms of climate protection, it is “naturally counterproductive”.
He mentions another argument: He simply considers it to be “unfair” because people with higher incomes also benefit more from it, and pleads for a fundamental reform: In order to achieve a “fair distribution”, the commuter allowance should be converted into a “mobility allowance “Remodel - with a flat rate of 10 cents per kilometer, regardless of the tax rate. The Federal Environment Agency also wants to reform the commuter allowance in such a way that only lower incomes benefit.
Not only for many employees, but also for the tax authorities, the distance lump sum is a financially significant variable. An increase in the distance flat rate by 10 cents to 40 cents per kilometer or 45 cents (from the 21st kilometer) costs the tax authorities, according to a rule of thumb of the federal government, 2.6 billion euros per year, of which 1.2 billion euros are attributable to the federal government. The amount of relief depends on the distance to work, on earnings and whether other work-related expenses are incurred - but not on the means of transport.
Unlike in the past, it doesn't matter how someone gets to their workplace, whether by bike, train or car. Only those who claim travel costs of more than 4500 euros have to prove that they are driving the car. The tax office takes 1000 euros in advertising costs into account anyway ("employee lump sum"), so anyone who only claims travel expenses has to drive more than 15 kilometers from their place of residence to their work every day for the distance lump sum to have any effect. And the same applies to everyone else: Even if the tax authorities contribute to the fuel costs, part of the effort always remains with the employees - not to mention the lost time.
In terms of the tax system, the flat-rate distance tax is a hybrid: On the one hand, the travel costs are job-related, because without the work there would be no such effort. On the other hand, there are sometimes private reasons why someone lives in the country with a distance to the factory, the administrative headquarters or the service location. But there are also cases in which such paths cannot be avoided, for example that of a family in which one works in Cologne and one in Koblenz. She can live in one of the two cities or in Bonn in between, trips and costs are inevitable in her case. The flat-rate distance allowance takes into account the mixed motive in that only the simple way to work is taken into account.
Whether the traffic light government is really striving for a reform seems doubtful: FDP party leader Christian Lindner considers it inappropriate to cut the commuter allowance, because this would lead to “a burden on the working middle class”.
"I am therefore grateful that the Greens have expressed themselves very realistically and that they do not want to take action," he told the FAZ have to deal. "