Enlarge image
Rush Hour:
At least the pushes against the commuter allowance seem to be politically stuck
Photo: Peter Kneffel / dpa
It should be the easiest exercise for the negotiators of the traffic light coalition: According to their exploratory paper, the SPD, Greens and FDP want to "gain additional budgetary leeway by checking the budget for unnecessary, ineffective and environmentally and climate-damaging subsidies and expenditures". If there is no consensus on taxes and debts, then simply delete everything that unnecessarily burdens the climate at government expense?
The principle met with approval from all sides. UN Secretary General
António Guterres
(72) called on all governments to take this step at the Glasgow climate summit. The G7 countries have agreed to end funding for fossil fuels by 2025 anyway. The metal industry union is just as committed to this as global corporate bosses in the "Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders".
At the end of October, the Federal Environment Agency calculated that the federal government could save more than 65 billion euros a year - not much compared to the costs of the green transformation, but at least a significant contribution. The Ecological-Social Market Economy Forum (FÖS) had previously provided a practical guide on behalf of Greenpeace, which ten subsidies could be dismantled first and how that fits the goal of social justice, including a schedule.
But when things get specific, the hurdles quickly look bigger.
The dispute should already begin with the concept of subsidies.
In most cases, these are tax exemptions or reductions.
In the official subsidy report of the federal government, which also focuses on the climate goals, many of them do not appear at all.
Abolishing them would perceive those affected as a tax increase.
FDP boss
Christian Lindner
(42) has already declared the
commuter flat rate as one of the largest items
taboo - and has garnered approval from the Greens.
Which points are still up for debate?
A look into the instrument case.
Industry electricity price discounts
This is how it works:
The Renewable Energy Sources Act, which regulates the surcharge for green electricity, stipulates a "special compensation regulation".
For companies with very high electricity costs, the levy to be paid is capped - which means that electricity prices rise for citizens and other companies because they have to shoulder the effort alone.
In addition, there is a complete exemption from the EEG surcharge for industrial power plants that were put into operation before 2014.
In addition, energy-intensive industries are largely exempted from network charges, the concession fee to cities and municipalities and the fee for combined heat and power generation.
But that's not all: More than 30,000 companies receive a quarter discount from the electricity tax.
All of these reductions make it cheaper, of all things, for the largest energy consumers to increase their consumption, even if it comes from fossil fuels - in direct contradiction to the goal of making those who cause CO2 emissions pay.
That's how expensive it is:
The Forum Ecological-Social Market Economy (FÖS) puts these benefits at 12.4 billion euros for 2019.
The majority of this is not borne by the federal budget, but by the community of electricity consumers.
Who benefits:
especially the large industrial groups and their owners. According to the FÖS, a reform would deserve the title "particularly socially acceptable" because low-wage earners in particular should be happy about lower electricity costs - at least as long as jobs in industries that would otherwise be endangered in international competition remain protected. The discounts were introduced for this purpose, but are also used by a number of companies that do not need this protection at all.
Political outlook:
Nobody is calling for a complete abolition.
At most, if the EU introduces its controversial climate tariff and thus curbs the risk of job exports, it could be talked about.
In the short term, a reform is more likely to be the subject of debate that will define more precisely which companies deserve these discounts and which do not - a complicated task that is not very attractive for politicians.
Recently, more exceptions were introduced, for producers of hydrogen or for the shore power supply of seagoing ships.
Kerosene tax
This is how it works:
This is a tax that has not yet existed - not to be confused with the air traffic tax introduced in 2011, which is based on the flight route.
However, unlike petrol, diesel or natural gas, kerosene and aviation fuel are exempt from the Energy Tax Act.
Since electricity is also taxed, practically all traffic routes are charged according to their energy consumption (and indirectly according to their CO2 emissions), with the exception of flying.
That's how expensive it is: the
Federal Environment Agency and FÖS each come to around 8.3 billion euros per year.
Who benefits:
the airlines and their customers. The richest have a particularly high proportion, but low-income citizens also benefit from the cheap flights that this makes possible. The bottom line is that the FÖS sees the taxation of kerosene as fairly neutral in terms of distribution.
Political outlook:
The aviation industry, including the federally supported Lufthansa, is sounding the alarm.
Their argument: the tax would not prevent the climate-damaging flights, but only shift them to non-taxed foreign airlines.
The German government will hardly dare to go it alone, but it could support the EU Commission's plans.
Brussels proposed a European kerosene tax in the summer.
Negotiations must also be made at EU level about an end to the VAT exemption for international flights (subsidy value 4 billion euros).
The federal government could take a one-sided approach here by increasing the aviation tax - by a factor of around 12.
Diesel privilege
This is how it works:
The energy tax rate calculated per liter is 28 percent lower for diesel than for gasoline, although 13 percent more CO2 is emitted when diesel is burned.
The value added tax levied on the price including energy tax reinforces the effect.
This advantage, unchanged since 2003 (partly offset by the additional CO2 tax introduced this year), favors the burning of diesel and thus more carbon dioxide emissions.
That's how expensive it is:
8.2 billion euros per year according to the Federal Environment Agency and FÖS.
Whoever benefits: In
addition to numerous industries that mainly rely on a diesel-powered vehicle fleet (trucks, construction or agricultural machinery), it is predominantly the owners of luxury cars. According to the FÖS, the richest 10 percent use 2.8 times as much gasoline as the poorest, but 7.5 times as much diesel. Compensating for the diesel privilege would therefore be a particularly socially acceptable reduction in subsidies - especially if the disadvantage for diesel in the vehicle tax were eliminated at the same time. Anyone who drives little but only owns a diesel car would have even more money. The only drawback: the reform does not do much for the climate.
Political prospects:
Even Volkswagen boss Herbert Diess, whose group is the originator of the diesel scandal, is calling for the deletion by 2023. Currently, there are few dissenting voices to be heard (in 2017, FDP politician Nicola Beer reviled Diess' predecessor Matthias Müller because of the same proposal as " Diesel Judas ").
The topic, however, smells like Kulturkampf.
After exhaust gas manipulation, loss of value and driving bans, diesel drivers are often seen as victims of green politics.
So the question is how much headwind the traffic light coalition can withstand.
Commuter flat rate
This is how it works:
The distance lump sum, as it is officially called, allows a deduction of 30 cents per kilometer to work from the income taxed on income - regardless of the means of transport.
A good two thirds of them use the car for this.
Such tax incentives for driving are exceptional internationally.
The state supports not only climate-damaging gasoline and diesel consumption, but also the urban sprawl.
That is how expensive it is:
The FÖS is assuming 4 to 5.6 billion euros, the Federal Environment Agency is 6 billion euros.
Who benefits: the
vast majority of them are rich, frequent travelers. In the lower income groups there are also people with long commutes, but they rarely get the income-related allowance or even just the basic allowance in order to be able to use the commuter allowance at all, an average of 36 euros. Top earners, on the other hand, quickly come to thousands of euros. The FÖS therefore rates the abolition of the commuter allowance as "very progressive", especially in combination with compensatory measures that work regardless of income.
Political outlook:
Cuts in the flat rate have already failed twice before the Federal Constitutional Court.
The FDP has categorically supported the commuter allowance - and even the Green leadership is committed to it.
Even an increase is politically involved, to compensate for the high fuel prices.
That could change if the traffic light coalition found no other contributions to its climate goals.
Then a radical reform could come into play: the replacement by a mobility allowance, which compensates for long commutes, but is paid regardless of income.
Meat tax
This is how it works:
As with other foods, the reduced VAT rate of 7 percent instead of 19 percent applies to meat and other animal products.
It is climate-relevant due to the high methane emissions from factory farming and the land consumption of forage production, which is also at the expense of the forests used as CO2 storage.
Cheaper and therefore much consumed meat is therefore considered a climate killer.
That's how expensive it is:
around 5.2 billion euros per year.
Who profits:
In addition to the meat industry and the farmers, on the consumer side these are, for once, more of the poor.
This is the only one of the subsidies analyzed by the FÖS whose abolition would cost the poorest 10 percent more than 50 euros per person per year - and that for a rather mediocre potential in climate protection.
Political outlook:
It could be implemented quickly and easily, but would brand the traffic light coalition as an alliance of the better-off.
In their exploratory paper, the parties assured that they did not want to increase VAT.
Make an exception here?
More like a non-starter.
Company car privilege
This is how it works:
If you get a car from your employer (or treat yourself as a self-employed person) and use it privately, you have to tax this as a pecuniary benefit - but instead of the actual use, you can set a flat rate of 1 percent of the list price per month.
In reality, company car users regularly have twice as many private benefits as they report to the tax office.
This is how the state finances many citizens' cars, with an average of 2500 euros per year.
If you switch to bus, train or bike, you have to consciously forego this deal in many cases.
That's how expensive it is:
At least 3.1 billion euros, says the Federal Environment Agency.
The FÖS gives the upper end of the estimate at almost 5.6 billion euros.
Who profits:
Half of the company cars are in the hands of the richest 20 percent.
The value of the subsidy is even more unevenly distributed as it increases with the list price of the cars.
The auto industry also benefits particularly from sales at state expense.
The domestic manufacturers have a significantly higher market share for company cars than in the private customer business.
Political prospects:
With a compulsory driver log, the traffic light parties would make themselves unpopular with many of their voters, with a general assumption of the private share of use (around 75 percent) as well.
However, it would be entirely plausible to limit the favorable rule for new cars to electric cars.
Anyway, no-one can find any ideas for reducing subsidies that are beyond any doubt.
