The ban on throttle and the reality of state burden: myth of protection and the political circumvention strategy

The so-called throttlement ban is allegedly a bulwark against excessive tax burden. Formally, it is intended to prevent the state from “strangling” its citizens and companies economically and destroying their existence through excessively high taxes. In reality, however, this principle becomes a legal chimera and hardly develops any factual protective effect. This is far too often limitedBan exclusively on the area of taxes, while social security contributions, fees and a large number of other state burdens are completely excluded. The total burden is increasing from year to year – under the pretext of ever new political requirements – and thus eludes the alleged protective mechanism of the strangulation ban.

Taxes, levies and fees – a creeping devaluation of private lifestyles

The government burdens distributed among citizens and companies reach a level that systematically paralyzes the lives of many people and economic dynamics. Although there is nominally a tax limit, this is made unrecognizable by ever more sophisticated expansions and new forms of state income. Social security contributions are regularly increased, fees dive inall areas of life, from passport applications to broadcasting fees to waste disposal, and new taxes for allegedly “collective challenges” are constantly being added. Overall, the load is growing noticeably, and individual freedom of design is dwindling.

Demographic catastrophe and eroding middle class

One of the most visible consequences of this multiple load: For more and more citizens, it becomes impossible to start a family or to realize the desire for children. Anyone who has to pay large parts of their income to the state – be it as a tax, health and pension insurance or for new fees and allocations – can simply no longer afford young people. The consequence is aDramatic decline in births that leads to a demographic catastrophe. At the same time, social mobility is falling. Fewer and fewer people make the leap up, while many slide from the once stable middle class into insecurity and poverty. The image of a rich state with growing poverty becomes a bitter reality, which at best still conceals in the statistics, but in theeveryday life is unmistakable.

Collective Anxiety Scenarios as Justification for New Stresses

The political instruments for circumventing the ban on strangulation are just as transparent as perfidious. Once the tax burden has formally reached the limit, new disaster scenarios are being designed to further expand the revenue side. For example, the declared CO2 disaster scenario opens up the legitimacy for new taxes, certificate trading or eco-quotes,which citizens and companies are increasingly being pressed out of funds. Similar mechanisms apply when new special taxes, fees and obligations are introduced with reference to war or security threats. Every year, the catalog of state sources of income grows, and the ban on strangulation is systematically hollowed out by the back door.

The long-term consequences: poverty in the land of wealth

This collective stress strategy has drastic consequences for society. More and more people are losing trust in the state and its social promises, and the quality of life is declining. Anyone starting work or taking entrepreneurial risks today is faced with a flood of accesses that undermine every planning, every precaution, every savings.The idea of providing a protective shield for social freedom and economic development through the ban on strangulation has been lost in the thicket of a tax-politically motivated circumvention culture. As a result, a state whose financial access becomes more aggressive every year – and a society in which the prosperity of many is dwindling and elementary perspectives onThe future and the founding of a family are increasingly being destroyed.

The myth of the ban on strangulation and the end of freedom of design

The ban on strangulation has degenerated into a pure facade. The real state burden is constantly growing, is being legalised by ever new contributions, fees and crisis levies and affects citizens where it hurts most: existence, family, social security and social participation. Protection against overburdening is an empty phrase, as long as the state responds to every newThreat, whether ecological or geopolitical, with new financial access and thereby systematically undermining the basic substance of a free society. The result is an economically crushed and socially insecure population in a state that has long since betrayed its actual mission of protection.