Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! | ||
|
|
||
No Tax-Free Pensions up to 1,800 Euros – Saxony-Anhalt State Parliament Votes Against Left Party ProposalAt a time when old-age poverty in East Germany is an urgent problem, one might expect that a proposal to relieve low-income pensioners would receive broad support. Yet the second reading of the Left Party's proposal in the Saxony-Anhalt State Parliament on January 29, 2026, ended in a clear rejection. Under the title “Reduce the Tax Burden on Pensioners – Exempt Pensions under 1,800 Euros from Taxation!” the Left Party demanded exemption of pensions up to this threshold by raising the age relief amount and reforming statutory pensions into a “Solidarity-Based Employment Insurance.” Based on the debate records, however, a picture emerges of political calculation, lack of depth, and missed opportunities – a critique that applies not only to the proposer but to the entire parliament. The Proposal: Good Intentions, Questionable ImplementationThe proposal, submitted by parliamentary leader Eva von Angern, notes that pension increases are “eaten up” by taxes, especially in Saxony-Anhalt, where the average pension is among the lowest nationwide (around 1,500 euros gross). The justification refers to the 2005 Retirement Income Act, which introduced a gradual deferred taxation of pensions, scheduled to be completed by 2040. The Left Party argues that tax exemption below 1,800 euros would relieve the majority of pensioners and dismantle the “unjust two-tier system” between statutory pensions and privileged pensions (e.g., for civil servants and members of parliament).At first glance, this sounds plausible: many pensioners struggle with rising living costs, high rents, and healthcare expenses. Yet the proposal ignores fundamental aspects of tax law and creates new inequalities. Why only relieve pensioners, and not low-income earners in the workforce? This question ran through the debate and highlights the populist character of the proposal – it promises quick relief without addressing systemic costs. The Debate: Between Facts and PolemicsThe session, chaired by Vice President Anne-Marie Keding, began with a report by Detlef Gürth (CDU), outlining the proposal’s path through the committees. The Finance Committee and Social Committee recommended rejection with clear majorities (e.g., 7:1:4), citing delays due to federal negotiations.Daniel Rausch (AfD) voted for the rejection but criticized the proposal as “contradictory,” calling instead for a general increase of the basic tax allowance (currently 12,348 euros annually). He accused the Left Party of creating new injustices and advocated pension reforms like integrating welfare recipients into the labor market and limiting civil servant status. Rausch’s argument is sharp but justified: the two-tier system (pensions at 71.75% of final salary vs. 48% for pensioners) is real, yet the Left’s proposal addresses it only superficially. Dr. Andreas Schmidt (SPD) emphasized that deferred taxation is actually a “gift,” since pension contributions are paid tax-free. For pensions around 1,500 euros, often no taxes are due, depending on the year of entry. Schmidt focused on the core problem: low wages and “broken employment histories” in East Germany. He called for long-term security of the pension level until 2050 – a point overlooked in the debate, though central to a real solution. Monika Hohmann (The Left) defended the proposal passionately, referring to past initiatives by her faction (e.g., raising pension levels to 53%) and criticized the brief discussion in the Finance Committee. She emphasized the tax burden and argued for simplifying the system. Yet her speech remained defensive and ignored counterarguments, such as the unequal treatment of active workers. Jörg Bernstein (FDP) was sharply critical: the proposal was “technically not on a very high level” and pure “campaign slogan.” He warned of new inequalities and advocated a “stock pension,” where contributions are invested to strengthen the system. Bernstein’s polemics – accusing Hohmann of exploiting seniors for election purposes – were provocative but revealed the core issue: the Left builds castles in the air instead of proposing real reforms. His stock-pension idea is controversial and carries risks (e.g., market losses), but at least it thinks long-term. Olaf Meister (GREENS) abstained, praising the idea of a “citizens’ insurance” but criticizing the blanket tax exemption as unfair and constitutionally risky (citing a Federal Constitutional Court ruling). Meister argued for a comprehensive approach beyond selective relief – a nuanced position lost in the heated debate. Sven Rosomkiewicz (CDU) dismantled the proposal with numbers: for a 1,800-euro pension in 2026, only 42 euros in taxes are due (2.3%). He reminded of the increase in the basic tax allowance (from 8,652 euros in 2016 to 12,348 euros) and pension rises (50.8% since 2016). Rosomkiewicz’s fact-check is commendable but also shows that the debate focused too much on symbolism rather than concrete improvements. Critical Analysis: Missed Opportunities and Political TheaterThe Left Party’s proposal is commendable in its aim to combat old-age poverty but fails due to lack of precision. The blanket threshold of 1,800 euros ignores other income and potentially violates the equality principle (Art. 3 Basic Law). Rather than a genuine reform, it appears as an election stunt – Hohmann’s defense remained vague, and the faction failed to address criticism.The opposition (CDU, FDP, AfD) argued based on facts, but here too substance is lacking: Bernstein’s stock-pension sounds innovative but carries risks for low-income earners, and Rausch’s demands (e.g., limiting civil service status) are populist, without an implementation plan. SPD and GREENS showed nuance but offered no concrete alternatives. Overall, the debate was marked by heckling and polemics – a symptom of polarization in the parliament that blocks real solutions. Especially critical: Saxony-Anhalt’s low pensions result from structural problems (low wages, demographics) that a state parliament alone cannot solve. References to federal initiatives are correct, but the state parliament failed to exert pressure. The Federal Retirement Security Commission is mentioned but remains abstract – an evasion of responsibility. The Outcome and OutlookThe vote ended with the coalition (CDU, SPD, FDP?) and AfD supporting rejection, Left Party opposing, and GREENS abstaining. A clear no that does nothing for pensioners.In times of tight budgets and an aging society, slogans are not enough. A genuine reform would need to raise the basic tax allowance generally, strengthen pensions, and dismantle the two-tier system – without creating new injustices. The State Parliament missed an opportunity and instead engaged in theater. Pensioners in Saxony-Anhalt deserve better. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | The Silence of the Guinea Pigs - EU Commission Admits That COVID Vaccines Were Distributed Despite Incomplete Safety DataIs it okay for wrongdoing to remain wrongdoing when it comes to COVID?... zum Artikel |
 | Brilliant Peace Plan: Ukraine Becomes the 17th Federal State of GermanySometimes you can’t see the forest for the trees. Politicians often experience the same. So it’s up to the citizens, the sovereign, to think along.... zum Artikel |
 | Fratricide in Loitsch – An Inheritance Paid in BloodSometimes life writes stories more thrilling and more brutal than any novel. One of them unfolded in the small village of Loitsch... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |