Franziska Gminder, March 4, 2021, Excise Taxes

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/215, pp. 27177-27178.

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Federal government’s draft law on the Council’s guidelines of December 2019 and the guidelines of July 2020 for excise taxes [Verbrauchsteuern] is now put forward. Germany is obligated to implement these structural and systemic guidelines. From this results wide-ranging changes and complications in the excise taxes. Considerable additional financial expenditures are to be figured for business and administration, especially for customs.

Unfortunately, once again, no deconstruction of bureaucracy is to be expected from this Federal government. Praised be the British, who have withdrawn from this utter wasteland!

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Then go to Great Britain!

            Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP): The taxes will certainly increase in                                        Great Britain!

The digitalization of the customs declaration is positive, less paperwork for the businesses. And the standardization of the hitherto IT systems like Stromboli, Biber and Tiger offers advantages. 

There is nevertheless an increased workload for customs without a corresponding expansion of digital equipment or personnel in EP 08. The customs administration consists of the general customs direction with a headquarters in Bonn, 42 headquarters customs officials and 252 customs officials as well as 8 customs inspection officials. Around 39,000 co-workers are employed by the customs. How many additional positions need to be created so as to accomplish the new duties? Which reduced expenditures and improvements will be attained by means of the planned digitalization of the excise taxes? How will the digital procedures be secured? Which defense is there against hacker attacks? What happens during a blackout?

For all that, the AfD principally wants to relieve the taxpayers. A new tax system analogous to Professor Kirchoff’s proposal of 2011 – for long, long is it here – would be desirable. Unfortunately, that is only to be dreamed of. If the Federal government has not wanted to carry out a major tax reform and reduce the 36 types of tax to a few, one initial, positive step would be the abolition of the bagatelle taxes. To these belong the sparkling wines tax with a revenue of 377 million euros, introduced in the time of the Kaisers to finance the Navy, the alcoholic soft drinks with 1 million euros, the interim products tax with 17 million euros, the air travel tax, introduced in 2018 as a control tax, with 1.2 billion euros, and especially the coffee tax, introduced in July 1953, with a revenue of 1 billion euros. Coffee is for long no more a luxury product as in the 18^th Century, but counts as an in-demand foodstuff; that, you yourselves have said. The coffee tax even recognizes two tax rates, for roast coffee and soluble coffee, and will in addition be subject to the turnover tax, an inadmissible tax upon a tax.

In Europe, only Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway and Switzerland still levy these taxes. It becomes high time that these taxes, the raising of which is more expensive than what they bring in, were abolished. In the past, there is the abolition of various excise taxes: The ice cream tax – who still remembers it? – : 1972, acetic acid tax: 1980, match and playing card tax: 1981, light bulb tax: 1993, tea tax: 1993, salt tax: 1993,  

            Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): Abolished!

– exactly – also abolished. In taxes and duties is Germany a leader, and according to the OECD has even dislodged Belgium from first place.

I come to a conclusion. Thus, dear Federal government: Finally for once do something for the taxpayer. Even when it is only a small step: It relieves the citizen. He is still fleeced much too much. With courage, forward! In regards this law, we abstain.

           Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): With courage, forward!

           Timon Gremmels (SPD): Have you really not noted the irony? Re-read it!

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

Ulrich Oehme, March 5, 2021, Vaccination

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/216, p. 27234. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Since the beginning of Corona, the solution of this crisis was narrowed by the Federal government and parts of the opposition to only one possibility of termination: The vaccination panacea. And the people were ever further distressed with PCR, rapid and antigen tests of unspecified time. When may you finally begin to put your strategy on scientific fundamentals? And how will you know which herd immunity meanwhile has been achieved? Many citizens possibly need not be immunized, since they have developed antibodies. We must finally develop a scientifically based strategy.

            René Röspel (SPD): A tin foil hat strategy!

What the Federal government is offering us is an unbearable chaos. Each draft law or motion was placed on the same shaky scientific fundamental and stubbornly adjusted to this one solution.

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Perhaps you need a strategy.

And apparently colleagues of this house are still making a monetary profit out of it.

A large part of the people are more than sceptical in regards the analyses, evaluations and the derived preventive measures; those whose discontent since last summer was nevertheless ignored. That now a Herr Lauterbach, one of the leading Corona, test and lockdown zealots, is now for a rapid conclusion to this situation, is a more than transparent diversion. Who at one time demanded water cannons against peaceful protesters, need not now think that the people have for once forgotten everything.

Do you still remember the swine flu of 2009-2010? Of the 34 million doses delivered at that time, only about 5.7 million doses were used to vaccinate. Why? Because – first – the people were not willing to be used as test rabbits, and – second – the quarantine measures concerned sufficed to master the outbreak. “Swine flu” is now called “Covid-19”; nothing has been changed.

            Carsten Schneider (SPD-Erfurt): Oh Gott!

Now here the FDP’s motion comes into play. And now the people’s vaccination readiness is not very high,

            Carsten Schneider (SPD-Erfurt): My goodness!

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): In which world do you live? I think you come from                    Saxony!

primarily because an alleged wonder vaccine again does not produce the promised effect. And at the same time heap up reports of side-effects, problems of compatibility and even cases of death, which have not been investigated. And why does Pfizer practice a recall of its vaccine?

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Nah, it might be slowly embarrassing for me.

And despite this, you stubbornly hold fast to this one solution. The motion sounds good. It is nevertheless not the solution. Since the pandemic could in a brief time alone subside, possibly yet again millions of unused vaccine doses might need to be destroyed.

            Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus (FDP): Such idiocy!

Instead of evidence of antigens, we should test for evidence of antibodies. The test for antigens should only be done for people with serious symptoms, not for everyone.

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Is it still not done, the AfD delegation’s speech?

That would be essentially more cost beneficial, in the long-term more meaningful and plausible to the citizens.  

            Andrew Ullmann (FDP): Which evidence do you then have for that?

It may be once more recalled that the European Council in this year’s Resolution 2361 has maintained that there may be no compulsory vaccination and no one on grounds of non-vaccination may be discriminated against.

It is fermenting in the people; the state framework groans under this unnecessary load. Open the cages, give back to the people their legally vested rights of freedom, unchain the economy from the sanctions and, without masks, let this country breathe again.

Many thanks.

Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): “Let all the people die”, that is the demand that after all you have!

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You must nevertheless put on the mask here!           

            Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): And in fact over the nose!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Kay Gottschalk, March 4, 2021, Wirecard

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/215, p. 27106.

Right honorable Herr President. Honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Honorable preceding speaker Frau Ryglewski, the Wirecard affair does not fall from heaven and we for very long discuss the BaFin [Federal Finance Office] and its dis-functionality. I am delighted that the Wirecard investigating committee – I am grateful to all of my colleagues – by means of its pressure and its clarification work has contributed so that now the coalition finally acts. Since, I believe, the matter of the BaFin has been discernible for four years in the hearings, ladies and gentlemen.

Yet it is not only about the legal regulation. We have associated with a very good draft law. What is to become much more clear – which extends to all members of the government, which concerns all the Ministers, the APAS [annual audit reports supervision], the Economics Ministry and the Finance Ministry – is the corporate governance and, before all things, the compliance. Which in the BaFin – as you have said –was gambled, since no corresponding rules catalog was  set forth. Someone from the APAS – independent, but settled in the Economics Ministry at the BAFA [Federal Office of Economic Affairs and Export Control] – has Wirecard AG shares and shall supervise all of that.

Ladies and gentlemen, we similarly need to introduce for auditors and for government entities like the Economics Ministry and all other downstream, business-area authorities, a new compliance, a critical basic attitude. When we do not do this, then many laws are wastepaper and come to nothing.

I hear for example in reference to money laundering – which we also need to go into – that here there is once again a gap between Niederbayern and the BaFin. And here it is again the BaFin. If there is a regulatory gap in the laws, then it is always the government which is guilty, which has brought in the law; since they have bungled it by hand and not acted correctly or not worked free of error. And it also must be said of what the government brought about in 2005 or 2006 – that was then already the Merkel government: People, you have worked with dirty hands.  

With the so-called financial market integrity strengthening law, Herr Scholz now attempts – this also needs to be plainly said – to, first of all, win back political trust. Since the trust of the investor, the market and the people who invest, will not be rebuilt by means of a draft law alone. We need to fundamentally enter into this problem; and the AfD will constructively participate in that. We have correspondingly put forward a draft law [Drucksache 19/27023] – mark well, a draft law, not only a motion.

I want to forestall some things. We of the AfD do not throw out the baby with the bath water, but want the auditors’ liability limit – this, according to the HGB [German commercial code], had been limited to 4 million euros – fixed at 1 percent of the balance sheet total of the auditing firm, but at a minimum of 10 million euros. The government, especially the SPD, wants 20 million euros, if possible, apparently 40 million euros – I do not know – yet in any case to attach quite high totals in the penalty catalogue. I do not believe it leads to better auditing and audit results if we turn up the penalties. Yet they need to be appreciable and they should be oriented – this is always reasonable – to which year’s turnover that the auditing firm actually makes.

Further, we have a proposal for rotation; I can here already imagine that one or the other groans. It must this time be presented: For 24 years might EY [Ernst & Young] have been able to fully audit and test Wirecard. That it previously did not once come to that, that this is a bit long, is not disclosed to me. We say here quite clearly – since there indeed is criticism, yet what is worth doing – . No, at any time it shall be four years. You now want to take ten years. Four years are appropriate. I do not want a doctor who says he needs one, two years before he can do a heart operation or until he can take out an appendix. No, I believe I can today expect from good business auditing companies that when they audit a firm, they correspondingly follow up immediately with their audit report.

All in all, my delegation nevertheless welcomes that the coalition here very quickly reacts to the concerns of our investigating committee. We will critically accompany this. We…hope that a case like Wirecard in fact never again occurs, in the interest of savers, pensioners and, before all things, Germany as a financial center and thereby the employees. Since Wirecard has cost workplaces.

 

[trans: tem]