social
SPD: Abolish spouse splitting instead of reducing parental allowance
In the course of the austerity course in the federal budget, there could be changes in parental allowance. photo
© Fernando Gutierrez-Juarez/dpa
Cancel parental allowance for high earners? The FDP doesn’t like that, the family minister isn’t enthusiastic about her counter-proposals – and the SPD boss brings up an old idea.
In the coalition dispute over savings in the Parental allowance, SPD chairman Lars Klingbeil proposes instead the abolition of spouse splitting for new marriages. “We are finally doing away with spouse splitting. This would put an end to the antiquated tax model that favors the classic distribution of roles between men and women. And the state would save money,” Klingbeil told the editorial network Germany (RND).
What is spouse splitting
Spouse splitting describes the procedure according to which married couples and life partnerships are taxed who do not choose individual assessment. The joint income is halved, the income tax due is calculated and the tax liability is then doubled. This is particularly useful for couples where one earns a lot and the other a little. According to the Federal Agency for Civic Education, this will cost the state 20 billion euros a year in 2020. Germany has often been criticized by the OECD and the EU Commission for splitting spouses – with the argument that it keeps women out of the labor market.
Klingbeil said: “I’m in favor of higher income shouldering more and more responsibility. But questions about distribution are clarified through tax policy, not through parental allowance,” said Klingbeil. The parental allowance is not a social benefit, but should motivate men to take on more responsibility in the family.
What is planned for parental allowance
So far, parental allowance has been given to couples whose joint taxable income is less than 300,000 euros. As part of the budget planning for the coming year and the cuts in spending to limit debts pushed by Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP), Family Minister Lisa Paus (Greens) is planning to lower the limit to 150,000 euros.
How the FDP finds it
The FDP criticizes this and proposes a different distribution of the service – but this is already met with rejection from Paus. The FDP Vice-Chairman Johannes Vogel said on Sunday evening on the TV talk show “Anne Will”: “I think it’s wrong if we just shave off the parental benefit with the lawn mower, even in an area where we talk about engineers, doctors .”
The parliamentary secretary supported a proposal from his party to require couples to align their parental months more closely – if this does not happen, only one partner should receive parental allowance. In addition, Paus also “still has a certain savings potential in the area of the numerous funding programs,” said Vogel.
What does the minister think of it?
Paus immediately rejected this on the show. “If that works with the partnership, then that’s not a cut,” she said. “That’s why I can’t suggest it.” According to her, alternative savings options would only be cuts in the maintenance advance for women living alone whose partner does not meet his payment obligations, and in the child allowance. She doesn’t want either, as Paus made clear. She is already making cuts in the free programs, so there will be fewer opportunities for voluntary service.
“I’m open to better suggestions – but I looked at it and, from all these bad variants, I came up with what I think was the best variant,” explained Paus, referring to the cancellation of parental allowance for high earners. “That’s how I’m going to bring it in now.”
How it goes on
In view of the coalition dispute that has once again been openly held on the subject, Vogel made it clear that he expects public disputes to continue in the future. He admitted that the style of the coalition had to be improved. But: “Perhaps we also have to get used to the fact that debates are more public in terms of content – one is style, the other content – than in coalitions of the old kind.” That doesn’t have to be “a bad thing … if there is a good result at the end”.