Peter Boehringer, March 20, 2019, Bank Merger

Peter Boehringer

Bank Merger

German Bundestag, March 20, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/88, pp. 10434-10435

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria. He is a businessman, investor and author and is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee. He here comments on the proposed merger of the Deutsche Bank and the Commerzbank.]

Some things were said, and some were also right. Yes, here once again threatens a violation of the, since 2010, ostensibly ironclad ordnungspolitischen principles “Never again bail-outs with tax money” and “Never again banks that are ‘Too Big to Fail’”. Yes, it’s about up to 30,000 jobs. And yet the federal government and officials of the Union delegation stonewall information even though on the exchange and generally in the media it is completely clear that the Finance Ministry is the active driver of the merger talks.

Today in the budget committee Minister Scholz earnestly maintained that the Commerzbank is regarded only as a financial investment, which is laughable. This line is followed in the media even though the opposite is piped from the rooftops by the sparrows. Only two mentions in the media: Scholz Applies Pressure, State Secretary Kukies Drives Merger Talks Forward. It has even been officially stated that there have been 23 meetings between the referred to banks and the BMF. The issue cries out for review by the Bundestag. For all that, the Commerzbank is already partly nationalized with the Ankeraktionär Bund.

I however now focus on what has been too little spoken of in the media, though which in my opinion are the decisive points: First, the true origin of these talks, the rosey-red elephant in the room, is the EU-ropean prime rate, squeezed to nearly zero by the manipulations of the EZB. This zero interest rate is the principle origin of the banks’ earnings problems. It has in fact been acknowledged that the banks expect an earnings decline from interest revenue in 2019 of 13 percent compared with 2018. This revenue contributes to over 70 percent of the banks’ profits. A bank in this situation can no longer earn. Given these EU-made problems, a merger generally changes nothing.

Second: There is here the threat of a backdoor, partial nationalization of the Deutsche Bank – and even one by means of a double backdoor. Through one will be tossed an indirect and inconspicuous line of liquidity and, ultimately, liablity and rescue to the Deutsche Bank by the merger with the already nationalized Commerzbank. Through the other, the government’s share  of the banks shall be held in the future by the KfW – and thus chiefly by the German state  household, beyond parliamentary control. This is parallel to the permanent rescue of the euro which always again uses precisely this same principle: by means of a special vehicle, sufficient funds will be raised, always again to be in fact guaranteed by German credit. And because the KfW is one of the very few banks in Germany that still has much money and, thanks to the liablity of the German taxpayer, a AAA rating, shall it now stand in the breach. Thereby shall be secured the new Great Bank’s future capital increases, which are coming as surely as the next EZB euro rescue installment, and which will be a burden of billions. I cannot yet prove this but we here will again be speaking.

The BMF must no longer stonewall the following quite justified questions. They do not concern the negotiating positions of the referred to banks and they do not disturb any ad hoc reporting duties – to forestall the argument, Frau State Secretary, that is presumably coming.

First: Shall public funds be newly appropriated? We must be allowed to put these questions and we are indeed quite presumptuous. The [Ankeraktionär] Bund presumably must secure all the risks of this merger with billions in tax money. Just as the permanent euro rescue has functioned for years with German credit, shall it also here become the royal way. Otherwise, nothing works. The capital markets implicitly acknowledge this state guarantee. You know that, everyone at the exchange knows it. Yet the German taxpayer will not be informed…

Second: Why should a partly nationalized champion be more economic? That has always gone awry. I reference the French experiences of the 1980s and naturally the many unspeakable disasters of the Landesbanken. Surely the BMF with Minister Scholz at the helm should properly know – HSH Nordbank with its 14 billion euro tax disaster – how state intervention in the banking sector works; namely, it doesn’t. It always goes awry. Herr Müller – you preceded me as speaker – it is not over; it is only beginning! This is pure state interventionism. We shall witness it.

This merger will be too complex, too opaque and too expensive. That is even the view of colleagues in your own ranks. Herr Michelbach, Herr Rehberg and Herr Jäger of the Union are sceptical and also the ranking SPD member on the finance committee, colleague Binding, has expressed scepticism.

            Hans Michelbach (CDU/CSU): The economic wise men!

I have only said “sceptical”. What you are actually saying, Herr Michelbach, I naturally do not know. But you have expressed yourself as sceptical, as some of the other colleagues have done.

Lastly, there is yet a ceterum censeo – nothing new, but to this context, well suited: Finally fill the positions, crying out to be filled, on the banking and finances commission [gremium] with officials of the AfD. The information pertinent to these mergers will be discussed there and be made accessible and known to this house. It is a scandal for democracy that the colleagues Münz and Glaser have still not been elected to this commission.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Tomorrow!

We give you an opportunity to do so tomorrow.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Ja!

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Kay Gottschalk, March 21, 2019, Abolition of Property Tax

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]

           

Alexander Gauland, March 18, 2019, Deutsche Bank – Commerzbank Fusion

Alexander Gauland

Deutsche Bank – Commerzbank Fusion

AfD Kompakt, March 18, 2019

[Alexander Gauland is a national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland as well as a chairman of the AfD delegation in the German Bundestag. Olaf Scholz is German Finance Minister.]

There cannot be a fusion of the two stricken banks. The assumption that out of two weakened banks there automatically would be one healthy, strong bank contradicts simple logic.

One might not agree to the fusion simply on account of the tens of thousands of jobs put into play and that no real economic recovery is to be expected from the union. Structural failures, inherent in the system, will not be relieved by a simple merger. Olaf Scholz, with his urging of a bank fusion, not only knowingly puts in play tens of thousands of German jobs, he also takes into the bargain the high risk that the new bank will in the mid-term again get caught in a noose. Both banks should be restored under their own power and not seek their recovery in a questionable fusion to the burden of employee and taxpayer.

[Translated by Todd Martin]