FDP, Greens and SPD: traffic light soundings with many break points

In this constellation, the greatest overlaps are conceivable, especially in social politics, said Greens co-party leader Robert Habeck in the Reichstag building. “Conceivable, however, expressly means that the biscuit is a long way from being eaten.”

There are still many open points and also differences. “Many things have not yet been discussed.” The SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz also welcomed the upcoming explorations. Before an alliance can be formed, however, a number of conflict issues must be cleared out of the way.

Top jobs of the day

Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.

Finance and taxes

The biggest sticking point of a traffic light in terms of content lies in budget and financial policy. So, of all things, in the political field that is about income and expenditure. And thus forms the basis for all other projects.

The SPD and the Greens want to increase taxes for high earners, while the FDP wants to lower taxes for all incomes. The Greens and parts of the SPD are calling for a softer debt brake, while the Liberals want to stick to the debt rule.

But already towards the end of the election campaign, the parties were moving towards each other. For example, a traffic light could not reduce taxes for companies, but relieve companies through “super depreciation” or a more generous tax loss carry-back, as the FDP demands.

The wealth tax that the SPD and the Greens are demanding should not come, but a traffic light could reform the inheritance tax. The remaining solos for top earners could be phased out. This project is particularly close to the heart of the FDP.

The Greens, on the other hand, want to increase investments. They want to spend an additional 50 billion euros every year on climate protection and infrastructure, which would break the debt brake. The money for this and to finance further election promises could be mobilized by a government through investment funds that are not subject to the debt brake. Here, however, the FDP would have to move, it is skeptical of such shadow budgets.

And in addition to the content, there is another big point of contention: Who occupies the Federal Ministry of Finance? Both Green leader Habeck and FDP leader Lindner would like to occupy the influential office.

Climate and energy

For the Green Core and Top Topic, Baerbock and Habeck have to make a name for themselves. The Liberals emphasize the importance of emissions trading and a CO2 price as steering instruments in climate protection and want technology openness. The Greens are also in favor of a carbon price. Early on in the election campaign you called for an increase to 60 euros in 2023.

The grand coalition, on the other hand, has written a price of 35 euros in the law for 2023. SPD Chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz had repeatedly emphasized that there had to be social compensation for higher CO2 prices. The Greens have a so-called energy money in the planning, which is to be paid out per capita.

Unlike the FDP, the Greens also rely on regulatory law to achieve the climate goals. They advocate making solar systems compulsory for new buildings and gradually expanding this to include existing buildings.

The demand by the Greens to bring the coal phase out from 2038 to 2030 should not create that much potential for conflict. The generation of electricity through coal-based power generation is becoming less attractive from year to year due to the continuously decreasing number of CO2 certificates in the European emissions trading system.

The question of how to support the industry on the way to climate neutrality is likely to cause discussion among the potential coalition partners. The Greens and the SPD are open to contracts for differences. The liberals are very skeptical and warn against excessive long-term subsidies. Contracts for differences are concluded between system operators and the public sector. They offset the additional costs for investments in climate-neutral technology and for the ongoing operation of the systems.

Pension and Social

In pension and social policy, too, the ideas are far apart, because the SPD and the Greens, for example, stabilize the statutory pension level with tax money if necessary, but the Liberals prefer to build a funded pillar within the pension insurance. The FDP is certainly not the partner of choice, said Green pension expert Markus Kurth a few days ago in a radio interview.

But: “I think we both have to jump over our shadow.” In any case, the rifts are not insurmountable. The Greens and FDP were able to score points above all with young people and first-time voters. And FDP social expert Johannes Vogel has always emphasized that politics must “think in terms of decades” again.

That is why it can already be said that a pension policy that unilaterally offloads the costs of demographic change to the younger generation is unlikely to exist with a traffic light. Even with the reform of the basic security, overlaps can be seen – for example in the efforts of all three potential traffic light partners to get children out of the Hartz IV system.

Housing and rent

Housing and construction policy could prove to be tough in the talks between the Greens, FDP and SPD. There are clear differences, especially in rent policy. While the SPD and the Greens would like to enforce further rent regulation, the Liberals do not want to know about it.

Another dilemma is the question of whether only the tenants or, in the future, the landlords will also share in the costs of the CO2 price for the generation of heat. But the FDP may be less stubborn than the Union, which refused to share the costs in half in June. The Liberals are in favor of the introduction of a “partial heating rent”, in which the landlord would have to be responsible for a basic supply of heating. The additional consumption would be paid by the tenant depending on the consumption.

All three parties are in favor of more home ownership, even if they approach the issue differently. “Personally, I think it is very important that we make living affordable again with a major building campaign and enable more people to find their way into property,” said FDP building politician Daniel Föst to the Handelsblatt.

The Greens and FDP advocate a lower property transfer tax for private individuals. The FDP wants to introduce a tax exemption of up to 500,000 euros for natural persons. The SPD wants to promote hire purchase models.

Health and care

There are similar differences in health and care policy. In the SPD and the Greens, some now see the long-awaited opportunity for a system change to a citizen insurance. The disastrous financial situation of statutory health and long-term care insurance actually requires reforms from the coming government. The Liberals, however, continue to rely on statutory and private health insurance.

Instead of a citizens’ insurance, into which civil servants, self-employed and high earners also pay, they are calling for more competition between the funds and want to make it easier to switch between them.

It is grateful that the SPD and the Greens give up their demand for a compromise on one of the other sticking points. Citizens’ insurance cannot be made with the FDP, it is said that, at the same time, the civil insurance is “not decisive for the war” for the SPD and the Greens.

Instead, one could agree on shorter-term measures – such as an increased tax subsidy for statutory health and long-term care insurance. Because in addition to the contrasts, there are also many overlaps between the three parties – for example in the hospital flat rate, which the SPD, Greens and FDP criticize for “false incentives”. There are also overlaps in the area of ​​digitization, which the parties want to promote more strongly in order, for example, to relieve the nursing profession with robotics.

traffic

How to make the transport sector climate-neutral? For the first time, this question will become one of the central questions in exploratory talks for a federal government. It is necessary to reorganize mobility with basic measures. On the one hand, there are symbolic issues such as the general speed limit on motorways that the Greens are demanding but the FDP rejects.

There is also the question of whether investments are still being made in new roads. The Greens reject it, the FDP and SPD are in favor. More money for the highly indebted federal railway? The Greens and FDP are calling for a fundamental reform of Deutsche Bahn AG, which the SPD, as the representative of the EVG rail union, vehemently rejects. It is about gigantic investments in the railways, just for electronic switches, further digitization and new construction and expansion. We are happy to speak of 60 billion euros, as well as a double-digit billion sum by 2030 for local transport.

Then it comes to the “question of faith”, as it is called in the traffic light round, which alternative drive is the future. The Greens and the SPD are fully committed to the electric car, the FDP relies on openness to technology, including synthetic fuels and hydrogen. Should it, like the Greens and ultimately also the SPD, demand a ban on combustion engines from 2030?

And the question of the future of air traffic also needs to be clarified. Is a traffic light coalition relying on synthetic fuels or would it prefer to ban short-haul flights, as the Greens are calling for? But then at the same time the future of a number of airports would be in jeopardy – above all that of the capital city BER.

digitalization

When it comes to digital policy, the traffic light parties are pretty much in agreement on the goal that Germany has to catch up as soon as possible. However, when it comes to the question of how to get the country there, the positions differ in detail.

The Social Democrats are focusing on their core issue of social justice: They are calling for a “social tariff” for Internet access for low-wage earners and students. The Liberals, on the other hand, rely on market incentives and want to increase the attractiveness of network expansion for private providers through vouchers for households. The Greens, on the other hand, demand a legal right to fast internet for all citizens and want to increase the pressure on the state to expand the digital infrastructure.

Ultimately, however, the negotiations between the three parties on the subject of digitization are unlikely to fail. In case of doubt, as the negotiators know, the premise “more is more” applies to digital expansion, so that the parties could agree on compromises very quickly.

More: Greens and FDP want to sound out the traffic light coalition on Thursday – no “complete rejection” of Jamaica

.
source site