Albrecht Glaser, October 18, 2019, Property Tax Reform

Albrecht Glaser

Property Tax Reform

German Bundestag, October 18, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/119, pp. 14695-14697

[Albrecht Glaser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. He is currently a member of the Bundestag finance committee.]

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The set of laws submitted by the Federal Government and the government delegations is an attempt to solve, shortly before the expiration at the end of the year of the period fixed by the Federal Constitutional Court, a pressing problem of many long years, come Hell or high water.

The property tax [Grundsteuer] is a fossil from agrarian society, when use of the land was still a major source of wealth. It was extended at different times and at different places to land use for dwellings. To make the tax basis measurable, it must be assessed. An assessment of this tax basis for long appeared simpler than an ascertainment of income. In the course of the construction of the income tax system of the 19^th Century, the proceeds from the leasing of land, from forest use and from the rental of buildings was logically subsumed under the income tax. There, undisturbed by many newly discovered taxes levied due to fiscal greed and having eternal life, simply continued the property tax along with the income tax, while the state authorities acknowledged no rational, constitutionally legitimate tax collection. That for long disturbed nothing – until modern tax theory, directly developed by the Federal Constitutional Court in tangible ways, raised the issues of basis of collection, equity and the solvency of obligations, in which modern tax theory required an economic relation between tax yield and the expense of collection.

According to all of these criteria, the property tax appears to be antiquated. Two simple instances: The property tax yearly yield comes to 14 billion euros. That is around 2 percent of the tax yield of the entire state. To attain it, 35 million objects of taxation, foremost houses and buildings, must be periodically assessed. For that are required many thousands of tax officials who soon thereafter should be laid off – there are those who certainly are not – who nevertheless are thereby only temporarily employed; in some cases, they paint the Finance Office. Since the assessment in the past did not come off and last took place in 1936, the Federal Constitutional Court must declare as unconstitutional the property tax collected for this year alone. It did that, with precedents and copious statements, in 2018, something which had long been expected and foreseen by every professional person.

The Federal Constitutional Court therefore need not further concern itself with the theoretical basis of the property tax. On the other hand, it has held that the legal authority [Geseztgeber] must make ascertainable the basis of a tax charge in law. As the basis for the present bill, which regards the value of land as the taxable object [Steuergegenstand] and prescribes fixed procedures of assessment so as to ascertain it, the revenue estimate [Sollertrag] is the taxable object.

What however is this revenue estimate? You all may be astonished. When revenue is realized from real estate, then it serves as a basis for the income tax [Ertragsteuer] When however one uses his home or dwelling himself or has in some way an exterior area, then one has no revenue. Besides: In active agriculture, the left hand raises the property tax while it is subsidized with the right. That however is only at the margin.

The revenue estimates are thus a fata morgana, a perverse mental construct, and will always, if not joined to a taxable object, be regarded as debts. Thus, 80 percent of indebted buildings pay the same property tax as debt-free buildings. That pertains to the theme of performance ability. The actual revenues were already taxed. To twice lay hold of the same taxable object cannot be constitutional.

            Britta Haßelmann (Grünen): What then does the AfD actually want?

The confiscatory nature of this tax is thus evident. Certainly the fantasy of legality is a localized one and that will continue to accompany this project. The widow with her little pension, living in her own home, will be reduced by the property tax, as well as the broadcasting tax, to a minimal existence. That completely stinks of unconstitutionality and will be regarded as such by sensible minds [klugen Köpfen].

Since the property tax by means of leasing can be further extended to the renter, the metropolitan renter especially will wonder, despite the present proclamations, when initially will the new evaluation be translated into new charges. In a city like Berlin with a multiplier factor [Hebesatz] of over 1,000, one of the highest in the entire Federal Republic, this policy hostile to renters will hopefully produce a corresponding reaction.

Operation Property Tax is already perceived in several states as unwelcome; it seems alien [unheimlich]. These states therefore demand – as, so to speak, an emergency exit for heroes – an opening by means of the Basic Law for one’s own legislative potential. And here is required an alteration of the Constitution. You see, ladies and gentlemen: Chaos at all levels.

The AfD therefore introduced a model proposal for local governments [Kommunen] which have exclusive authority over property tax revenue, presently yielding approximately 12 percent of their tax income, and which procures a suitable replacement income which nevertheless respects the tax code [Steuersystematik], constitutional law and the economics of tax collection.

Had reasonable consideration been given earlier, there would not now be the time emergency. Inability to reform, ladies and gentlemen, has consequences.

Reference must yet be made to one curiosity. The Clara Zetkin communists in this house now want a fight with 45 percent of citizens who have procured their own homes. This fight must be fought. It must be fought in the country in which exists the lowest rate of home ownership in the entire EU. 45 percent of the citizens of this country own property and over 80 percent have yearned for decades to obtain it permanently…We can fix that: Taxes on assets, even when there is no aim of revenue, ladies and gentlemen, that is socialism. It is unconstitutional and must therefore be a matter of interest for the Constitution Defense Office. Instead of being a country advancing home ownership – that for once could be done – the responsible citizen must be attacked; since with him, no revolutions can be made. That is the problem.

Since this bungled property reform, cobbled together under pressure of time, requires an alteration of the Constitution, the little Great Coalition needs to muster a constitution-altering majority. How to make room for the FDP and the Greens?  We do not know the consideration of the government coalition. Perhaps there will be judicial selections for the higher courts?

In any case, this time it has collapsed. For one, the construction land tax – designated Property Tax C – receives an extra increase in the multiplier factor. For another, it was promised by the minister that the administrative expenditure would be maintained within limits.

            Christian Dürr (FDP): That is rubbish. That’s in the law, Herr Glaser. 

            You don’t get it!

            Britta Haßelmann (Grünen): He doesn’t get anything!

Dear Herr Dürr, if you would for once adhere to the basic rules of civilized communication.

            Christian Dürr (FDP): Thus spake the just! That was good!

            Stephan Schmidt (Grünen): Cite what you said in committee!

            Michael Grosse-Bömer (CSU-CSU): You have falsely cited it!

If one knew how the sausage was made, one would not eat it, - a feeble laugh does not help, Herr Dürr – goes a butcher-sceptical saying. So something similar also goes for laws unauthorized by the citizens.

Michael Grosse-Bömer (CSU-CSU): Take a look at Bismarck! He had something to say to that!

The constitutional Court must consider this dubious law, and will consider it; upon that, you can proceed. The result is clear. When over 60 percent of the citizens are discontent with the work of this government – according to the latest poll – then there are good reasons for that. This ruin of a property tax reform is part of that.

Hearty thanks.

Michael Grosse-Bömer (CSU-CSU): We indeed do not know what the AfD wants but it was a beautiful recital!

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

Alexander Gauland, October 17, 2019, EU Council: Brexit, USA, Turkey

Alexander Gauland

EU Council: Brexit, USA, Turkey

German Bundestag, October 17, 2019,

            Plenarprotokoll 19/118, pp. 14388-14390

[Alexander Gauland is a national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland as well as a chairman of the AfD delegation in the German Bundestag. He here responds to the German government’s statement concerning a recent meeting of the Council of the European Union.]

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. Frau Chancellor.

Besides the usual, so-called chronic problems, the European Union at the present has two acute problems. Two important countries, both positioned on the periphery, are disengaging themselves from the EU, albeit by fundamentally different ways and means; in the northwest, the British, in the southeast, the Turks. We must straighten out anew our political relations with both. That was also the principal point of your speech.

Let us begin with Great Britain. Ladies and gentlemen, there is life after Brexit. There is also a policy after Brexit. We should therefore take care today that our connections with the British suffer no long-term harm. They remain a political partner, an economic partner, a military power and obviously a leading European Kulturnation. The political heft of the EU moreover decreases with the separation of the British. A nuclear power, a naval power besides is leaving the club.We are therefore concerned that both sides continue to delude themselves.

Even if it does not suit many in this house, in the media, in globalist circles: Brexit is the wish of a majority of the British. It was a bare majority, yes; yet these days this constellation is normal and historically important decisions are occasionally brought about by bare majorities. Daily we see how seriously Europe’s oldest democracy takes the will of the majority. Yes, the British are fighting bitterly over Brexit, before all over the mode of the separation. In our consensus oriented country that perhaps appears unusual; but that is a living democracy! Perhaps Boris Johnson may fail in this fight, but that would still be living democracy.

Even if some of the devout EU idealists still dream of an exit from the exit, Great Britain will again become a sovereign nation-state. In the view of the progressives, that is is a regression, ja, a relapse into, as is said, times long since past. Ultimately, the future belongs to international, post-national structures. We see that otherwise. We maintain that the nation-state is not out of date. We believe that this planet remains a pluriverse and that we now will have on our doorstep a direct comparison of which side with its political system works better. What more can one want?

It is right that Boris Johnson himself must decide the Northern Ireland question. Either Northern Ireland for a designated period, that is, until there is a new trade treaty, actually adheres to EU law, since then the border can remain open, or there is no more EU law there as in the other parts of Great Britain and then there must be border controls. The two are not the same. Of course, the duration of the transition period ought not to be unilaterally determined by the EU, but in common by both partners with friendly, mutual consent.

Frau Chancellor, I can only reiterate what I have already said here: Please do everything in your power not to impede the British withdrawal – for the life after Brexit!

Many Eurocrats of course consider the British departure to be a narcissistic outrage. That might have to do with the fact that they themselves are beginning to doubt the attractivity of the Union. The EU today means bureaucracy, centralism, discord, devalued money, the feeding of bankrupt states, announced penalty actions against the eastern Europeans because they do not wish to share the burden consequent upon the German mass immigration policy. The second most important payer therefore exits. The Norwegians and the Swiss indicate no interest in joining the club and things are fine with them. Iceland has withdrawn its admission request.

It will become problematic when such a sense of outrage is united with an arrogance of superiority and is expressed in open scorn. It is a distressing phenomenon that differing views of foreign policy have lately led to dealing with the opposing side as being incapable of sound judgment. It began with Donald Trump. Presently, it is Boris Johnson’s turn. Where, please, shall this lead when the media, not entirely without participating in the policy of government leaders, represents allied and powerful states, for all that, as clowns? Where this has led in the case of Trump we indeed see in Syria.

The withdrawal of the U.S. troops is a “I’ll have nothing more to do with you” signal to the Europeans’ address. While the Germans are with nothing more parsimonious as military alliance obligations, particularly on the left side of the house, the German officialdom for two years speaks of the world’s most powerful man as of a naughty school child.

            Ulli Nissen (SPD): Which he is!

That is hubris to be followed, as you know, by nemesis. That does not alter the fact that we hold the withdrawal of the U.S. troops to be false, to be a betrayal of the Kurds.

            Martin Schulz (SPD): Exactly!

On the Bosporus sits a president who dreams of a new Ottoman Empire, who dreams of the expansion of Islam, who by means of the Turkish minority, seeks to exert pressure on German policy. “Turkey is greater than Turkey”, said Erdogan in a speech, and further: We can “not be prisoners in 780,000 square kilometers.”

Similarly, as you know, he animates his people to produce children frequently and enlarge the Turkish population.

Britta Haßelmann (Grünen): Can’t you for once cease these loathsome expressions? What does that have to do with you?

Armin-Paulus Hampel (AfD): Just you listen!

Our physical borders are other than the borders of our hearts, said Erdogan in this same speech, and reckons: Our brothers in Mosul, Kirkuk, Hassaka, Aleppo, Homs, Misrata, Skopje, in Crimea and in the Causcusus. For the time being, he does not name Berlin or Duisburg.

Now Erdogan conducts a war of aggression, one contrary to international law, in the Kurdish areas of eastern Syria. The Turkish president speculates about an enlargement of Turkish territory and thereby threatens us with the unleashing of 3.5 million Syrian refugees on Europe if we dare to criticize him! Among these refugees would be found many Isis terrorists who are presently fleeing from Kurdish custody.

With what means can we threaten as a counter-measure? We have a gone-to-pieces Bundeswehr and wide open borders. The Kurd-Turk conflict has long since arrived on our streets. What does the Federal government do? You have given Erdogan money so that he can achieve what we apparently cannot do: Close the borders. We have made ourselves dependent on Erdogan and thereby liable to extortion. With the blessing of the multiculturalists, millions of non-Germans with fabricated residence status live in our country and among them are to be found hundreds of thousands of Erdogan adherents. We cannot, like the Turkish president with streams of refugees, threaten something like sending back all Turks without a German passport, since we are a state of law. We can nevertheless finally begin to learn from the situation and defend our borders.

We can learn two things: Initially for one, that is is foolish, and it can one day become dangerous, to allow the immigration of unflinching people who simply do not know how to assess our order of law and values [unentwegt Menschen einwandern zu lassen, die unsere Rechts-und Werteordnung eben nicht zu schätzen wissen]

            Claudia Roth (Grünen-Augsburg): You are acquainted with that!

and thereby hope that this problem will in some way solve itself; and secondly, that which we have always said: We must ourselves finally again defend our borders.

Ladies and gentlemen, concerning our alliances: The Federal government should urge that this Turkey under this government can longer be a full member of NATO. NATO  must at least freeze the membership of Turkey. This Turkey also ought not become a member of the EU. The EU must lift its accession status, Frau Chancellor. I hope you will commit yourself to his policy.

I am grateful.

[Translated by Todd Martin]