That sounds great. Does anyone have a link where I can watch it, couldn't find it on youtube.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
German Federal Elections 2021 - 20th Bundestag
- Thread starter Deleted member 5491
- Start date
- OT
That sounds great. Does anyone have a link where I can watch it, couldn't find it on youtube.
Baebock is going to get axed once the election is over. Habeck may be more keen to work with laschet.
So what do people think about the reform of tax brackets (So called splitting). SPD, linke and green want to end the tax bracket for married couples/ families. Since probably no spouses will make exactly the same amount of money this will mean a huge tax increase for married couples/ families.
Yeah, Habeck would try a Jamaika coalition. Hopefully it won't happen.
As far as I know it can not be forced upon already married people, for legal reasons that I'm too stupid to understand. They will be able to choose to stay in the old system or get into the new system.
New marriages won't have that option.
In general married couples will pay slightly more, but couples with children will end up with more money at the end because of Kinderausgleich.
Kinderausgleich is also supposed to work beneficial for single parents, low income families and families without work.
Yeah, Jamaika is dead (and honestly don't understand how people keep insisting on it at this point). If Habeck tries Jamaika, Habeck will get axed. If at this point the Greens try to do any coalition with the CDU, their whole party mantra of being THE Green party will go down the drain. I seriously think they will lose so much support that a new green party under a new name will take their place.
OP
OP
I was shocked at first, too (well, still am). But this is a simple "who won" question and not a weighed "place 1, 2 and 3" question.
I am sure if it was weighed, Baerbock would be ahead of Laschet as I assume most of the people who saw Scholz as the winner had a (internal) Scholz-Baerbock-Laschet ranking.
Of couples who live unmarried for several reasons, parts of LGBTQIAP+, polyamorous, etc.
Marriage should not be done for financial reasons, and it's questionable why certain family forms should be rewarded while others aren't. Marriage should be an individual decision related to love, trust and should only involve one another. It should not be about financial gain. It supports the "traditional family". That's not modern nor up to date.
There are other reasons why splitting is so 60s. It is discriminatory towards double earning families, mostly woman are at disadvantage. We are fighting against gender pay gap for so long. Many people in Steuerklasse 5 (who mostly are woman) decide not to work because it's not worth it. Equally earning partners do not have any advantages, now earning equally much IS our goal in society, so why'd you reward the opposite with a tax break? It ends careers, because the lower earning woman eventually has to take the Steuerklasse 5 in favour of her husbands better wage.
It favours those who can afford to have one partner stay at home, therefore those who have enough money already.
Ehegattensplitting: So nutzen Sie den Steuervorteil
Steuern sparen mit dem Ehegattensplitting: Ein Vorteil, den auch Sie nutzen können? Erfahren Sie hier alles Wissenswerte zum Splittingverfahren.
www.steuerklassen.com
Last edited:
marriage in many ways is a financial thing. it has to do with liability, alimony, children, inheritance etc. If you are not married you can leave anytime when for example your partner gets disabled while if you are married you would have to stick with them at least for a year and would have to pay certain costs.Of couples who live unmarried for several reasons, parts of LGBTQIAP+, polyamorous, etc.
Marriage should not be done for financial reasons, and it's questionable why certain family forms should be rewarded while others aren't. Marriage should be an individual decision related to love, trust and should only involve one another. It should not be about financial gain. It supports the "traditional family". That's not modern nor up to date.
There are other reasons why splitting is so 60s. It is discriminatory towards double earning families, mostly woman are at disadvantage. We are fighting against gender pay gap for so long. Many people in Steuerklasse 5 (who mostly are woman) decide not to work because it's not worth it. Equally earning partners do not have any advantages, now earning equally much IS our goal in society, so why'd you reward the opposite with a tax break? It ends careers, because the lower earning woman eventually has to take the Steuerklasse 5 in favour of her husbands better wage.
It favours those who can afford to have one partner stay at home, therefore those who have enough money already.
Ehegattensplitting: So nutzen Sie den Steuervorteil
Steuern sparen mit dem Ehegattensplitting: Ein Vorteil, den auch Sie nutzen können? Erfahren Sie hier alles Wissenswerte zum Splittingverfahren.
Also in germany every gender can marry so there should be no discrimination there. regarding your comment that its questionable why certain forms are rewarded: its actually mandated in the constitution. it just has been changed recently that same sex marriage is also protected under it.
Also i dont think its true that it is discriminatory to double earning families. There are options you can choose from (classs 3/5 or 4/4 as well as 4 with factor). Nobody is forced to take 3/5. Also at the end of the day it doesnt matter because once tax returns are done there is no difference. All that matters is the total income of the couple not who has the higher wage. The truth is that no two couples will ever have the exact same wage. Even in work, when people do the exact same thing wages can differ a lot. Even if you have a very similar income there will be some differences. And for every married couple, effectively it will be a tax increase. It will be especially hefty for people where one person is working and the other is not for some reason (Kids, studies, sickness, disabilities etc.).
I think kids should lead to a higher tax benefit/ at the moment its not much and doesnt reflect the cost of having children at all. However giving so,e couples an option while others are shut out seems problematic as well.
Its not a dream… more like a nightmare. I dont think baerbock will survive this failure internally though.
The last century called, it wants it's views back.
A marriage does not guarantee that someone stays with you. Divorce is a thing, and yes people get divorced about many different things which are all valid reasons. (Different personal views, someone not respecting boundaries, etc.)
A marriage does not keep people together, it's up to whether you truly want to be with your partner or not. But the idea as marriage as shackle in eternity is so outdated, ...
Same-sex marriage is a win, yes. A very shallow one and by far does not cover everything.
LGBT is not only about gender. Seriously, please think before typing. Poly-relationships, you just ignored. Maybe because you just dont care. I dont know.
Besides that families and supportive structures exist in many variations, they are colorful and wonderful. Ehegattensplitting reduces this wonderful bouquet to a handful of different colored roses. Even in its current "progressiv" status of allowing same-sex relationships entering marriage. The goal shouldnt be to make marriage more open, but remove a (dis)advantage given based on marital status.
You dont have the parents in your office who tell you under tears about the pressure of work colleagues. Who want to do career but are discouraged left and right, guilt trapped and in the end working less is not really worth it either cuz it ends careers but also earns them so less money that not working is the better option. This is the reality of many, and most dont WANT to end their career but continue work. We force them to stay at home.
How you feel about this does not matter. It is a fact that it's treating double earners unfair comoared to single earners and benefits old outdated "traditional family" models. That's why i have linked the website.
I dont know on what you base your claim middle class would lose money. We have calculations which prove that this is NOT the case. As Baerbock said: Bleiben Sie bitte bei den Fakten.
They will be fine don't worry.
We have known for so long that Steuerklasse 5 is problematic. Discrimination is not always an active process. I am happy that you can ignore this discrimination towards women because it does not concern you, but it is different for millions of Germans out there.
Why'd you decide to (not) benefit someone who does not work, just based on their status of marriage? The state supports "not-working" as long as you are married. Those who are not married and do not work are a problem. We call them Schmarotzer and claim they do not contribute.
Everyone should receive the same support, no matter their marital status.
Nobody is forced to pay equally. Yes, especially between male and female for example. Exactly because of this system we have problems such as gender gap.
If you are married and one person does not work, then you can afford it, goddamn.
If disabilities etc are added, this has nothing to do with your marriage status and must be taken care of separately. Else you create hole in the system.
Last edited:
You guys realize that the tax class for splitting is IV, right?
And the real issue with V is not what you think it is (since you're forced to do your tax declaration in that case anyhow).
It's that certain salary replacements, like maternity allowance or ALG1, depend on your net income, so being in V is not want you want in that case.
And the real issue with V is not what you think it is (since you're forced to do your tax declaration in that case anyhow).
It's that certain salary replacements, like maternity allowance or ALG1, depend on your net income, so being in V is not want you want in that case.
Can we briefly mention that CDU is starting to talk about going back to nuclear energy. Getting rid of nuclear before coal was always a strange idea to me. But there is no doubt that getting rid of nuclear is necessary.
We only have like three running nuclear plants currently and they will be off in less than a year.
Some plants are already being deconstructed and that's a mammoth task that will take decades.
Getting back into nuclear energy will be incredibly expensive, take a lot of time and those incredible compensations to energy providers that were paid would have been for nothing.
It's also not like nuclear energy would help us to level out green energy overproduction, underproduction.
Energy production and consumption needs to be equal and nuclear energy only provides a constant base level of energy to the grid. One of the reasons why nobody went with nuclear only.
Instead of investing time and money into battery parks, hydroelectric farms etc. CDU plans to go back to the past.
I am no legal expert, but it's not like they want the Option to exist and it's also not like you will be able to switch forth and back.
It is the only way to get rid of the antique splitting system from the 1950s when married women were supposed to mainly stay home. It benefits couples with a huge difference in income between partners. That is no longer reflecting reality and as you rightfully said: Kindergeld isn't realistic either.
Married couples with children will naturally switch and then will be forced to stay on the new system once their children grow up. Newly married will be automatically put into the new system. The old splitting system will naturally phase out over time.
We only have like three running nuclear plants currently and they will be off in less than a year.
Some plants are already being deconstructed and that's a mammoth task that will take decades.
Getting back into nuclear energy will be incredibly expensive, take a lot of time and those incredible compensations to energy providers that were paid would have been for nothing.
It's also not like nuclear energy would help us to level out green energy overproduction, underproduction.
Energy production and consumption needs to be equal and nuclear energy only provides a constant base level of energy to the grid. One of the reasons why nobody went with nuclear only.
Instead of investing time and money into battery parks, hydroelectric farms etc. CDU plans to go back to the past.
I am no legal expert, but it's not like they want the Option to exist and it's also not like you will be able to switch forth and back.
It is the only way to get rid of the antique splitting system from the 1950s when married women were supposed to mainly stay home. It benefits couples with a huge difference in income between partners. That is no longer reflecting reality and as you rightfully said: Kindergeld isn't realistic either.
Married couples with children will naturally switch and then will be forced to stay on the new system once their children grow up. Newly married will be automatically put into the new system. The old splitting system will naturally phase out over time.
Yes and that's exactly why the system is benefiting married couples with massive income differences.
And while women still earn less than men, modern reality is that both partners work fulltime today and the system needs to be reworked to work in favor towards families with children and not families without children and a gap in income between partners.
That's how I see it, too. Just "being married" (as in: w/o kids) shouldn't give you any kind of tax benefits (let alone drawbacks).
Marriage doesnt guarantee anyone staying together but it is harder to split up. The wealthier person will have to pay alimony and give up half of his current assets (minus anything that was brought into the marriage). So yes, it does help the partner that has less money a lot in case of a divorce. If you are not married there is quite literally no legal protection.
Also I did not say I am against polirelationships. I merely said the constitution protects families, which are at the moment only covering monogamy. Even if RRG comes to power this probably will not change because you need two thirds to change the constitution.
And same-sex marriage is a win. I dont get why anyone would think otherwise. In swiss there is a referendum on that issue now. Germany managed to be a bit progressive for once.
I do have parents in my office and I also am a parent.
Also fact is that it is a tax hike for every married couple unless the couple earns exactly the same. Nobody is forced to stay at home because looking from an annual perspective the person making less is still contributing the same to the income of the family and is getting taxed the same. it only affects the month to month tax payments which you can also control through tax classes.
You know. I would agree with you if people with kids would get a significant tax break. The reality is like 200 euros per month. I dont believe this will change enough to compensate the tax hike.
This is where I disagree. If your spouse is sick or disabled its the primary obligation as a partner to help them out. If you are unable to do that then the state should help but the spouse is on the hoock legally before the state comes in.
Last edited:
I really can't say if it will be enough or if it will really benefit children in the end. Articles from reliable media and institutions seem to suggest that it will.
That's the best that I can give you.
Yeah no concrete numbers makes me very sceptical. If you look how reluctant german politicians are to invest anything into kids I think it will be miniscule. Look how much they have done for PCs or air filters in school after 2 years of the pandemic..
That's fair criticism.
But they are reluctant towards change in general: green energy for examples.
All we can do is believe? I do not have answers for you either.
Looks like Scholz "won" again? Well, if it's going to turn out like the surveys and the Triells suggest, while it isn't Baerbock, it's at least not Laschet.
A R/G/x coalition this time is going to be different than the old R/G where the Greens had like ... ~7% compared to a 31+% SPD. Here's hoping that they manage to get back up to 20% in the actual election, so that there's a somewhat more even share between the SPD and the Greens this time.
Though, i gotta hope that the SPD doesn't lose any or much % compared to the surveys, i need them to be strongest party after election so any shenanigans by CDU are shut down immediately.
A R/G/x coalition this time is going to be different than the old R/G where the Greens had like ... ~7% compared to a 31+% SPD. Here's hoping that they manage to get back up to 20% in the actual election, so that there's a somewhat more even share between the SPD and the Greens this time.
Though, i gotta hope that the SPD doesn't lose any or much % compared to the surveys, i need them to be strongest party after election so any shenanigans by CDU are shut down immediately.
Married and not married should be treated equally.
Married with kids should not make a difference either. Cuz "married" is not relevant here. There are many families who do not marry for various reasons, they shouldnt have a disadvantage.
Children are a concern on their own, and all benefits should be bound to "Kindergeld", not tax benefits, etc.
Women werent able to choose to work since mid 70s before that they needed the ok from their husbands. It was really problematic for single mothers. They were met with discrimination.
That's such a bullshit. If you have an Ehevertrag, which wealthy people will take care of, then it does not fucking matter.
Marriage does not guarantee or give any security. Not in these times. In fact, many marriages end in divorce. The statistics are not looking good at that.
It's not about "protecting the family" but not putting it over others. And by touching the Ehegattensplitting, exactly that will be adressed. Of course that does not cover everything, but its a start.
If your spouse is disabled, many people gtfo.
As disabled person I can tell you disability should be covered by state. I pay health insurance and whether i have a partner or not shouldnt decide my life.
there must be a coverage by state.
Even worse Laschet was better than baerbock according to the poll. I'm not sure the asked people watched the same show tbh.
At this point I'm certain people are more afraid of changes because of restructuring economy and society than an extinction event.
Looking into the after triell talk on Sat.1: The idiocy concentrated there was mark erschütternd.
If people were influenced by that nonsense…
I quickly switched to Anne Will. Where Habeck and Lindner flirted with each other. That was much more interesting. Habeck even defended Lindner once.
/conspiracy mode on
Now go figure.
Scholz + Baerbock during the Triell
Habeck + Lindner at Anne Will
We will need a three party coalition ^^
*sigh*
/conspiracy mode off
Habeck was also very calmly explaining facts, reasoning quiet well. As so often.
Makes me really wonder if he would have resonated with the public better than Baerbock.
Everything you said here is true.
I called the splitting system an antique from the 1950s for good reason.
The new, suggested system isn't a breakthrough in women rights. It's just supposed to be more representative of our current society where both partners work and to benefit families with children, instead of families without children. That is it.
It will maybe allow or encourage more men to stay at home for a while to raise children, but that's neither the goal nor likely imo.
Rory you are starting to miss the point and loose yourself in generalities.
There are two planned systems.
Married couples will pay more than currently, in general. Still, there will be benefits as, believe it or not, marriage brings economical stability and legal security to partners and children. The legal status of being married is a legal flag that for example allows for things like Witwenrente to happen, it automatically regulates inheritance and much, much more. It's fine that way.
Kindersicherung is the system that is going to allow parents, independent of their legal status of married or non married to get more money.
At least that's how they are talking about it.
At this point I'm certain people are more afraid of changes because of restructuring economy and society than an extinction event.
Looking into the after triell talk on Sat.1: The idiocy concentrated there was mark erschütternd.
If people were influenced by that nonsense…
I quickly switched to Anne Will. Where Habeck and Lindner flirted with each other. That was much more interesting. Habeck even defended Lindner once.
/conspiracy mode on
Now go figure.
Scholz + Baerbock during the Triell
Habeck + Lindner at Anne Will
We will need a three party coalition ^^
*sigh*
/conspiracy mode off
Habeck was also very calmly explaining facts, reasoning quiet well. As so often.
Makes me really wonder if he would have resonated with the public better than Baerbock.
Everything you said here is true.
I called the splitting system an antique from the 1950s for good reason.
The new, suggested system isn't a breakthrough in women rights. It's just supposed to be more representative of our current society where both partners work and to benefit families with children, instead of families without children. That is it.
It will maybe allow or encourage more men to stay at home for a while to raise children, but that's neither the goal nor likely imo.
Rory you are starting to miss the point and loose yourself in generalities.
There are two planned systems.
Married couples will pay more than currently, in general. Still, there will be benefits as, believe it or not, marriage brings economical stability and legal security to partners and children. The legal status of being married is a legal flag that for example allows for things like Witwenrente to happen, it automatically regulates inheritance and much, much more. It's fine that way.
Kindersicherung is the system that is going to allow parents, independent of their legal status of married or non married to get more money.
At least that's how they are talking about it.
Last edited:
They did. And a lot of them just saw what they wanted so see. As in: the conservatives in that poll voted for Laschet, and the others had to decide if Scholz or Bärbock won.
Oh, it matters in a lot of ways, as Isee just explained. And it shouldn't be a concern, since everyone can get married now. If you're not ready for such a bond, maybe getting kids is not the best idea in the first place.
Such contracts are rare and also constantly beign voided if one side gets shafted financially.
yes and if you are married you have to pay up. Prenups (the spouse that is being an asshole) can help but they are voided by courts in many cases, as explained.
I did not write the constitution. It says
Art 6
(1) Ehe und Familie stehen unter dem besonderen Schutze der staatlichen Ordnung.
(2) Pflege und Erziehung der Kinder sind das natürliche Recht der Eltern und die zuvörderst ihnen obliegende Pflicht. Über ihre Betätigung wacht die staatliche Gemeinschaft.
(3) Gegen den Willen der Erziehungsberechtigten dürfen Kinder nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes von der Familie getrennt werden, wenn die Erziehungsberechtigten versagen oder wenn die Kinder aus anderen Gründen zu verwahrlosen drohen.
(4) Jede Mutter hat Anspruch auf den Schutz und die Fürsorge der Gemeinschaft.
(5) Den unehelichen Kindern sind durch die Gesetzgebung die gleichen Bedingungen für ihre leibliche und seelische Entwicklung und ihre Stellung in der Gesellschaft zu schaffen wie den ehelichen Kindern.
I merely tranlated "Schutz" to "Protection", which I believe is not a completely ridiculous translation.
All I know is that there has been a lot of expenditures due to covid and thats fine. Now the costs will have to be paid and the question is how they will be paid.
Erasing tax brackets is a very easy way because every married couple will pay more (some more some less obviously) but it doesnt look like a tax hike.
I really do not get the reality-defying views so many people on the internet (including Resetera, threads about energy topics are full of it) have about nuclear energy. Like, unlike the Greens who I am voting, I agree abandoning existing nuclear plants was a dumb move. We could have shut down more coal instead.
But this insistence on new nuclear plants being a good option, while disregarding all the constraints, like the build time, the upfront and storage costs, the fact it's only viable on the market due to massive government subsidies. I understand that even less than the people saying we'll get a useful fusion reactor or any other kind of fancy nuclear tech that will solve all our problems any day now.
Meanwhile renewables are right there and get only cheaper with time, and several battery techs for mass scaling are rapidly developing.
Being pro-nuclear energy is basically political suicide here in Germany. Everyone wants CHEAP energy, but no one wants new nuclear plants within a 300km radius around their backyard.
That said, let's build a couple of them. I guess we can all agree that Saxony is the best place for that, including for the final deposit of nuclear waste.
That said, let's build a couple of them. I guess we can all agree that Saxony is the best place for that, including for the final deposit of nuclear waste.
Nuclear is a good thing but going back to Nuclear after the shitshow of 2011 is too late now. We should've just kept them but restarting or rebuilding new reactors now will just take too much time and be too expensive.
I am very sure that if you ask the scientist Merkel about the biggest regret of her career, it will be her decision after Fukushima.
I am very sure that if you ask the scientist Merkel about the biggest regret of her career, it will be her decision after Fukushima.
Try to look at it from this perspective: Most people have made up their mind already and/or are biased towards the candidates. If you consider this, the result is pretty good for Scholz and solid for Baerbock, while it's pretty bad for Laschet.
CDU/CSU are currently polling at approx. 21%, FDP at 11% and AfD at 11% - ~43% in total. People supporting these parties, would tend to think that Laschet won, even if all he did was jumping around like a kangaroo during the entire Triell. Yet, Laschet only got 27% - which means he was probably pretty bad.
Baerbock and Scholz on the other hand received (much) more 'have won' votes than their respective parties + Die Linke are polling right now (69% vs. ~48%).
100% agree.
I'd like to add one thing: The decommission and deconstruction costs are very important factors too. You can not simply abandon those buildings like it was done with many outdated industries in the past.
I spoke to an engineer who is responsible for deconstruction of one of the German nuclear plants last year and the shocking truth is: What we thought would be possible in a couple years will maybe take generations. Sounds like hyperbole but the rooms are being sawed apart with automated, diamond coated ropes and machinery. Remotely controlled! you can not have people sit there, let alone use manual labor for deconstruction.
Remains need to be collected, catalogued and securely stored in the plants until it is safe to bring them out. it's insane.
edit: funny Point. It was known that decommission and deconstruction would be problematic since the 1960s. You know how CDU countered the problem in the past? It will be easy due to innovative, new technologies.
Sounds familiar?
About fusion, while I hope it will come to fruition. The general joke is: It's just twenty years away, since 1980.
Nuclear tech is indeed also improving. There are even interesting projects. Most recent I stumbled about was a scientific cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany where the scientists think it is possible to build a nuclear reactor with a combined particle emitter. I do not want to go into to many details here, but they are sure they can significantly reduce the amount of radioactive material that needs to be stored , while also reduce the time it needs to be stored for to just about 300 years.
And while that all is a huge improvement and I understand their frustration that Germany will not use their work. It is not the future we should keep on building.
Last edited:
Nuclear is just too expensive. Now and also before 2011. But with your solution to the waste problem this could change ;D
But Yeah we should have kept the Plants and phase out coal instead and then phase out nuclear. The technology is here. Ans we could also argue that we already have to much radioactive waste so adding to it is just Makulatur. We have to solve this problem either way.
I will never understand the CDU talking about immer security as a main point for this election. We have the lowest crime rate in over 20 years right now. We are almost at early 90s level. I guess it's just the usual right wing talking point because it's a great way to fear monger.
The fact that they are accepting woman as more than housekeepers is already a breakthrough. Step by step coming closer to the ultimative goal.
My point was, that ehegattensplitting is outdated. I dont think we have a good system yet, but simply the intention of working on a different system is already good.
all these things can be dealt with in other ways as well, marriage shouldnt give you more rights or anything.
They said it'd reach children no matter what. And that's the point. It's basically ubi for children.
Marriage is loaded with false expectations, and for many in the LGBT+ spectrum while it might be possible to marry they do not want to because of the expectations, duties and such. QPR are also giving security, they care for involved person sometimes even to the same degree (if not more?) as a partner would. It does not make sense to refuse them the same rights unless they put up with a label that does not fit them.
Maybe you can't be so fucking ignorant? People have kids without being married for several good reason. You are just being an asshole there. It's not because they are not ready for the bond, but for example name issues (patchwork families).
Not really rare when it really matters (among rich), and you'd have to put the extra effort when you have the contract.
You clearly have never been involved in any of these problems, else you'd know why demanding them being responsible sucks and shouldnt be a go to.
I never talked about state stuff, what i said is that removing ehegattensplitting will bring more equality without going against any laws.
Wow so people that are not rich dont matter?
and i explicitely said multiple times that the constitution says that families should be protected.
That was my point all along. We dont have an alternative yet. its not clearly communicated. Just saying the taxbrackets for married couples should be abolished doesnt help because it would simply mean a tax hike for married couples.
Marriage is a commitment. Both legally and ethically.
It is not really giving people more rights, it is just binding them together legally. Could there be other solutions? probably. But I can not loose the feeling that you are looking at it from an outdated church like POV.
Marriage, the one that counts, is a legal agreement betten two people. Nothing else. It auto enables certain system for those two people, binding them together. It's not like they are getting more voting power or like it is mandatory. It is supposed to give them more security towards bringing children into the world, towards their financial stability and it relies on an outdated tax system.
Some people think marriage in general or that staying together for a lifetime is outdated. Can't argue with feelings or views, nor do I want to. It's a personal opinion and decision, after all.
Inner security is an important topic but CDU is focusing on it with the wrong motives (to fish some AfD votes).
It's especially upsetting when the biggest threat to our inner security in the last decade (Maaßen) is free to candidate for CDU in the Bundestag while spreading hate speech and right wing conspiracy theories.
Don't forget to add to the Maaßen list that an actual, police-known Neo-Nazi has called up to vote for Maaßen with the Erststimme.
40% of people are not able to earn enough money to build some kind of prosperity after 2010.
FDP, lol you stupid. Buy a house:
FDP in 2060, when constant floodings dominate the landscape, lol you stupid, buy a second house on a hill.
NFDP in 2090, you hungry and thirsty? Eat cake, drink champagne peasants!
FDP, lol you stupid. Buy a house:
FDP in 2060, when constant floodings dominate the landscape, lol you stupid, buy a second house on a hill.
NFDP in 2090, you hungry and thirsty? Eat cake, drink champagne peasants!
OP
OP
Remember some dumbfuck on twitter who told me, more people should just invest their little money so they could buy a house on the land sometimes.
Heck, that idiot even told me, they should invest the money they got from Hartz IV. Telling me how they have no fucking idea about Hartz IV, without saying that they don't know jack shit.
Was of course a FDP member.
And the FDP now claims that their "Liberales Bürgergeld" doesn't take away your additional earnings like Hartz IV... only that their program explicitly says, that they will still take away 80% of your additional earnings if you earn something between 100€ and 400€
All green party members or working for them in Parlament, that I know, agree that Baerbock is better with facts. Know them, gets them right , doers not digherself into a grave.
That is why she was chosen.
And I agree as well that if you heard Habeck live, he tends to go off the rails and starts telling stories, which would not survive a fact check...
Nuclear will never come back, at least not this century.
The finish reactor which were due like ten years ago will never make money.
Estimated for 3 billion, costs now about 11 billion..
Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia
Thats exactly what was meant. Prenups are done by a very small percentage of married couples (less than 10%). Most people just live with the statutory rules. Prenups are drafted by a small percentage of people that are wealthy. the poster argued that prenups exist so the statutory rules protecting lower income partners would not matter. Then I said prenups often are void if they go against the legal rules completely and prenups are rare. Thats the context where the poster said "The wealthy draft prenups and that is what really matters while lower income people that do not have prenups dont". Obviously I cannot agree to that.
No.
No. Quite the opposite. Marriage is not needed to stay together for a lifetime. That's why giving privileges to people who are married based on the assumption that they are more likely to form a permanent bound is ignorant. QPR can be as stable as marriage.
To treat one different from the other, that's discrimination.
Last edited: