Kay Gottschalk
Abolition of Property Tax
German Bundestag, March 21, 2019,
Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 10505-10506
[Kay
Gottschalk is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western
German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen. He is an insurance manager and an Odd
Fellow. He here presents an AfD motion to abolish a tax on real property. Olaf
Scholz is German Finance Minister and a member of the SPD. Marcus Söder is the Ministerpräsident (governor) of
Bavaria and a member of the CSU.]
Right honorable Herr President. Honored
colleagues. Dear property taxpayers, dear renters, dear homeowners – that is,
all you who sit in the gallery.
The property tax is paid by every citizen,
either by apportionment as renter or as owner of real property. This tax is
thus of great importance to the citizens of our country. I thereof ask myself
whether this property tax reform marathon, truly unique in German post-war
political history, is to end at any time, since the federal supreme court, not completely
correct, has declared unconstitutional the present regulations of unit
valuation. The federal constitutional court must repeatedly make policy because
all of you who have long sat here are unwilling to reform, ladies and
gentlemen. So it was for each cold progression and precisely so for the trade
earnings tax [Gewerbeertragsteuer].
Ministers, I ask you straight out, how
incapable of reform is this government actually? For example, the inability to
reform noticeably undermines the property tax. Dear citizens, for 25 years a
reform of the property tax has been discussed. During that time a complete array of
distinctive models was discussed. Yet they all failed, since in the end for
many states it would have resulted in unacceptable dislocations of state financial
equalization.
And with the latest attempt to bring up a reform
of the property tax – in which Herr Scholz has turned in no good figures,
similar to the fusion of the Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank – there is the
argument that a state – in this case, Bavaria – will block the reform. As the
largest net payer into the state financial equalization, Bavaria must fork over
an additional 600 million euros. For me, your criticism is quite effective, my
colleagues of the CSU. Show yourselves here to be resolute. It is namely the
money of the Bavarian citizens.
The CSU now brings into play, in the person
of Marcus Söder, the possibility of state specific regulation. He indeed has
the opening clauses for the states, with which each state can install its
state-specific requirements. Even should it result that the CSU in the end once
again gives in – as occurred much too often in the political past under Herr
Seehofer – it cannot be said whether or not the regulations brought forward by
Olaf Schulz are constitutional. For example, in Die Welt of February 1, 2019, is written, I cite with the president’s
permission:
The future
collection procedures are nevertheless becoming complex. According to the key
points paper, several of the valuation criteria for lots and buildings must be
newly ascertained. Much of this is controversial, and many experts even have
doubts about the constitutionality.
Die Welt and many of the critics are right. With the possible
reform, of which there is actually nothing, we thus again have the federal constitutional court with its foot in the door.
We of the AfD see in the constitutionality of reform the first breaking point.
Besides that, we see yet two further groups of issues.
Second: Here in this honorable house is there
often talk from the left of the word “justice”. Yes, “justice” is an important
word in politics and is also one of great value. Unfortunately, dear colleagues
of the SPD or of the Linke, when you speak of justice you unfortunately present
yourselves as something completely other than the many people there outside who
go to work each day.
First: Would it be just that renters or
homeowners pay more taxes should the value of the real property in which they dwell
increase? No. Since what can they do about it? Second: Would it be just should
the entire tax be shifted onto the renter? No. He has worked hard to pay income
and real property earnings taxes. Would it be just to favor local government or
cooperative building societies? No. Since thereby would all residents of other
housing be injured.
There are also good renters and bad renters.
And how just is it actually when in Landkreis
Böde zero percent property tax is paid while in Nauheim in Kreis Gross-Gerau 960 percent is paid?
We come to the third problem of the mother of
all misery, to the administrative expenditure. To this day is there no one who
could reliably explain to me the whole administrative expenditure. Nevertheless
must 35 million property units be newly appraised, and this every seven years.
Here, an entirely new apparatus must be constructed. The FDP – I must for once
here agree with you – rightly speaks of a “bureaucracy monster” which is being
constructed.
Ladies and gentlemen, based on all of this,
it is for us of the AfD only a question of the abolition of the property tax.
Sebastian
Brehm (CDU/CSU): The financing?
Obviously we know that the property tax with
some 14 billion euros income is an important financial source for local
government in Germany. For that reason, we see the necessity of an alternative
tax source with a local rate of assessment [Hebesatzrecht]. This possibility for
local government is allowed according to Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Basic
Law. We will submit a corresponding motion in the coming weeks here in plenary
session.
But,
dear colleagues, attend first to our motion. Finally make a sign against the
ruin of reform in Germany. Show finally that fundamental reform in the sense of
the citizens and changes serving them is again possible; even with a government
which hitherto, in all essential points which it was to master, has shown
itself to be unwilling to reform.
Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): That
corresponds with nothing!
With us, abolish this unspeakable, un-reformable property tax before it again ends up before the constitutional court.
I
am grateful, ladies and gentlemen.
[Translated
by Todd Martin]
