FAQ
No social security contributions are usually paid on income from stock or interest transactions. The Greens want to change that and thus ask enough to check the cash register. How experts evaluate the idea.
The Greens' proposal, to be used to finance social security, also triggered a broad debate. CSU and FDP warn of the people's pockets, and criticism also comes from the SPD and AfD. But what exactly is the idea about, and how do experts appreciate the whole thing?
What is the problem with the Social security?
Because the social security funds are empty, but the expenditure of insurance is increasing, there will be increasing contributions to consumers in the coming years. Without political intervention, an increase in health insurance contributions to 20 percent this decade, the head of the Techniker Krankenkasse, Jens Baas, recently said in an SZ interview. Already at the beginning of the year, most statutory health insurance companies have raised the additional contribution that is expected on the general sentence – on average to 2.91 percent of the contributory income.
It doesn't look better in the other social security either. By 2035, the contributions could increase by 7.5 points across all different insurance branches to 48.6 percent. The researchers of the Berlin IGES institute predict this. 42.3 percent of gross wages for health insurance companies, pension and long -term care insurance as well as unemployment insurance are already going on – a record value. Quite a few describe the financing of social security systems as “one of the big tasks of the upcoming government”.
What is the idea of the Greens about?
“We would like to increase the basis of the contribution,” said Robert Habeck on Sunday evening in Report from Berlin announced. The Greens Chancellor candidate criticized that capital gains have so far been released from social security contributions. This would be more stressed than capital gains. “And that's why we suggest that we also make these sources of income (…) subject to social security.” The fact that capital income should be used to finance the health and care system is also in the party design of the party for the Bundestag election.
Rising costs of the health system are currently being financed through wages and salaries, Habeck continued. “The pressure on wages is getting higher and higher, on the wages of the working population. Those who get up in the morning and come home exhausted and tired in the evening.” It is the question of whether this is justice or whether it is better, “further income from people who make profits in solidarity”.
What should that look like?
Much is still open to the idea. The details of this would have to be clarified in any legislative procedure, said Habeck. Basically, however, it is about the “inclusion of the capital income of people who have great capital income”. Green parliamentary group leader Katharina Dröge emphasized that the proposal would put a strain on millionaires. “Especially those who have millions in the account and no longer have to go to work themselves because the money works for them.” It is about a well thought -out concept with high allowances for savers.
How high these allowances could look like is unclear. The annual limit is 1,000 euros in taxation of capital yields such as equity sales, dividends or interest rates. By this sum, profits are tax -free. On all income, investors must pay a compensation tax of 25 percent as well as a solidarity surcharge and, if necessary, church tax. However, losses from capital income may be offset. If exemption orders are set up at the respective banks, they automatically carry out the flat -rate tax to the tax office. Otherwise, the savers can get the taxes paid too much through the tax return.
By the way: Anyone who is voluntarily insured by law pays for health insurance contributions in all types of income – i.e. also to capital gains. This group includes self -employed, civil servants or some pensioners. In some cases, well -paid employees are also classified as voluntary, but they have an income anyway above the so -called assessment limit. This determines the gross salary to which contributions are deducted. With health insurance, it is around 5,500 euros at a monthly income. If you earn more, you no longer have to pay anything in social security.
What are the reactions to the Green Inspection?
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) went to the Green proposal at a distance. “This is an old hat, it has never worked,” he said. “Capital income is taxed. This is the right way. But you have nothing to do with social contributions.” The CDU-related economic council criticized that Habeck's plans would “counteract private pension efforts”. According to the chairman of the young Liberals, Franziska Brandmann, Habeck obviously does not know who put in stocks. These are often young people who have already paid taxes and taxes on their wages.
CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt also rejected the claim at the closed conference of the Bavarian CSU parliamentary group in the Banz monastery and referred to the premium assessment limits. So large earners are not affected. “That means Habeck's proposal means that he talks about millionaires, but the small savers meet,” said Dobrindt. “That's why we reject these suggestions.” CSU boss Markus Söder accused the Green top candidate of having triggered an uncertainty of the citizens with his proposal. “There is simply a lack of competence,” said Söder on Wednesday at the sidelines of the closed conference. The plan is an “elitist, withdrawal model”.
Positive reactions came from the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB). “The DGB has long been calling for contributions to health and long-term care insurance from capital income because this is fairer,” said board member Anja Piel. However, it is important to set an allowance for this. “Rich people with high capital income pay almost nothing today,” says information from the dpa news agency from circles of the health insurance companies. “If rich pay more, the contributions could decrease.” But such a model must be designed and calculated exactly so that the desired effects would be achieved. The Social Association of Germany (SOVD) also welcomed the advance.
What does the implementation bring Social security?
“If one understands Robert Habeck's proposal in such a way that the obligation to contribute in statutory health insurance is extended to capital income, while otherwise the framework conditions (IE, the group of people of the compulsory insured do not change, and the contribution assessment limits remain unchanged) Little additional contribution volume together, “Anne Steueragel and Marcel Thum from the IFO Institute told tagesschau.de. As early as 2023, the two researchers had dealt with the effect of a contribution obligation for interest, dividends and rents on the social security funds in a research paper.
“Our calculations with the socio-economic panel (SOEP) have shown that even if the first euro capital income is obliged to contribute, only an increase of the contribution volume of around three percent would be possible,” said the IFO experts. In the other branches of social security, the increases were even lower. If capital income would only become subject to social security contributions from exceeding a allowance, the increase in contributions would probably be significantly lower.
In addition, according to the current status, only the capital income of the social security employees would be burdened up to the contribution ceiling, according to Taxennel and Thum. “However, those who earn under the contribution ceiling typically do not have great capital income. Or different formulates: Most of the capital income relate to people who are not even employed for social security persons or earn employment in the employment limit subject to social security contributions.”
What do other economists say?
“The basic idea is correct to put the social security financing base on a broader basis and not just blame the work factor,” says Jens Südekum, consultant of the Federal Ministry of Economics and economists at the University of Düsseldorf. However, it is open whether the implementation proposal, which sets directly with the capital yields, is actually the best. “It could be easier to finance non -insurance benefits in social security even more through the federal grant from the budget, i.e. ultimately through general taxes instead of contributions.”
Economist Andreas Hackethal emphasizes that social security contributions in the event of implementation would also have to apply to rental income. “Otherwise, financial capital would be switched into real estate and the property owners benefit,” says the professor of finance at the Goethe University in Frankfurt. “And so that there are no injustices between professional groups, civil servants and self -employed social security contributions would also have to pay for capital gains.” It is easier to increase taxes on capital gains and to abolish the speculation period for real estate.
In general, the idea is interesting, but does not solve the financing problems of social security, says Andreas Peichl, head of the Center for Macroeconomics at the IFO Institute. In the short term, it leads to more income and gives the next government more scope. According to the expert, the financing problems are tightened in the medium to long term, since new contributions also result in new claims. “If you want to burden capital income more, this should happen via the tax system,” he says. “This would be more honest, as well as the structural problems of social security – especially in the case of retirement – to finally tackle.”
