The fair reorganization of social security and the abolition of unjustified privileges

The current debate about social justice reveals deep cracks in the structure of our social order. While the working center is increasingly groaning under the overwhelming burden of the taxes, privileged groups benefit from an traditional system. A fundamental reform of financing mechanisms is long overdue in order to relieve the workload factor and the welfare statespread on broad shoulders. This change requires the courage to break old privileges and radically reorient the tax system.

The direct offsetting of social burdens

The current practice of deducting social levies from the assessment basis is massively disadvantaged by the workforce. Instead, these contributions must be deducted in full directly from the actual tax liability. This direct offsetting would automatically compensate for increases in health insurance contributions by reducing the tax burden accordingly. theHuman labor factor would thus be completely freed from the task of financing the welfare state alone.

The national responsibility for the security systems

Retirement provision, health care and unemployment protection are the primary tasks of the community. Consequently, these systems must be financed from general tax revenues instead of just asking the dependent employees to pay. Such a change would be a historical milestone and a real liberation for the working population.

The resistance of the privileged classes

Although politics has been conjuring up the relief of the work factor for decades, hardly anything is happening in practice. The only way to true justice is through the financing of the welfare state through general tax revenue. But this realization meets with massive resistance in those groups who benefit from the current situation. High earners, officials and also theMedia opinion makers fear financial losses.

The convenience of policymakers

The policy makers also do not pay into the social systems and are therefore not directly affected. Her ambition to go beyond mere lip service is therefore limited. You can see the problem, but since you don’t suffer from the taxes yourself, the real pressure to act is missing.

The state’s lack of self-interest

A serious design error in the previous financing lies in the state’s lack of self-interest in low tax rates. Although the federal government influences the contribution rates by legislation, it decides on costs that do not affect it directly. Therefore, it is easy for the government to decide on increases because they do not burden the state budget. Financial BottlenecksThe public sector is therefore preferentially solved via the social security funds. Tax increases, on the other hand, are considered politically hardly enforceable.

The path of least resistance

For this reason, the powerful always choose the path of least resistance and loot the social security funds. However, if increases in social security contributions led to noticeable reductions in taxes at the same time, the distribution of power changed abruptly. The state would then have to protect its own income and would be forced to keep the tax burden on citizens low.

The insidious disadvantage of the middle

The relationship between taxes and social levies has shifted massively in recent decades. While social security contributions were steadily increasing, the tax rates were continuously reduced. These taxes act as fixed costs that affect every employee subject to social security contributions alike. Tax relief, on the other hand, is primarily better off, self-employedand the civil service. In this way, the lower and middle incomes were systematically and insidiously disadvantaged.

The growing gap in net income

Today, an average income is hardly enough to earn a living. With little references, people are already moving at the poverty line. Although gross incomes were largely the same, the gap in net incomes is widening. The social levies hang like a millstone on the neck of the small and average earners. fromTax cuts hardly benefit these groups while social security increases hit them to the fullest.

The containment of illegal employment

In such a reformed system, illegal employment would tend to be significantly less worthwhile. Anyone who evades social levies could no longer count them on the taxes in the future. At the same time, pension entitlements and unemployment benefits would fall in undeclared work. The financial advantage of evading would be completely eliminated, which would dry out the shadow economywould.

New scope for basic security

The rates of basic security are also artificially kept low today in order to keep the gap to low wages. An increase in these rates has so far hardly been possible, since the difference to low earners would otherwise be too small. After the reform, however, small earners would have more net from the gross, since their taxes reduce the tax burden. This would create completely new leeway toto increase basic security and to relieve the pressure on minimum wages.

The end of marginal employment

Today’s marginal employment relationships are considered tax loopholes that are legally used to save on taxes. In these models, the employer pays flat-rate taxes, while the employee remains tax-free. This system tempts you to split regular full-time jobs into numerous small employment relationships. The short-term advantage for theEmployees become a disadvantage in the long term, since social security and pension entitlements are missing. In the new financing structure, such special regulations would be superfluous.

Overcoming the fictitious independence

Partly employed people have just as much money in their pockets in the future without having to forego social security. You would pay full taxes, but would be returned as tax deductions. The incentive to flee into fictitious independence would also be eliminated. Many employees today become self-employed pro forma just to escape the yoke of social security contributions.

Protection against social hammock

In fact, this activity is often a completely normal dependent employment relationship. Drivers or accountants only write invoices instead of receiving salary. The bogus self-employment saves taxes, but is defenseless in old age or in the event of illness. If the taxes reduced the tax burden, this incentive would be omitted and social security would beguaranteed.

Mobilizing huge financial volumes

Every year, huge sums flow through the health insurance funds. About half of them are employers’ shares, the other half is borne by the employees. The counter-financing of the employee shares is essentially successful by deleting the tax exemption for special expenses. Previously, employer shares and pension expenses have been tax-privileged. slackThis tax exemption, the state is accruing enormous additional income.

Economic growth as a self-financer

The other pension expenses would also have to lose their tax privilege, which flushes further huge sums into the coffers. In addition, a small employment and consumption miracle would trigger, some of which finance the reform itself. Additional economic growth is sufficient to generate further significant funds. At the same time, state transfer payments are forLow earners partly gone. Only manageable balances can then be financed via real increases in corporate and excise taxes.

The fair burden of civil servants

The special appeal of this model is that higher tax rates also hit the civil service. By offsetting the social security contributions on the tax, they no longer have any advantage. Overall, they would be more burdened with the constitution and the income gap is closing. How decades of coldly raised civil servants’ salaries would be on this onepaths lowered again. Nobody wants to take anything away from the civil service in general, it’s about lowering to a reasonable level.

The constitutional necessity of alignment

The decisive factor is the result at the end of the working life, which must be at a comparable level. The Basic Law only requires an appropriate alimentation, no over-alimentation. The cleanest solution would be to apply identical rules for all employees in all social insurance branches. In fact, this would be the abolition of professional civil service in its current formthe same. Since this is difficult to enforce politically, immediate transitional measures are needed.

Immediate alignment of supply systems

The amount of the pensions must be immediately adjusted to the amount of the pensions. Any pension cuts are to be transferred to civil service law with equal effect on a transitional basis. The abolition of the occupational disability pension and the contribution assessment limits must also be incorporated into civil service law. The previous family allowances are to be deleted without replacement or as general child benefit fordisburse all citizens. It must not be the case that children of civil servants have a higher financial value than others.

The elimination of unjustified special regulations

Changes in the contribution rates and benefit reductions for employees must be applied equivalently to the civil service. The increasing life expectancy must not further increase the gap between pensions and annuities. Credits for military or civilian service must apply equally to all groups. So-called previous periods of service may not exceed the relevant period of servicebecause there was no fidelity relationship during this time. The special preferential age limits for certain civil servants are to be deleted without replacement.

The reform of health care

The previous aid is not one of the traditional principles and can be abolished by a simple majority. Until then, the benefits of the allowance must be harmonised with the catalogue of statutory health insurance funds. There must be no better benefits for civil servants that others only receive against expensive supplemental insurance. Free health care must also be abolished.Additional contribution for childless employees in long-term care insurance is to be transferred to the state aid law accordingly.

Equal treatment and working time arrangements

The salary of civil servants is to be fictitious for income taxation to compensate for progression advantages. All alimentation services must be subject to income tax, as well as monetary benefits for employees. The reasonable burden must be increased accordingly, while pension allowances are completely eliminated. The double taxation of pensioners is throughto end new allowances. The allowance jungle must be cleared and unjustified surcharges are to be deleted.

The realignment of the public service

Salary and pensions are to be paid monthly instead of in advance. Relocations must be possible without restrictions, even if they are associated with income losses. The rules for continued payment of wages in the event of illness are to be transferred to the civil service. After several weeks of illness, there is only one reduced rate until the maximum duration. The death benefit is also forAbolish officials and MPs without replacement.

Democratic and legal equality

The proportion of elected officials from the public service is to be limited to the proportion of the population. Broadcasting companies’ employees must not be civil servants or quasi-official officers. The jurisprudence must no longer measure double standards, but must protect all groups equally. The social security contributions paid should directly reduce income tax. With all theseMeasures must not be protected by anti-confidence, since unjust structures are not worthy of protection.

The historical necessity of social justice

If you look at these profound demands from the overarching perspective, the urgent need for a true social market economy is revealed. The current system cements feudal structures in a modern democracy and rewards those who have already positioned themselves in a privileged position in the past. However, a just society can only be based onequal burdens and equal opportunities for all citizens. The courage to break up these unjustified privileges is the prerequisite for social peace and the economic success of the future. Ultimately, it is about the return to the basic idea that performance and contribution to the common good for all people must be measured according to the same rules.