Allemagne

State election Berlin 2021

Bildet Berlin!

BÜNDNIS21

Bündnis90/Grüne

Die Grauen

Die Humanisten

Die Linke

Die Neuen Demokraten

Die PARTEI

Die Urbane.

dieBasis

Freie Wähler

Graue Panther

Klimaliste

Menschliche Welt

MIETERPARTEI

ÖDP

Piratenpartei

Team Todenhöfer

TIERSCHUTZ hier!

Tierschutzpartei

Verjüngungsforschung

Volt

In order to contain the spread of Covid-19, a number of measures have been implemented by federal, state and local governments since March 2020. These have had a significant impact on countless companies and many of the self-employed. For instance, restaurants, theatres and businesses have had to temporarily close their doors. Sports events also took place without spectators and concerts were cancelled.

To prevent those affected from going out of business and to avoid the loss of countless jobs, the state is offering financial support. 

However, these and other financial support measures cost the state a substantial amount of money. One way to increase government revenue, and thus cover the high costs of Covid-19 relief measures, is to increase taxes. Some politicians are thus calling for higher taxes, especially during the post-pandemic period. On the one hand, they suggest, this would allow the government to extend Covid-19 support for those affected. It would also allow the government to invest in public infrastructure in the short term and thus boost the German economy.

But there are others who are not in favour of increasing taxes as they believe the money should stay in the pockets of companies and the public so they have more money after the pandemic to invest or spend, as well as to increase private consumption. This, they argue, would also kick-start the economy, which would then indirectly lead to higher tax revenue for the government. Both approaches aim to stabilise the German economy and to help it recover quickly following the pandemic. Which path is best, however, remains a subject of debate across political parties

We understand wealth tax as the taxation of an individual on the basis of their total assets, not only their income. At present, no such tax exists in Germany. However, the idea is that a wealth tax would only apply above a certain threshold and would be calculated on a percentage basis that would increase in line with the value of the assets owned.

Those opposed to a reintroduction of a wealth tax see it as an unnecessary double burden on the wealthy who often have above-average earnings and thus already pay higher income tax. A wealth tax would also cover assets such as land or property. Not all such assets generate a steady income for their owners that would allow them to pay the additional taxes, eventually leading to the loss of the asset.

Proponents of a wealth tax, on the other hand, argue that wealthy individuals have often invested in stocks or property funds, where their wealth steadily goes up in value. Those with little or zero assets, they suggest, are not able to take advantage of such investments, leading to growing social inequality in Germany. A wealth tax could help fund measures to support vulnerable social groups.

Though abortions are generally forbidden in Germany, pregnancies can still be terminated legally under certain conditions. For instance, women can terminate their pregnancy during the first twelve weeks without having to state a reason if they can prove that they have received counselling regarding the consequences. An abortion past twelve weeks of pregnancy may still be permitted if the mother’s health is in danger or she is the victim of rape. 
Until 2019, doctors were forbidden from publicly advertising their abortion services: it is forbidden under Section 219a of the German Criminal Code. Since 2019, however, practices and hospitals may publicly state that they carry out abortions, but it remains illegal for them to publicise the methods used.
Proponents of the advertising ban believe that legalisation could lead to an increase in abortions. They warn of the procedure becoming commercialised. Critics, on the other hand, argue that doctors should be able to offer their patients objective information in a transparent way as it is the only way for those who are pregnant to make a conscious, safe and informed decision.

A single apartment currently pays €17.50 per month for their radio and TV licence. The revenue generated helps fund 22 TV and 67 radio broadcasters with more than 25,000 permanent employees. 

The broadcasters argue that the licence fee needs to be increased as otherwise they risk facing financial difficulties in years to come. They also highlight the societal relevance of the work carried out by public broadcasters and the structural support the licence fee provides to education and culture in many parts of the country. Without increasing the licence fee, public broadcasters would face challenges and need to cut staff and programming.

In 2020, Saxony-Anhalt’s government blocked a licence fee increase, pointing to the challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic and arguing that public radio broadcasters had failed to implement reforms. Other opponents to a licence fee increase are calling for each broadcaster’s budget to be considered separately before a decision is made on how high the licence fee should be. Some suggest that public broadcasters should be funded through advertising revenue or adopt pay-TV models.

In states such as Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein, voters can take part in regional elections from the age of 16. In the other 12 states, the minimum voting age is 18, as it is for the Bundestagswahl. There are ongoing discussions about lowering the federal voting age to 16. 

Proponents are of the opinion that young people are already capable of playing an active role in shaping their future. This can be seen in the high number of volunteers from younger age groups as well as the ongoing climate protests. They argue that the involvement of young people in political decision-making processes would strengthen democracy, and so the voting age should be lowered to 16 for state elections. 

Opponents argue that minors can be more easily swayed and are unable to truly understand or take stock of the consequences of their actions. They also question whether and to what extent young people possess political knowledge and how strong their interest in politics is.

A rent cap is when landlords are not permitted to increase the rent on their property during a specific period and a binding upper limit is set for rent prices. The primary goal of the proponents of such a law is to ensure rented housing remains affordable for as many people as possible. They argue that this measure is crucial in a country such as Germany, where a relatively large number of people live in rented housing. They also maintain that it would allow the housing market time to recover from the steep rise in apartment and rent prices that have occurred in recent years, especially in large cities. Opponents suggest that such a law might be in violation of the constitution, as evidenced by the German constitutional court’s recent decision on Berlin’s rent cap, declaring it null and void. They also argue that a rent cap tackles only the symptoms and not the cause of the problem as it would do nothing to address the housing shortage. They even go so far as to say that the law would restrict the investments that would be needed to ensure more available apartments and thus ensure low rents in the long term. Proponents argue that a rent cap would, for example, make it possible for low earners to find an affordable apartment. Generally speaking, a rent cap should relieve the financial burden on the tenant and help ensure more social housing.

Support this project