Commuting doesn’t make you happy, that much is clear. Neither the city dwellers, who are annoyed by traffic jams on their doorstep, nor the commuters, who are also annoyed by long distances, poor connections and by people who would prefer the city to be just as green as those in the country. Above all, the debate is so emotional at the moment because inflation and climate change are compounding the problem. How is that supposed to work: relieving people who depend on cars and at the same time promoting climate-neutral mobility? Christian Lindner (FDP), who could imagine increasing the commuter allowance again, gave cause for dispute. After all, this tax relief applies to every means of transport – including bicycles, for example – and is “a fair instrument”. However, the Federal Minister of Finance makes it very easy for himself and he apparently also has an idiosyncratic definition of what fair means. Because the commuter allowance does not relieve those who suffer particularly from inflation and mainly subsidizes long car journeys. The commuter allowance should not be increased, but rather abolished in its current form.
An evaluation by the Federal Statistical Office has just shown that low earners in particular have to travel long distances to work. At first glance, one might think that they are also the ones who benefit from a higher commuter allowance. However, they receive significantly less tax relief from advertising costs than commuters with higher incomes. You can find that fair, after all, high earners generally pay more taxes. However, if you have in mind the targeted relief of poorer people, the commuter allowance is not a suitable means. The mobility premium as a supplement to the commuter allowance, in turn, is intended to support low earners regardless of the tax rate. Unfortunately, it also has disadvantages, because the bureaucratic effort increases, a tax return is necessary and the reimbursement is not particularly generous.
The consumer advice center proposes instead an income-independent mobility allowance that everyone received and from which, in relative terms, low earners would have the most. This might solve the relief problem, but the climate damage would remain. Because as long as the amount is based on the kilometers driven, those who drive a lot get a lot. This is also the problem of the commuter allowance. And most people still travel long distances by car.
The relief works for people with long commutes
The evaluation of the statisticians has also shown that: 90 percent of commuters from the countryside deny at least part of their commute by car and even 67 percent of city dwellers. Some can’t do anything else, others are simply comfortable. So how to move? There would be the possibility of granting relief only to those who have no alternative, because there is often no public transport in rural areas. They could claim the flat rate, others with transport links could not. This would be a temporary solution if buses and trains were expanded at the same time and there was finally a real strategy for e-mobility.
It costs everything, right. But savings are possible. The Greens, for example, want to abolish the company car privilege and no longer exempt kerosene from the energy tax in order to finance discounted local transport. The Spanish government, in turn, wants to introduce a special tax on the profits of oil companies. There are legitimate objections to this, of course, also from the industry. There may not be a perfect solution, but there is a better one. This includes thinking ahead: For example, those who specifically upgrade medium-sized cities – for example because offices, branches of universities and companies are based there – enable shorter commutes and relieve large cities. In any case, increasing the commuter allowance is despondent and is reminiscent of times when town and country were built for cars. In order to survive heat waves and energy crises, this is no longer a solution, not even a social one.