If, when forming an opinion, you are not entirely sure what can easily happen in the midst of the flood of reports, expert comments and studies, it is often helpful to take a look back at the past. As a rule of thumb, the opposite of what the Nazis did is usually correct. This also applies to tax law.
In 1934 the Nazis introduced joint taxation for married couples. Their declared aim was to push women out of the labor market and to get them to realize their role as wives and mothers, after all, unemployment was high. In 1941 the Nazis returned to separate taxation. During the war, women’s labor had become indispensable.
When conservatives argue today that the tax advantages for spouses are about morality because the institution of marriage as such is worthy of protection, one can reply to them: Look at the Nazis, for them the taxation of married couples was nothing but one Means to an end, to show women where the state needs them. Tax law sets incentives to behave. And not about getting married or not. Because for most people this has more to do with love than with taxes. It’s about working, and if so, how much. The same applies today as it was then: The joint assessment, which is cheaper for most couples under current tax law, keeps women away from the labor market.
For tax purposes, marriage is worth more to the state than children
Once again in concrete terms: If married couples and registered life partners choose joint assessment today, the taxable joint income of the spouses is determined and halved in the tax return. Income tax is then calculated and doubled for this amount. Regardless of how much the individual partner earns, it is therefore pretended that both spouses contribute half of the joint income. This is called spouse splitting. The greater the income difference and the higher the income of one of the two partners and thus the actual tax rate, the greater the financial advantage. In other words: couples with a traditional division of labor and high incomes benefit the most. It doesn’t matter whether they have children or not. For tax purposes, marriage is worth more to the state than children.
This is wrong for several reasons. The splitting of spouses cemented role models that have long been in motion in social reality: the man as the provider, the woman at home at the stove. It sets financial incentives that are especially harmful to women. Because they are almost always the ones who earn less. Together with the rules on non-contributory co-insurance for family members in the statutory health insurance and on tax-free mini-jobs, taxation means that it is often simply not worthwhile for them to work more than a 450-euro job. Many spouses therefore traditionally split up paid work, even though it may not be in line with their values at all. This solidifies the gender pay gap, i.e. the fact that women earn less than men, and the gender pension gap, i.e. the significantly poorer pension provision for women. Spouse splitting gives preference to people who do not deserve preferential treatment and forgets those who need protection: low-income earners with children or single parents, for example.
The Nazis wanted to invest together to send women to the stove. Time to invest separately. Time to get rid of spouse splitting. Then many people will have to pay more taxes, especially high earners. The additional money that goes to the treasury could be used to protect what is worth protecting: the family as a place where children live. Regardless of the gender of the parents or whether they are single parents. Instead of tax policy, they would be promoted with social policy, for example through higher child benefits or by the new funds flowing into the expansion and improvement of childcare. That would be fairer – and timely.