The Federal Minister of Finance wants to relieve motorists quickly.
(Photo: dpa)
Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner has defended his proposal to introduce a tank discount against rising fuel prices. “Tax law is not intended for agile measures. Legal changes take too long,” Lindner told Handelsblatt. A temporary crisis instrument, on the other hand, follows a different logic. “It has to be fast and flexible.”
It is important to him that commuters and families through to tradespeople feel that quick help is available. As the goal of the reduction, Lindner said: “As of now, we should be below two euros per liter” and announced that he wanted to continuously evaluate the effect of the crisis discount.
Read the full interview here:
Mr. Lindner, many citizens and companies are angry about the exploding fuel prices. You have now suggested a tank discount. What does that look like at the gas station?
To relieve the burden, a fixed amount per liter is granted directly at the cash register as a crisis discount. However, the fuel price at the pump remains unchanged so that there is full transparency. It becomes so clear that this is a temporary intervention.
How far do you want to push the fuel price down?
It is important to me that quick help can be felt by commuters and families through to tradespeople. As of now, we should get under two euros per liter. We should continuously evaluate the effect of the crisis discount. We also have to talk to the mineral oil industry about what can be done to stabilize prices.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
Sounds good. But critics fear a bureaucracy for gas station owners. What do you think?
The state should not act on the basis of individual tank processes with the mineral oil industry, but on the basis of the total quantity of liters sold. The measure should be designed to be unbureaucratic. If the coalition has the political will, they will talk to the industry about implementation.
Federal Minister of Economics Robert Habeck now thinks that it does not make sense to bring forward a single relief measure. Is he right?
I share this intention. The fuel crisis discount must be viewed in context. For example, we have already decided to increase the basic tax allowance, abolish the EEG surcharge and transfer a one-off payment to recipients of basic security. More will come, I’m thinking of the situation with heating oil.
Read here >> The federal government is planning higher debts because of the Ukraine war – and wants to continue to relieve the burden on citizens
The Union calls for a fuel price brake, i.e. a temporary reduction in VAT. What do you think about this suggestion?
Tax law is not intended for agile measures. Legal changes take too long. Irrespective of this, the Union’s proposal fails because of the European VAT system directive. A reduced rate for fuel is not provided there. With the fuel price brake of the Union, the price for diesel could be reduced by a maximum of 14.04 cents in the energy tax. That won’t do.
In your opinion, a discount makes more sense as a crisis instrument than tax cuts?
I’m very much in favor of structural tax cuts. But a temporary crisis instrument follows other logic. It has to be fast and flexible. At least the Union, as the opposition party, has recognized that energy prices are a political challenge. They were already there before the Ukraine war.
More: New state aid in sight: economy demands “quick and unbureaucratic regulations”