Burden on Germans: It is a sign of inadequacy that the government is ducking away when it comes to tax policy

It has become quiet about the solidarity surcharge.

There is a reason for this: since the partial abolition that came into force at the beginning of last year, most employees have had nothing to do with it – apart from their investment income.

In times of zero interest rates, not that much comes together.

Very few taxpayers therefore continue to have to pay the full 5.5 percent contribution to the tax liability.

To ensure that the top earners do not benefit from the abolition of the soli, an exemption limit was introduced.

A sliding zone also prevents radical access by the tax authorities at the decisive edge in the tariff, which would have led to a small additional income even leading to a lower net.

The sliding zone has its price, there are extremely high marginal burdens for income,

This blemish should not obscure the fundamental question: is it permissible to discriminate against a small group at all and only continue to burden them with the special tax introduced to finance German unity because their members earn very well?

Many tax lawyers take a critical view of this.

The department head responsible left the Federal Ministry of Finance for this reason.

Since then, Michael Sell has preferred to argue with the taxpayers' association against the remaining solos, which still bring the state 11 billion euros.

Leading FDP politicians have also gone before the Federal Constitutional Court against the tax surcharge: Florian Toncar and Christian Dürr.

The aid for East Germany had expired and the reason for the supplementary levy no longer applied, they argued.

Today, the first is Parliamentary State Secretary in the Ministry of Finance and part of the federal government.

The second is now FDP parliamentary group leader, a key figure in the power structure of the traffic light.

However, they have not withdrawn the lawsuit.

Judges in red robes administer tax policy

The matter is tricky: FDP against FDP, Toncar and Dürr against the finance minister, whose name is Christian Lindner and who is their party leader.

He also used to want to abolish the solos, but now he has to campaign for the receipt of the remaining surcharge.

This absurd constellation is no coincidence: the SPD, Greens and FDP have not been able to agree on a course of action.

They left the solos out of the coalition agreement and left the decision to the Federal Constitutional Court.

This is the continuation of an unfortunate development.

Over the years and decades, the judges in the red robes have become an important, if not the most important driver of tax policy.

When you look back, what groundbreaking decisions do you not find: the introduction of spouse splitting, a significant expansion of the basic tax allowance, an expansion of the child tax allowance, but also the end of wealth tax, the control of capital gains, the reform of inheritance tax - the impetus always came from Karlsruhe.

The new pension taxation, the change in property tax and the lower interest on back taxes and tax refunds are also due to their specifications.

In the grip of the coalition agreement

In fact, the vast majority of decisions are well founded: married couples who are taxed together cannot be taxed like single people, the state should not deduct what it defines as the subsistence level and gives to the needy, children reduce the ability to pay taxes.

It was a scandal that the state did not take a close look at whether taxpayers had capital income for a long time.

It should be a matter of course that pensioners and civil servants are taxed according to uniform criteria, and that property values ​​from 1964 or even 1935 are not suitable for current taxation.

The same applies to an interest rate of six percent at the tax office.

If bonds don't pay anything, there's no benefit from deferred tax payments and no disadvantage from deferred reimbursement.

Lindner wanted to be finance minister.

Now he finds himself in the grip of the coalition agreement.

He pushes, he pulls - but his range of motion is limited.

If he manages to turn back the creeping additional burden from the interaction of inflation and progressive tax rates, that would be a success.

For the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a standstill in major tax policy.

It is always about incentives and balance, about growth and distribution.

That belongs in the Bundestag, not in the courtroom.

It is a sign of inadequacy when governments duck away on such issues.

Dealing with the remaining solos is unfortunately symptomatic.