The idea and the name meat tax comes from the German animal protection federation, sounds nullbombastisch and is not. The agricultural policy spokesman of SPD and Greens are nevertheless spontaneously enthusiastic. Even the CDU wants to talk to itself. Of course, with such an agreement, one becomes suspicious immediately.
The concept is summarized quickly. The reduced value added tax on meat should be increased. The additional revenue should be spent on "more animal welfare". Accordingly, cheap mincemeat, cheap soup bones and cheap everything else from the animal could be taxed in the future no longer with seven but 19 percent. Quickly rolled over in the head means that the kilo price for meat from dingsbums cent rises to about half a cent, so you have to imagine the "increase in price". Meat is so cheap in Germany, that you could double the price and triples and would still arrive only at soundsovielbrokkoli cent. At Aldi Nord 100 grams of pork skewers cost just 79 cents and 100 grams of neck steak 49 cents. For the same amount of lettuce you have to pay more than one euro.
Why the increase in VAT on meat actually means meat tax, one does not understand. Because there is already a "meat tax", they call themselves agricultural subsidy. The general public, or the German taxpayers, have subsidized the animal, its housing costs, its stable, its food, its medicines, the soil, the water, and so on a hundred times, which is why it costs so little. Meat production is so lucrative and cheap that you can easily get more out of it produced as a normal hungry European can eat. For this reason half of Africa is flooded with farm subsidized, European cheap meat and the local agricultural structures are being destroyed. For example, Schalke manager and meat maker Clemens Tönnies, who has been talked about a lot in recent days, exports 52 percent of his meat products to Africa.
Again briefly summarized. The German taxpayer subsidizes the meat industry, the environmental damage, the elimination of environmental damage and the misery in Africa. So now another twelve percent more VAT. Presented, right?
The really disturbing thing, however, is that the German Animal Protection Association wants to improve the stable conditions of the animals from this twelve percent more sales tax. What are better barn conditions? More space, more air, more light, less medication, less animal pain, less scruples, less money greed? If the animal welfare of a government, a party or an animal welfare organization is really close to the heart, then there is no other way than to completely and consistently ban factory farming. Only that is sustainable and nothing else. The corporations, which of course are not farmers, but industrial plant owners for "meat production", the word says it would be, would then seek solutions to better keep animals. This automatically generates higher costs and would affect the price. Consumers would then no longer pay the subsidized price of their neck steaks, but the actual value.
This kind of agriculture would entail a number of measures. Less livestock means less needed arable land that can rest and recover for longer. This means less water consumption, less pesticide contamination of arable and pasture land, less mono-farming. More land can be used for housing, recreation or other purposes. Not to mention the diseases of the people working in these businesses. They too will eventually raise their protest when they see that the chickens, turkeys, and pigs are doing better than themselves. The whole animal industry, one can twist and turn as one pleases, has all its ecological, economic, and ethical aspects arrived at the lowest possible point, where you can arrive.
This industry has maneuvered itself with generous financial means of taxpayers independently, where it is now. Now the taxpayer with an increased VAT rate to help the company again. This time around, they need to behave ethically and change their disastrous morality over the animals to monetarily softly padded inhomoeopathic doses. Is this Montessori or what? This industry has earned so much money over the past few decades that it should not only rebuild its operations at its own expense, but also pay for environmental damage that has occurred. Meat is so obscenely cheap. Instead of consuming 35 kilos of pig and 10 kilos of poultry and again as much beef per year, the average German eater would have to halve here and there to reduce his consumption by a few kilos.
Kiyak's German lesson
Subscribe to the weekly column by Mely Kiyak by email.
Germany is one of the most animal friendly countries in the world. If more people knew how irresponsible the manufacturers in the mass animal industry are, and how much influence they have on their politics through their wealth, how they behave ruthlessly and ruthlessly towards animals in the true sense of the word, people will not settle for "more animal welfare" , The goal can never be "more" animal welfare, but uncompromising and without any restriction animal welfare, environmental well-being, human well-being.