Since the last federal election, a new word not thrilled by the media, the nonsense of the supposed "tax gifts". If tax cuts are called "tax cuts" would have to tax increases, consequently, be described as state theft. Both are quite ethically indefensible and wrong based on the following considerations:
taxes are not a theft or robbery, but a - "although to some degree inevitable - evil" (Mises, the cooperative sector, Jena 1932, p. 456) when the maintenance of the Basic Law provided for basic state functions are used, namely
- the rule of law, to maintain peace under the law and in particular the protection of property and freedom of contract,
- the state to ensure the safety of its citizens to the outside and to the maintenance of the subsidiarity idea of the federal system ', However, no guarantee of existence for non-viable micro and small states, such as Saarland, Bremen, Hamburg or Berlin,
- the welfare state, unless the objective of addressing immediate social need (BVerfGE 28, 348), in which the person concerned is no fault ( eg War victims and war load balancing: BVerfGE 11, 56, 27, 283), is ignored.
Because Article 1 of the Basic Law provides a clear hierarchy after government action is not an end in itself, but man the measure of forms of government activities, so must the tax burden will find their limits where human dignity, which is also in power and property is manifested, not in the center, is mainly because higher-income taxpayers are only object of raising funds of the state. "Tax cuts" knows our constitutional order, in the heart of man, that is also the taxpayers, so do not. The reduction of taxes and charges is an inherent constitutional requirement (see BVerfGE 93, 121, 138), although the so-called half-sharing principle in modern Supreme Court, unfortunately, could not solidify completely, although this issue in the time of the absolutism 'knew how Frederick the Great proves a quote: his
"A government be frugal, because the money they receive comes from the blood and sweat of their people. It's just that each individual contributes to help pay the expenses of the state. But it's not fair that he half his annual income has to share with the state. "
The philosopher Peter Sloterdijk criticized in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung at the beginning and the Half-sharing principle as the absolutist Relic:
" fully-developed tax states complain every year half of all the economic successes of their productive layers of the Treasury, without the person concerned to the most plausible reaction on taking the anti-fiscal civil war, their refuge. This is a political dressage score, which would finance any of absolutism can be pale with envy. "
The tasks of the welfare state are constitutionally limited to a self-help. The Constitution knows no social, as reflected in the last 40 years has developed more or less uncontrolled and sprawling, with a general alimentation of nothing in favor of those groups that pass through this practice the loudest, if possible, by force or sophisticated lobby representatives.
recognized the economic importance of taxes, especially the Austrian school of economics. Ludwig von Mises explained that tax is nothing but a burden on producers and / or property owners and reduce the production and / or the property under the measure reached otherwise. Recently, this economic law is made by politicians in question, whose economic contributions In the past, rather than through demagoguery distinguished by logic and knowledge. The positive economic effects of tax cuts was no evidence flat denied to detract from the need to reduce spending and eliminate useless bureaucracies. From an economic point of view is, however, tax cuts increase productivity: they lead to cost reductions for companies and increase the return on investment. They lead to increased performance incentives and hence higher risk taking and creativity and therefore create jobs. Tax cuts do work again profitable, that have been "taxed away". Together taken will ultimately be increased tax revenue.
Even Peter Sloterdijk hits in his interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung the nerve when he indirectly to the political question of power aims:
" Most party leaders are very interested in some of the thoughts and feelings of the people spend their money to. Tax issues, they still think purely statist. They believe in the well-meaning kleptocracy, not so different from the princes and the fiscal authorities of the past. "
The conclusion is to be noted that the Basic Law can be enforced only if the state tax collection are strict limits. The Federal Constitutional Court that view in the fiscal decision to abolish the wealth tax and tax under the subsistence minimum taxation of families already in the 90s of last century confirmed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment