SDG 10
Reduce inequality within and between states.
§ Amendment of the General Law on Nondiscrimination
The General Law on Nondiscrimination (AGG) is central for the implementation of four European anti-discrimination directives adopted in 2000. With the law entering into force in 2006, the German legal system for the first time in history comprehensively provided protection against discrimination by private actors (e.g. employers, landlords, providers of goods and services) for racist reasons or because of ethnic origin, sex, religion or ideology, a disability, age or sexual identity. Since its last revision in 2012, many associations have been advocating for an amendment to the law. This includes reforms to correctly implement the EU Equal Treatment Directive, more precise wording and clarification of the current legal situation as well as ensuring effective legal protection against discrimination. In particular, anti-discrimination associations have to be granted a genuine right to class action suits as well as the possibility to assert claims of affected persons by way of litigation. Wordings such as in § 2 para. 4 AGG, which exempts dismissals from the AGG, have to be deleted. Neither does the exception provision for churches and religious communities, as dealt with in § 9 AGG, correspond to the regulations. Certain areas of state activities, such as the school system or the police and administration, are not affected by the AGG since they fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal States. In order to bridge this regulation gap, the States ought to adopt State anti-discrimination laws of their own, e.g. following the example of the City State of Berlin. In order to ensure that the German Anti-Discrimination Agency can work effectively, it also ought to be independent from the Ministry.
For further reading and discussion:
https://www.bug-ev.org/fileadmin/user_upload/AGG_Novellierung.pdf
The municipalities (cities and communities) have a dual position in the federally organised Republic of Germany: on the one hand, they have a right of municipal self-determination and, on the other hand, they are part of the administrative structure of the States. Voluntary reception of refugees by municipalities, which would go beyond distribution according to national quota, could be performed via both these roles. Drawing up a new law allowing municipalities to independently receive refugees would directly strengthen the municipalities’ right to self-determination. This could boost the protection of refugees while simultaneously enhancing the country’s democratic and federal structure. The German constitution does not contain any exclusive powers of the national government regarding the reception of persons seeking protection.
For further reading and discussion:
https://fluechtlingsrat-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/heuser_aufnahme.pdf
§ A general right for non-citizens to vote in municipal elections
§ General municipal voting rights for foreigners
The Basic Law generally excludes the participation of foreigners in elections at both state and municipal level. The only exception is for EU citizens. The issue affects both the majority society and immigrant groups. Only six out of 335 mayors in Germany have an immigrant background. That's less than two percent - and not a single one of them is a woman. For a fair participation, a comprehensive inclusion of foreigners and people with a migration background in political parties and official structures is necessary. A general right to vote for foreigners at the local level without restriction to the European Union is therefore necessary.
For further reading and discussion:
Only recently, the "Citizens' Council for Democracy," consisting of 160 people drawn from the population registers, presented 22 concrete demands to Bundestag President Schäuble. These include the proposal to supplement parliamentary democracy with citizen participation and direct-democratic voting. This can be done through a combination of citizens' councils and nationwide referendums. An independent staff unit for citizen participation and direct democracy should be set up for this purpose.
For further reading and discussion:
§ Introduction of citizens' councils to complement parliamentary-representative democracy.
§ Re-imposition of wealth tax and reform of inheritance and gift tax
The high level of social inequality also has its origins in the declining progressivity of the German tax system. Wealth and top incomes have been increasingly favored in Germany for decades. This should be countered by reintroducing the wealth tax and reforming the inheritance and gift tax. With generous allowances and progressive tax rates, the wealth tax should only affect large estates - and leave homes untouched, for example. Inheritance tax was already reformed in 2016, but without addressing the far too generous exemptions for business assets. What is needed, therefore, is the abolition of these exemptions and the introduction of a lifetime inheritance allowance that is not renewed every ten years. In addition, should the debt brake take effect again, enough tax revenue can be generated via a wealth tax for the richest one percent of the population to prevent a curtailment of social spending for the purpose of debt repayment. Finally, income tax should also be adjusted: Higher top tax rates for the three percent of the highest incomes, in combination with higher basic allowances for all income taxpayers, can increase progressivity and relieve small incomes. Through these tax reforms, German policymakers can effectively and rapidly reduce income inequality and the wealth inequality that is central to political and opportunity equality.
For further reading and discussion:
The state has the task of protecting and promoting democracy. In recent years, the Federal Court of Audit has repeatedly warned that it is not possible to provide consistent funding on the current legal basis. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the state leaves the promotion of democracy and the prevention of extremism largely to civil society organizations. For years, actors from politics and civil society have been pointing out structural problems in the funding practices of federal programs. Civil society organizations and programs often cannot be supported and secured in the long term, and there is a lack of institutional funding. Successful projects have to repeatedly realign or discontinue their work because of the funding structures. Expertise is lost as a result and must be regularly rebuilt. The federal government must therefore first and foremost enable itself to take strategic and sustainable measures to prevent extremism and promote democracy, to prevent anti-Semitism and racism, and to empower minorities and those affected. This fulfills key characteristics of public welfare, for which the federal government has legislative competence under Article 74 (1) No. 7 of the Basic Law. As early as 2013, it was agreed in the coalition agreement that more projects against right-wing extremism must be supported in the longer term and, if necessary, a legal solution created. In 2017, permanent funding was agreed in the coalition agreement and implemented. Nevertheless, a legal basis is needed to support the engagement of civil society in the long term. A Democracy Promotion Act provides the legal basis for this and offers an opportunity to gain and secure a sound, long-term and regionally adapted strategy from experience and evaluation of past projects. Civil society actors must be systematically involved in the design of the Democracy Promotion Act as well as in program design and evaluation. The funding of prevention and democracy projects must be secured in the long term with a separate budget title. The role and work of civil society must be strengthened and protected. Due to the federal structure, democracy promotion laws are also needed in the federal states.
For further reading and discussion:
§ Introduction of a democracy promotion law
This also works at the federal level
§ Abolition of spousal splitting in Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Spain.
Through splitting, the state creates incentives for married women to stay out of the labor market during marriage or to work only marginally, since the tax advantage of splitting is greatest when one partner earns significantly more than the other. Since men earn more than women on average, women are more likely to take on only marginal employment or to be absent from the labor market. This in turn has a negative impact after a divorce and in old age. Single parents or parents who are not married are also relieved significantly less by the tax bracket relief amount than married couples with or without children are relieved by spousal splitting. In Austria, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands and Spain, spousal splitting has already been abolished in favor of an individual tax. France and Portugal have introduced family splitting.
For further reading and discussion:
https://www.boeckler.de/de/boeckler-impuls-ehegattensplitting-verletzt-gleichheitsgebot-9482.htm
Unsustainable debt is one of the biggest problems facing the world's poorest countries. Debt relief for high-deficit countries has not yet been negotiated according to a clear set of international rules. Depending on the case, decisions are made differently, mostly according to the rules of the creditors, such as banks, funds and the IMF. The negotiations are not subject to any independent authority. Belgium passed an anti-vulture fund law in 2016, which primarily prevents vulture funds from using court rulings to siphon off more money than they originally paid for the bonds on the financial market. This makes the business model unattractive. Even before the Belgian "anti-vulture law," the U.K. had enacted legislation limiting payments awarded by U.K. courts to those amounts that the plaintiff creditor would have received if it had participated in a multilateral debt restructuring. Back in 2016, the possibility of similar legislation for Germany was discussed in the Bundestag, but no agreement was reached to create German legislation. In 2018, the European Parliament also called on member states to adopt a regulation modeled on the Belgian law to combat vulture fund speculation on debt.
For further reading and discussion:
https://erlassjahr.de/news/debatte-um-anti-geier-gesetz-im-bundestag/
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0104_DE.pdf?redirect
§ Anti-vulture legislation in the United Kingdom and Belgium
§ Electoral law with cumulation and variegation in Bavaria
In the traditional electoral system, voters have one vote, which they can give to the party of their choice. Parties have the right to appoint candidates and present them in a certain order which voters cannot influence. The order which the party has determined for its list of candidates determines who will enter parliament after the elections. However, in local elections in most German States, voters have several votes and can split them among various parties or support certain candidates by giving them several votes. Parties then still hold the right to decide who they want to nominate, but the voters can change the order in the list. This voting system, called cumulative voting and vote-splitting, is by no means a method which is exclusively suitable for local elections. In the Bavarian State parliament elections, citizens have the option to change the order of the list via a vote of preference. Among the European countries with a system of proportional representation, only Spain, Portugal and Germany have the system of rigid lists for their national parliaments. Not only can cumulative voting and vote-splitting result in the increased democratic influence of voters, but it can also give those candidates particular chances who are engaged in citizens’ action groups or are participating in local government bodies. A more diversified composition of parliaments can be achieved.
For further reading and discussion:
https://www.mehr-demokratie.de/fileadmin/pdf/du25-kumulieren-panaschieren.pdf
https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/BayLWO