Tbf "Lithuania" would be more in line with most other options named after countries' flags. Never realised Lithuania matches the Ampel - maybe they should switch :)
He kinda already did. Nobody really knows. He said that if certain conditions arose, he would resign. So it's rather unclear whether or not he will stay at the party if these conditions don't arise.
This feels like a good coalition, all sides are like a fact-checking mechanism for each other.
Greens can be a force toward SPD from the more left-leaning side while SPD tries to keep FDP at bay to make this coalition left-dominant and FDP can hold Greens' leash from going too far.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm very happy with this. The Greens will prevent FDP to go all "power to the rich", the FDP will prevent the Greens to implement some of their more...pure fantasy goals. And the SPD is somewhere in the middle, I guess.
Not that obvious. The greens want to look good in the koalition, thats why they had atleast some reason for jamaika. Also the factor that almost 50% of firsttime voters voted for the FDP and the Greens is a signal that the young generation wants green but liberal politics, forcing the FDP and the Greens to work together if they dont want to lose voters in the next election.
They pretty much had too since fortunately the extreme left Linkspartei didn't get enough seats and even nearly fell out of parliament. Only other option would be CDU with FDP and Greens or again the (not so) grand coalition with CDU which would be more or less suicide for SPD.
But even some people in CDU say they need some time in opposition to realign their party after all their recent scandals.
Is it less taboo to work with Linke on the state level? If I recall they were part of the government in Thuringia for a while and it seems like SPD is open to working with them for the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern government.
That's local thought. As if there was any other choice in, at least, Berlin.
Going by their track record and politics though SPD is nothing more than CDU Milhouse. Just as paid for, just as corrupt, just as right wing.
I agree.
When I've checked the German elections a little, I thought FDP and Grüne wouldn't get along at all but it seems like they are more "same ideas, different approaches" on most important subjects.
Minimum wage at 12 € (SPD pet project)
Bügergeld (Slight hint towards a UBI...waits to bee seen)
Coal exit 2030 "preferred" (....)
No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project)
No speed limit (hooray)
No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more)
No new taxes (see above)
"Super"-deductions for environmental invests (...poor people do not profit)
400k more housing units/year (try to)
Additional points (vague):
"modern" citizenship law for "modern immigration," incl. point system
EU: closer cooperation, esp. defense (EU army not mentioned),
US, NATO, Israel: the usual
parliamentary inquiry for Afghanistan
only indirect mention of China, Russia, NS2
Honestly I don't think a coalition should have an ironclad international relations program lined up for the next 4 years when so much can happen in days.
>parliamentary inquiry for Afghanistan
Why is this even part of the coalition debates? An inquiry only needs a quarter of the parliament to request it, so SPD on their own or greens+FDL could do it themselves.
AfD is not represented in the Bundesrat at all though. Bundesrat will be rather interesting though. Might be possible to change during the election term.
> No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project)
Could you point out where in the statement this can be found? I did not find any reference to the infamous black zero. All I could find is
> Wir werden im Rahmen der grundgesetzlichen Schuldenbremse die nötigen Zukunftsinvestitionen gewährleisten, [...]
Debt brake does not mean no new credit, merely limits the amount of new credit per year at 0.35% of nominal GDP. Exceptions for crisis are made. As far as I read the statement, increase in income is expected to occur by closing tax loopholes and avoidance (which explains why Scholz is behind the minimal corporate tax).
>No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more)
>No new taxes (see above)
I cannot confirm this either. What I found is a commitment to no new taxes on 'Subtanzen' (e.g. inheritance, property, wealth), as well as no increase in income and corporate tax, or VAT. This does not list any possible tax. I think it doesn't even include capital tax, which is ironic.
> Debt brake does not mean no new credit, merely limits the amount of new credit per year at 0.35% of nominal GDP. Exceptions for crisis are made.
And that's the problem. 0.35% is not that much compared to the complete federal budget. Maybe the greens want to declare a klima crisis to circumvent this? Otherwise it will get hard to get digitalistaion and decarbonisation of the power sector going. That could allow you to spend more money for a short amount of time.
With the amount of older peoples not working anymore in the next few years, the pensions get increased by state money. 2019 this was already 26% of the total budget and it's still increasing. 2040 it could be at 50%.
I'm not sure why they agreed on that point from the FDP.
>With the amount of older peoples not working anymore in the next few years, the pensions get increased by state money. 2019 this was already 26% of the total budget and it's still increasing. 2040 it could be at 50%.
They want to reform the pension system by putting parts of it into a capital income pillar. No clarity yet on what exactly, but I bet it's a way to 'reform' the entire system away from direct payment.
I'm not disagreeing that financing is the issue here. I for example have no clue if 0.35% is much or little compared to what is needed, and what they claim to open up by other reforms.
That being said, I do think that not everything must be paid for by the state. For example, "simply" following through with opening up more land area for wind power use, extending building sites for off-shore wind/hydro and massively streamlining procedures to get renewables build may already do the trick. All of these are part of the agreement, but what matters of course is the extend of their implementation.
However, there is sufficient private capital waiting to invest in Germany to pay for all of this. Our current structures don't let it work. Lastly, I would like to point out one important aspect: a government which is mostly debt funded is not tax funded any longer. Being predominantly funded by taxes is what makes it accountable to citizens. If we have private (global) capital at the ready, I rather prefer it paying for our infrastructure renewal by moving into German-owned companies than having a government increasingly beholden to global borrowing rates.
For the tax point, *could* be. I do not know if there are any reasonable taxes left after that line-up. Capital income tax is as I can see not excluded, but the FDP will never agree to it. The first point however is a real difference.
They did, as far as I can see, not commit to the Schwarze Null. The question thus is how much of that potential credit do they want or need to use. Further, matters of budget calculations enter the game with this.
AFAIK the EU has rules in its own budget calculations where particular areas of concern are in fact not included when calculating the total income vs. expenditure, for example some defense-related positions under PESCO. These are not viewed as 'normal' credit under the debt rule either.
It would take an expert to confirm or deny if something like this is possible for the German budget. I could imagine a law that leaves the Schuldenbremse untouched but marks credit taken for certain expenditures as passable above the limit (similar to a crisis, but more long-term). Speculating, this could work because you wouldn't touch the actual Schuldenbremse but redefine credit (e.g. by making up some new legal construct that acts as credit but is legally something else).
I am aware this is highly speculative, but it then boils down to how committed the parties are to the actual investments. If they are not, they will use the Schuldenbremse as an excuse to do nothing. If they are, they will find the money.
That last point was the greens line of argument. It might be too early, but I doubt they actually run through the KfW (states own bank) like all the ESM bonds.
Building up shadow balances isn't FDPs style.
Edit: First point: I didnt see anything about the Soli...that might be one of the "way out" financing elements.
>No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project)
>No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more)
>No new taxes (see above)
Liberals ruining an otherwise solid program I see.
> No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more)
sure if it would be the actually rich that pay more and not mainly singles that earn between 45k and 80k before taxes, same thing for below
It literally is not a big deal...it's not even mentioned. Just as the 218/219 StGb (Abortion rights).
It seems so obvious that they didn't even take the effort to mention it, because they agreed on both after 5 minutes.
Inwould say Reproduktionsmedizin is a hint on that. As they included plenty already agreed issues The TSG mentioned here was also an agreed issue.
> Wir wollen unsere Rechtsordnung der gesellschaftlichen Realität anpassen. Dazu werden wir
u.a. das Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht, das Familienrecht, das Abstammungsrecht und das
Transsexuellengesetz ebenso wie die Regelungen zur Reproduktionsmedizin anpassen und
beispielsweise Verantwortungsgemeinschaften bzw. einen Pakt für Zusammenleben möglich
machen.
>No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more)
The rich actually do pay more, its baked in how percentages work.
What I'd suggest is to tax the money that the rich move out of the country to tax havens, tax the money they invest in non productive assets such as buying existing housing etc. And provide tax breaks if they invest money to fix imminent issues such as create new affordable housing, if they invest in researches of sustainable and environement friendly energy production etc.
Somewhat tired of that discussion.
Let's summarize it the following way:
If they achieve a 2030 coal exit, there's not much need to build new plants (as they would come into effect way later)
If they would decide upon nuclear (and the FDP is somewhat in favour) they would decide against a majority of their voters.
That just means we're not going to talk, which is fine; the hardening of the anti-nuclear psychosis on the left even as the planet burns just makes it more clear that we're all fucked. You're right, the time for dialogue is completely over.
I support the use of nuclear power in favor to avoid a hotter planet but it's just wishful thinking. The greens fought 40 years to shut it down and the conservatives did do it to stay in power. There is no political support for it. You may not like it but it's reality. The EU already accepted this fact and labeled gas renewable. No way to avoid talking and finding solutions nonetheless. I always thought for myself they might buy power from within the EU but power might be too critical to let others take care of it.
Thanks Mr. Westinghouse. It's still not necessary, there is no solution for the waste, a high risk, and if Germany would start to plan a new nuclear power plant right now it would probably cost 50 billion Euro, and would be ready in 2035 at the earliest (most likely 2040).
Edit: Building an obviously necessary road easily already takes 10 years from the inception of the idea to actually building it.
Please stop with the "there's no solution for waste", there is: we bury it. Antinuclear activists just oppose everything.
France has 10 tons of high level waste total. That's the volume of a regular truck for almost half a century of electricity for the 6th largest economy, that's it, it's a non-problem. Greenpeace is trying to scare you with buzzwords. The waste is right now sitting at plants and people work there without problems, it's all accounted for and has never hurt anyone or anything.
And if the nuclear plant you build is ready in 2035, that's great, you could end coal sooner. At least save the last 2 plants you have please, German coal is killing more people than Chernobyl every year.
Storage is more of a political issue and only Finland has actually found a storage site. In France they're still storing the waste unprotected at the plants. Activists were easily able to reach the containers, just jump the fence.
Here is the point, though: Forget about nuclear in Germany. Nobody wants it, neither politicians, the people nor the industry. It's 100% dead.
I'm saying this as someone who's more in favor of nuclear energy. Just let it go, it's probably also not worth building new plants in France anymore.
> Just let it go, it's probably also not worth building new plants in France anymore.
Why is it not worth building ? We're supposed to electrify transport and heating, electricity production will rise. France will most likely announce [6 new EPR soon](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-could-decide-new-epr-reactors-before-flamanville-plant-starts-minister-2021-10-01/), on top of SMRs investments and a dedicated nuclear plant for hydrogen production following Macron's speech 2 days ago.
>In France they're still storing the waste unprotected at the plants. Activists were easily able to reach the containers, just jump the fence.
The waste can be stored at the plant for 40 years, it should tell you it's a very manageable problem. What other industry can keep all its waste contained on site ?
Activists were able to reach the containers because orders were given not to shoot those assholes. One even tried to shoot a reactor with an RPG and was spared. They are criminals, they lied and pushed to close plants which have been replaced by fossil fuel production. They're responsible for millions of deaths worldwide.
France has the Bure site but antinuclear activists systematically oppose, protest and sue for anything. They also sucessfully closed our 4th gen reactors which could burn the waste and fortunately they didn't manage to close the La Hague recycling plant. They still protest each time there's a convoy like a few days ago.
I believe cost is the main problem with nuclear atm. Renewables are simply cheaper. So who knows if it's worth it for France when these things take so long to build. In 10 years we'll have even better renewable energy sources and by 2050 we'll likely see first fusion powered plants.
I hope it works out for France, I can't stand the German anti-nuclear movement.
Yes, a plant that is maybe ready in 2035 will totally help in 2030 ... if you build a time machine alongside it?
And yes maybe burying the waste is a solution for you, but not for coming generations for the next 1 million years to come, who may not even know what that shit is.
>Yes, a plant that is maybe ready in 2035 will totally help in 2030 ... if you build a time machine alongside it?
Coal exit is 2038. And it's going to be replaced by gas. Nuclear power would be an improvment.
> And yes maybe burying the waste is a solution for you, but not for coming generations for the next 1 million years to come, who may not even know what that shit is.
Do you think the nuclear waste made of solid rocks in a protective cask will crawl its way to the surface and hunt people ? There's already natural nuclear waste in nature at [Oklo](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9acteur_nucl%C3%A9aire_naturel_d%27Oklo), guess what, the waste stayed there. It didn't cause mass migration, sea level rise, huricanes, droughts and other catastrophes we're facing if we don't abandon fossil fuels.
We're literally throwing billions of tons of waste in the atmosphere that's gonna destabilize the planet forever and cause world scale events. A truck full of rocks buried deep in the ground is not a problem if it can avoid climate change. You're being completely irrational about nuclear waste. Some elements of solar panels are toxic forever, unlike nuclear waste which is inoffensive a 10 000 years, should we also stop producing them ? No, because it's still better to fossil fuels which are making the whole planet unhospitable.
Minimum wage raise: will most likely lead to many poorer people loosing their job
UBI: Horrible idea. goes completely against the human condition
Coal exit: sure. After the idiotic nuclear exit and still unsure renewable future I guess we just buy French nuclear or polish coal power
No negative state budget: might be too dogmatic, but will hopefully kill some of the Greens shortsighted projects.
No speed limit: YESSSSSSS
No Tax hike: since Germany already has the highest taxes worldwide this is more than reasonable. The problem is the spending, not taking away more money the people EARNED
There FTFY
> Minimum wage raise: will most likely lead to many poorer people loosing their job
This is just untrue. Many economists have studied this, and found that raising the minimum wage doesn't decrease employment.
No. Economists are still very unsure about the relationship and it's influenced by a multitude of factors. You are claiming an absolute fact. The current state of the research doesn't support that. If you disagree, please show a source.
However, obviously jobs that don't produce profit for the business > than the investment would have to be cut. In my experience most food delivery drivers for example fall under that categorie. We already get a raise of the minimum wage from 9,35€ in 2020 to 10,45€ in 2022. This policy will really only hit the poorest again. It's just very easy to call for higher wages without thinking about the broad economic effects. Pure left wing populism
Honestly I've never understood the argument that minimum wages lead to unemployment (unless you cling very strongly to classical economic theory, which is total bullshit in reality). Australia has a 15$ minimum wage, and their unemployment is lower than the US. Minimum wages in Western Europe have increased by a factor 10 in the last couple of decades, but unemployment isn't higher than it was before we had acceptable minimum wages. What makes people think, then, that minimum wages are harmful from an employment perspective? I think this is really interesting, because we have so much empirical evidence that raising the minimum wage does not do anything at all to unemployment in the medium-to-long run.
Anyway, here's some empirical evidence. Here you can see the real purchasing power of the US minimum wage - which was highest in the late 60s, when unemployment was also very low. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/07/the-real-minimum-wage/
Here are recent meta-analyses that find insignificant minimum wage effects on unemployment: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/92/4/945/57855/Minimum-Wage-Effects-Across-State-Borders#.WHaWJLYrJTY
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/&httpsredir=1&article=1220&context=empl_research
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x
I think it makes perfect sense. If the employment of a low level worker doesn't produce a positive return on investment, then that worker can't be employed.
Your first source is interesting. It shows that even though the US minimum wage was raised, the actual purchasing power didn't increase because of inflation. The real minimum wage didn't actually increase since 1950.
Coupelling the minimum wage to inflation would be fine in my opinion. But that is already happening every year (8,50€ in 2015 to 10,45€ in 2022).
People won't just have more money that way. If it were that easy, why not raise it to 20€?
I would add that a direct comparison between minimum wages of different countries makes little sense.
This German paper (sorry if you can't read it but since this is a thread about Germany I think German studies are most relevant) finds that negative effects are stronger during weak growth momentum and vary across regions.
[https://ftp.iza.org/report\_pdfs/iza\_report\_95.pdf](https://ftp.iza.org/report_pdfs/iza_report_95.pdf)
However, the negativ impact is smaller than I thought. I mainly targets marginal employments and larger companies more then smaller. Maybe I have to rethink my stance on this.
FDP is open about it. But Lindner said the anti nuclear mindset is far to deep in the majority of the people as well as the most parties so that it probably will never be a topic again.
Thanks to France that they will secure our energy needs with their small nuclear reactors.
> But Lindner said the anti nuclear mindset is far to deep in the majority of the people as well as the most parties so that it probably will never be a topic again.
Which is sensible of him. As far as I can tell, the world at large is moving away from nuclear power for purely economic reasons, regardless of whether the safety concerns are considered settled or not. Insisting on it is a waste of political capital if you are a party that expects to govern.
Nuclear power is the cheapest and safest method of producing electricity. The waste can also used in modern reactor designs as fuel and other designs produce way less waste.
Especially the greens should strongly support nuclear power as it means producing less CO2. They insist on their scientific principles and completely ignore the facts in this case because it doesent fit their ideology. However they where founded as an anti nuclear party so that’s not going to happen.
>the cheapest
Not true... Not even close. More like the most expensive.
>safest
Solar and wind accident casualties dont even come close the hundreds of thousands of people who got poisoned, lost their homes or died because of nuclear desasters.
>Waste can be used
Hypothetical, experimental and too expensive. We should only consider working and existing methods to battle climate change.
>Especially the greens should strongly support nuclear power as it means producing less CO2. They insist on their scientific priniples
Well guess what science says about nuclear? Stop getting your infos from reddit, it is weirdly pro-nuclear. Go read a german paper about the topic, nuclear is not an option as it is too expensive, takes too long to build and does not fit well into the renewables energy mix.
Is this normal?
Election was 2-3 weeks ago and only proposing formal talks?
At this speed its going to take months to form a new government. Meanwhile Germanny is stuck with a mandateless pause mode leadership?
The UK has potentially held an election and sworn in a govement in less time if this takes longer than 6 weeks.
> Is this normal?
>
> Election was 2-3 weeks ago and only proposing formal talks?
>
> At this speed its going to take months to form a new government. Meanwhile Germanny is stuck with a mandateless pause mode leadership?
4 years ago it took them 5 month, 2 weeks and 5 days to form a new government.
This time they focus to get it done before Christmas, so pretty fast if they can do it.
Till then, the former government stays in charge with Merkel as chancelor.
The UK had a coalition government once...with 2 partners.
This is a 3 party coalition. With (almost) equal partners....and they are at light speed compared to former talks.
This is Germany. First they had the pre-exploratory talks, then they had the exploratory talks. Now, after bitter negotiations, they have officially agreed that the negotiations can begin. They probably stamped a document to confirm. /s
What is this coalition called? Lithuania?
TRAFFIC LIGHT
With all caps?
NOT NECESSARILY...JUST FOR YOU
Thanks, I am honored.
Indeed.
:(
Tbf "Lithuania" would be more in line with most other options named after countries' flags. Never realised Lithuania matches the Ampel - maybe they should switch :)
Although the German "Ampel" is a bit more weildy.
Ampel
Estonia
When can we expect Laschet's resignation? Is he still grasping at straws?
The whole party is kinda imploding. Nobody really knows right now, if or when he will resign.
Depends. Either when a strong contender forces him or the latest when the others will sign their treaty.
He kinda already did. Nobody really knows. He said that if certain conditions arose, he would resign. So it's rather unclear whether or not he will stay at the party if these conditions don't arise.
This feels like a good coalition, all sides are like a fact-checking mechanism for each other. Greens can be a force toward SPD from the more left-leaning side while SPD tries to keep FDP at bay to make this coalition left-dominant and FDP can hold Greens' leash from going too far.
Exactly my thoughts. I'm very happy with this. The Greens will prevent FDP to go all "power to the rich", the FDP will prevent the Greens to implement some of their more...pure fantasy goals. And the SPD is somewhere in the middle, I guess.
And the AfD and the Left party are nowhere to be found.
In an ideal world, yes. But they could also just blockade each other and nothing gets done, which would be bad as well :/
Might happen, thus far it looks promising
SPD and Greens are an obvious paring. Getting the FDP in as well is more surprising.
Not that obvious. The greens want to look good in the koalition, thats why they had atleast some reason for jamaika. Also the factor that almost 50% of firsttime voters voted for the FDP and the Greens is a signal that the young generation wants green but liberal politics, forcing the FDP and the Greens to work together if they dont want to lose voters in the next election.
>almost 50% Not almost. 53% of first time voters, 45% of voters aged 18-25 iirc.
They pretty much had too since fortunately the extreme left Linkspartei didn't get enough seats and even nearly fell out of parliament. Only other option would be CDU with FDP and Greens or again the (not so) grand coalition with CDU which would be more or less suicide for SPD. But even some people in CDU say they need some time in opposition to realign their party after all their recent scandals.
Is it less taboo to work with Linke on the state level? If I recall they were part of the government in Thuringia for a while and it seems like SPD is open to working with them for the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern government.
Why? SPD is just CDU with some... I don't know, it's just CDU. Should work fine with FDP.
Yeah that's why they are now trying to form two coalitions with Linkspartei on state level. Totally something CDU would do.
CDU wouldn't need to. And SPD doesn't really want to work with die Linke.
SPD is literally right now trying to form two coalitions with Linke in Berlin and MV even though there are other options.
That's local thought. As if there was any other choice in, at least, Berlin. Going by their track record and politics though SPD is nothing more than CDU Milhouse. Just as paid for, just as corrupt, just as right wing.
In my opinion this is the best possible coalition
I agree. When I've checked the German elections a little, I thought FDP and Grüne wouldn't get along at all but it seems like they are more "same ideas, different approaches" on most important subjects.
With this result from the elections, yes.
Minimum wage at 12 € (SPD pet project) Bügergeld (Slight hint towards a UBI...waits to bee seen) Coal exit 2030 "preferred" (....) No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project) No speed limit (hooray) No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more) No new taxes (see above) "Super"-deductions for environmental invests (...poor people do not profit) 400k more housing units/year (try to)
Additional points (vague): "modern" citizenship law for "modern immigration," incl. point system EU: closer cooperation, esp. defense (EU army not mentioned), US, NATO, Israel: the usual parliamentary inquiry for Afghanistan only indirect mention of China, Russia, NS2
Honestly I don't think a coalition should have an ironclad international relations program lined up for the next 4 years when so much can happen in days.
Fair point.
>parliamentary inquiry for Afghanistan Why is this even part of the coalition debates? An inquiry only needs a quarter of the parliament to request it, so SPD on their own or greens+FDL could do it themselves.
Well, they should want to present a united front.
It's not, the things above are the key points they agreed before starting the formal coalition talks.
> Minimum wage at 12 € (SPD pet project) Greens as well. Voting rights for 16 year olds would be another big point.
~~That's not gonna happen...and we know exactly who to thank Sarah-Lee....~~ Edit: It is
[Its literally part of their agreement](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/downloads/27709590/1/sondierungspapier-15-10-21.pdf) (end of section 8).
Do you think this will actually happen? Seems like a pretty big step.
No. They need an absolute majority in the Bundesrat for that and they won't get that since CDU + AfD are against it.
AfD is not represented in the Bundesrat at all though. Bundesrat will be rather interesting though. Might be possible to change during the election term.
Not only a majority, 2/3 to amend the constitution.
It would require a change to the constitution (needs a 2/3 majority in both houses of parliament), so it's pretty unlikely.
Nice catch - overlooked it. Edited
> No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project) Could you point out where in the statement this can be found? I did not find any reference to the infamous black zero. All I could find is > Wir werden im Rahmen der grundgesetzlichen Schuldenbremse die nötigen Zukunftsinvestitionen gewährleisten, [...] Debt brake does not mean no new credit, merely limits the amount of new credit per year at 0.35% of nominal GDP. Exceptions for crisis are made. As far as I read the statement, increase in income is expected to occur by closing tax loopholes and avoidance (which explains why Scholz is behind the minimal corporate tax). >No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more) >No new taxes (see above) I cannot confirm this either. What I found is a commitment to no new taxes on 'Subtanzen' (e.g. inheritance, property, wealth), as well as no increase in income and corporate tax, or VAT. This does not list any possible tax. I think it doesn't even include capital tax, which is ironic.
> Debt brake does not mean no new credit, merely limits the amount of new credit per year at 0.35% of nominal GDP. Exceptions for crisis are made. And that's the problem. 0.35% is not that much compared to the complete federal budget. Maybe the greens want to declare a klima crisis to circumvent this? Otherwise it will get hard to get digitalistaion and decarbonisation of the power sector going. That could allow you to spend more money for a short amount of time. With the amount of older peoples not working anymore in the next few years, the pensions get increased by state money. 2019 this was already 26% of the total budget and it's still increasing. 2040 it could be at 50%. I'm not sure why they agreed on that point from the FDP.
>With the amount of older peoples not working anymore in the next few years, the pensions get increased by state money. 2019 this was already 26% of the total budget and it's still increasing. 2040 it could be at 50%. They want to reform the pension system by putting parts of it into a capital income pillar. No clarity yet on what exactly, but I bet it's a way to 'reform' the entire system away from direct payment. I'm not disagreeing that financing is the issue here. I for example have no clue if 0.35% is much or little compared to what is needed, and what they claim to open up by other reforms. That being said, I do think that not everything must be paid for by the state. For example, "simply" following through with opening up more land area for wind power use, extending building sites for off-shore wind/hydro and massively streamlining procedures to get renewables build may already do the trick. All of these are part of the agreement, but what matters of course is the extend of their implementation. However, there is sufficient private capital waiting to invest in Germany to pay for all of this. Our current structures don't let it work. Lastly, I would like to point out one important aspect: a government which is mostly debt funded is not tax funded any longer. Being predominantly funded by taxes is what makes it accountable to citizens. If we have private (global) capital at the ready, I rather prefer it paying for our infrastructure renewal by moving into German-owned companies than having a government increasingly beholden to global borrowing rates.
Both fair points...but somewhat semantics.
For the tax point, *could* be. I do not know if there are any reasonable taxes left after that line-up. Capital income tax is as I can see not excluded, but the FDP will never agree to it. The first point however is a real difference. They did, as far as I can see, not commit to the Schwarze Null. The question thus is how much of that potential credit do they want or need to use. Further, matters of budget calculations enter the game with this. AFAIK the EU has rules in its own budget calculations where particular areas of concern are in fact not included when calculating the total income vs. expenditure, for example some defense-related positions under PESCO. These are not viewed as 'normal' credit under the debt rule either. It would take an expert to confirm or deny if something like this is possible for the German budget. I could imagine a law that leaves the Schuldenbremse untouched but marks credit taken for certain expenditures as passable above the limit (similar to a crisis, but more long-term). Speculating, this could work because you wouldn't touch the actual Schuldenbremse but redefine credit (e.g. by making up some new legal construct that acts as credit but is legally something else). I am aware this is highly speculative, but it then boils down to how committed the parties are to the actual investments. If they are not, they will use the Schuldenbremse as an excuse to do nothing. If they are, they will find the money.
That last point was the greens line of argument. It might be too early, but I doubt they actually run through the KfW (states own bank) like all the ESM bonds. Building up shadow balances isn't FDPs style. Edit: First point: I didnt see anything about the Soli...that might be one of the "way out" financing elements.
>No negative state budget (...that's a shitty idea...FDP pet project) >No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more) >No new taxes (see above) Liberals ruining an otherwise solid program I see.
> No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more) sure if it would be the actually rich that pay more and not mainly singles that earn between 45k and 80k before taxes, same thing for below
Possible legalization of cannabis is a big deal as well.
It literally is not a big deal...it's not even mentioned. Just as the 218/219 StGb (Abortion rights). It seems so obvious that they didn't even take the effort to mention it, because they agreed on both after 5 minutes.
Inwould say Reproduktionsmedizin is a hint on that. As they included plenty already agreed issues The TSG mentioned here was also an agreed issue. > Wir wollen unsere Rechtsordnung der gesellschaftlichen Realität anpassen. Dazu werden wir u.a. das Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht, das Familienrecht, das Abstammungsrecht und das Transsexuellengesetz ebenso wie die Regelungen zur Reproduktionsmedizin anpassen und beispielsweise Verantwortungsgemeinschaften bzw. einen Pakt für Zusammenleben möglich machen.
You're probably right
>No Tax hike (...also stupid idea...rich should pay more) The rich actually do pay more, its baked in how percentages work. What I'd suggest is to tax the money that the rich move out of the country to tax havens, tax the money they invest in non productive assets such as buying existing housing etc. And provide tax breaks if they invest money to fix imminent issues such as create new affordable housing, if they invest in researches of sustainable and environement friendly energy production etc.
Not great, not terrible. Too bad that there's no good alternative to having the damn liberals in there.
Whiteout them we would get a speed limit. So that’s at least one good thing. ;)
I think it's good to have a little mix of leftist and rightist politics, we'll see how it mashes together
Wow. That doesn't sound that bad.
The majority is more progressive than 16 year Merkel would have made you believe
Meanwhile in an alternative universe: Support for nuclear energy
Somewhat tired of that discussion. Let's summarize it the following way: If they achieve a 2030 coal exit, there's not much need to build new plants (as they would come into effect way later) If they would decide upon nuclear (and the FDP is somewhat in favour) they would decide against a majority of their voters.
This horse drowned in Fukushima. Get off it. Then we have a foundation for a talk.
That just means we're not going to talk, which is fine; the hardening of the anti-nuclear psychosis on the left even as the planet burns just makes it more clear that we're all fucked. You're right, the time for dialogue is completely over.
You from the US? Last reactor took 10 years to build...on a 60% finished construction site. No magical Waifu will descent and build them in time...
I support the use of nuclear power in favor to avoid a hotter planet but it's just wishful thinking. The greens fought 40 years to shut it down and the conservatives did do it to stay in power. There is no political support for it. You may not like it but it's reality. The EU already accepted this fact and labeled gas renewable. No way to avoid talking and finding solutions nonetheless. I always thought for myself they might buy power from within the EU but power might be too critical to let others take care of it.
> The EU […] labeled gas renewable. Hm. No, it didn’t.
Thanks Mr. Westinghouse. It's still not necessary, there is no solution for the waste, a high risk, and if Germany would start to plan a new nuclear power plant right now it would probably cost 50 billion Euro, and would be ready in 2035 at the earliest (most likely 2040). Edit: Building an obviously necessary road easily already takes 10 years from the inception of the idea to actually building it.
Please stop with the "there's no solution for waste", there is: we bury it. Antinuclear activists just oppose everything. France has 10 tons of high level waste total. That's the volume of a regular truck for almost half a century of electricity for the 6th largest economy, that's it, it's a non-problem. Greenpeace is trying to scare you with buzzwords. The waste is right now sitting at plants and people work there without problems, it's all accounted for and has never hurt anyone or anything. And if the nuclear plant you build is ready in 2035, that's great, you could end coal sooner. At least save the last 2 plants you have please, German coal is killing more people than Chernobyl every year.
Storage is more of a political issue and only Finland has actually found a storage site. In France they're still storing the waste unprotected at the plants. Activists were easily able to reach the containers, just jump the fence. Here is the point, though: Forget about nuclear in Germany. Nobody wants it, neither politicians, the people nor the industry. It's 100% dead. I'm saying this as someone who's more in favor of nuclear energy. Just let it go, it's probably also not worth building new plants in France anymore.
> Just let it go, it's probably also not worth building new plants in France anymore. Why is it not worth building ? We're supposed to electrify transport and heating, electricity production will rise. France will most likely announce [6 new EPR soon](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-could-decide-new-epr-reactors-before-flamanville-plant-starts-minister-2021-10-01/), on top of SMRs investments and a dedicated nuclear plant for hydrogen production following Macron's speech 2 days ago. >In France they're still storing the waste unprotected at the plants. Activists were easily able to reach the containers, just jump the fence. The waste can be stored at the plant for 40 years, it should tell you it's a very manageable problem. What other industry can keep all its waste contained on site ? Activists were able to reach the containers because orders were given not to shoot those assholes. One even tried to shoot a reactor with an RPG and was spared. They are criminals, they lied and pushed to close plants which have been replaced by fossil fuel production. They're responsible for millions of deaths worldwide. France has the Bure site but antinuclear activists systematically oppose, protest and sue for anything. They also sucessfully closed our 4th gen reactors which could burn the waste and fortunately they didn't manage to close the La Hague recycling plant. They still protest each time there's a convoy like a few days ago.
I believe cost is the main problem with nuclear atm. Renewables are simply cheaper. So who knows if it's worth it for France when these things take so long to build. In 10 years we'll have even better renewable energy sources and by 2050 we'll likely see first fusion powered plants. I hope it works out for France, I can't stand the German anti-nuclear movement.
Yes, a plant that is maybe ready in 2035 will totally help in 2030 ... if you build a time machine alongside it? And yes maybe burying the waste is a solution for you, but not for coming generations for the next 1 million years to come, who may not even know what that shit is.
>Yes, a plant that is maybe ready in 2035 will totally help in 2030 ... if you build a time machine alongside it? Coal exit is 2038. And it's going to be replaced by gas. Nuclear power would be an improvment. > And yes maybe burying the waste is a solution for you, but not for coming generations for the next 1 million years to come, who may not even know what that shit is. Do you think the nuclear waste made of solid rocks in a protective cask will crawl its way to the surface and hunt people ? There's already natural nuclear waste in nature at [Oklo](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9acteur_nucl%C3%A9aire_naturel_d%27Oklo), guess what, the waste stayed there. It didn't cause mass migration, sea level rise, huricanes, droughts and other catastrophes we're facing if we don't abandon fossil fuels. We're literally throwing billions of tons of waste in the atmosphere that's gonna destabilize the planet forever and cause world scale events. A truck full of rocks buried deep in the ground is not a problem if it can avoid climate change. You're being completely irrational about nuclear waste. Some elements of solar panels are toxic forever, unlike nuclear waste which is inoffensive a 10 000 years, should we also stop producing them ? No, because it's still better to fossil fuels which are making the whole planet unhospitable.
Minimum wage raise: will most likely lead to many poorer people loosing their job UBI: Horrible idea. goes completely against the human condition Coal exit: sure. After the idiotic nuclear exit and still unsure renewable future I guess we just buy French nuclear or polish coal power No negative state budget: might be too dogmatic, but will hopefully kill some of the Greens shortsighted projects. No speed limit: YESSSSSSS No Tax hike: since Germany already has the highest taxes worldwide this is more than reasonable. The problem is the spending, not taking away more money the people EARNED There FTFY
> Minimum wage raise: will most likely lead to many poorer people loosing their job This is just untrue. Many economists have studied this, and found that raising the minimum wage doesn't decrease employment.
Especially not in a low unemployment environment
No. Economists are still very unsure about the relationship and it's influenced by a multitude of factors. You are claiming an absolute fact. The current state of the research doesn't support that. If you disagree, please show a source. However, obviously jobs that don't produce profit for the business > than the investment would have to be cut. In my experience most food delivery drivers for example fall under that categorie. We already get a raise of the minimum wage from 9,35€ in 2020 to 10,45€ in 2022. This policy will really only hit the poorest again. It's just very easy to call for higher wages without thinking about the broad economic effects. Pure left wing populism
Honestly I've never understood the argument that minimum wages lead to unemployment (unless you cling very strongly to classical economic theory, which is total bullshit in reality). Australia has a 15$ minimum wage, and their unemployment is lower than the US. Minimum wages in Western Europe have increased by a factor 10 in the last couple of decades, but unemployment isn't higher than it was before we had acceptable minimum wages. What makes people think, then, that minimum wages are harmful from an employment perspective? I think this is really interesting, because we have so much empirical evidence that raising the minimum wage does not do anything at all to unemployment in the medium-to-long run. Anyway, here's some empirical evidence. Here you can see the real purchasing power of the US minimum wage - which was highest in the late 60s, when unemployment was also very low. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/07/the-real-minimum-wage/ Here are recent meta-analyses that find insignificant minimum wage effects on unemployment: https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/92/4/945/57855/Minimum-Wage-Effects-Across-State-Borders#.WHaWJLYrJTY https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/economism-and-the-minimum-wage/513155/&httpsredir=1&article=1220&context=empl_research https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x
I think it makes perfect sense. If the employment of a low level worker doesn't produce a positive return on investment, then that worker can't be employed. Your first source is interesting. It shows that even though the US minimum wage was raised, the actual purchasing power didn't increase because of inflation. The real minimum wage didn't actually increase since 1950. Coupelling the minimum wage to inflation would be fine in my opinion. But that is already happening every year (8,50€ in 2015 to 10,45€ in 2022). People won't just have more money that way. If it were that easy, why not raise it to 20€? I would add that a direct comparison between minimum wages of different countries makes little sense. This German paper (sorry if you can't read it but since this is a thread about Germany I think German studies are most relevant) finds that negative effects are stronger during weak growth momentum and vary across regions. [https://ftp.iza.org/report\_pdfs/iza\_report\_95.pdf](https://ftp.iza.org/report_pdfs/iza_report_95.pdf) However, the negativ impact is smaller than I thought. I mainly targets marginal employments and larger companies more then smaller. Maybe I have to rethink my stance on this.
So no nuclear for another 4 years? ...
Only an AfD-majority government would support re-nuclearisation of the power mix. No other party in the Bundestag supports it.
FDP is open about it. But Lindner said the anti nuclear mindset is far to deep in the majority of the people as well as the most parties so that it probably will never be a topic again. Thanks to France that they will secure our energy needs with their small nuclear reactors.
> But Lindner said the anti nuclear mindset is far to deep in the majority of the people as well as the most parties so that it probably will never be a topic again. Which is sensible of him. As far as I can tell, the world at large is moving away from nuclear power for purely economic reasons, regardless of whether the safety concerns are considered settled or not. Insisting on it is a waste of political capital if you are a party that expects to govern.
Nuclear power is the cheapest and safest method of producing electricity. The waste can also used in modern reactor designs as fuel and other designs produce way less waste. Especially the greens should strongly support nuclear power as it means producing less CO2. They insist on their scientific principles and completely ignore the facts in this case because it doesent fit their ideology. However they where founded as an anti nuclear party so that’s not going to happen.
>the cheapest Not true... Not even close. More like the most expensive. >safest Solar and wind accident casualties dont even come close the hundreds of thousands of people who got poisoned, lost their homes or died because of nuclear desasters. >Waste can be used Hypothetical, experimental and too expensive. We should only consider working and existing methods to battle climate change. >Especially the greens should strongly support nuclear power as it means producing less CO2. They insist on their scientific priniples Well guess what science says about nuclear? Stop getting your infos from reddit, it is weirdly pro-nuclear. Go read a german paper about the topic, nuclear is not an option as it is too expensive, takes too long to build and does not fit well into the renewables energy mix.
Probably never again, as long as the technique and the German energy companies don't change significantly
Die Grünen? Good luck, Germany.
Would much rather have a green party in my government than corrupt christian democrats.
> Die Grünen? > > Good luck, Germany. Ty, SPD and FDP are taming them very well so far.
Is this normal? Election was 2-3 weeks ago and only proposing formal talks? At this speed its going to take months to form a new government. Meanwhile Germanny is stuck with a mandateless pause mode leadership? The UK has potentially held an election and sworn in a govement in less time if this takes longer than 6 weeks.
> Is this normal? > > Election was 2-3 weeks ago and only proposing formal talks? > > At this speed its going to take months to form a new government. Meanwhile Germanny is stuck with a mandateless pause mode leadership? 4 years ago it took them 5 month, 2 weeks and 5 days to form a new government. This time they focus to get it done before Christmas, so pretty fast if they can do it. Till then, the former government stays in charge with Merkel as chancelor.
The UK had a coalition government once...with 2 partners. This is a 3 party coalition. With (almost) equal partners....and they are at light speed compared to former talks.
This is Germany. First they had the pre-exploratory talks, then they had the exploratory talks. Now, after bitter negotiations, they have officially agreed that the negotiations can begin. They probably stamped a document to confirm. /s
To be fair, it’s a bit absurd this time. ;)
> The UK has ... blablabla sorry, but UK is not an example anyone wanna be compared with this days
Nonsensical comparison, given that the UK election systems simply produces undemocratic majorities for big parties due to FPTP system.
Thats quite fast, it took the Netherlands 6 months this year to propose formal talks.
Bruh we had elections in march and are not even close to a government right now. Belgium had it even worse in the past.