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 19th 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]
