Coming German Elections – Part 2

Hello everyone,

And welcome back to election weeks.
It’s super intense at the moment in Germany, and I have honestly never seen even remotely the amount of talk-shows that are happening currently. Pretty much every single day, the front runners are on TV, often in town-hall type formats and I actually really enjoy it. It’s engaging and feels much more democratic than, say, 10 years ago when they just did the boring TV duels.

Anyways, today, we’ll do part two of the:

Wahl-O-Mat – German Election Topics Reviewed

In part one, we went over the first 12 questions, so now, we’ll do the second 12 questions (of 38 in total).
And today is particularly interesting, because among other things, we’ll talk about:

• German health insurance system (No matter how complex you think it is… it’s more complex than that)
• education policy (surprisingly chaotic)
• the national debt (Germany is quite unique in that regard)
• and the state of Germany manufacturing

And I think I have a few bits of info for you that you absolutely did not know and that most Germans aren’t aware of either.
#FOMO

Like last time, I’ll largely keep this objective, but I will share my very very own very PERSONAL opinion here and there, because why not :).

And of course we’ll again also do the language component, so for each question, I’m pointing out something interesting about the language that you can take away even if you don’t care about politics at all.

Oh, if you want to check out part one first, here’s the link. There’s also a bit more about what the Wahl-O-Mat is, and why it’s really awesome and helpful.

The Coming German Elections – Part 1

And now, if you’re ready, I’d say let’s jump right in.

The Question:

• Bei der Besteuerung von Einkommen soll der Spitzensteuersatz angehoben werden.
• The top tax rate on income should be increased.

What’s this about:

Currently, the top tax rate is 42% and it’s to be paid when you make north of 68.481 Euro taxable income.
Germany does NOT have state income tax, so you only pay one sum to federal.

• progressive, so if you make 100K, the first 30k get taxed at a different rate than the last 30k.

The real tax rate is the effective tax rate and for most people it is far lower than 42%.

Some parties now plan to increase the top tax rate, while also shifting the threshold higher closer to 100k, so a person making 70k would pay LESS, while a person making 100k would pay MORE than before.

Language used:

I honestly don’t understand why they didn’t just say “Der Spitzensteuersatz der Einkommenssteuer…” but for some reason, they decided to go for this somewhat more complicated phrasing with “Bei…”. No clue why.
Besides that, this is a nice example for the difference between anheben and erhöhen in the sense of increasing. anheben sounds less severe (just a few percent) and also more subdued.
Like… if erhöhen will sound more shitty in the context of taxes and more awesome in terms of salary, than anheben does in the same contexts.

The Question:

• Der Bund soll mehr Kompetenzen in der Schulpolitik erhalten.
• The federal government should have more powers in education policy.

What’s this about:

Germany is a federation and the education mostly rests with the states. The federal government does put out some guidelines and helps getting a semi standardized final exam, but for the most part the states are free as to how to set up their school system, including stuff like how many years does elementary school last and what school types there are. Not all states have a Gymnasium for instance.
The states do coordinate a lot in the so called Kultusministerkonferenz (meeting of the state secretaries responsible for education). I think that’s for instance where they decide which state has their vacations at what time. School vacations vary every year, so a kid in Berlin might have summer vacation very early in one year and very late the next. The idea here is that not the entire country has school vacation at once, but it’s spread out and varied.
But I digress… the question is about whether the federal government should get a bigger say in school matters and my opinion is yes. Germany is so small in size that being super federal in this aspect doesn’t make much sense to me and sounds like a lot of wasted meetings.

Language used:

We’ve had this in other questions already, I think, but I haven’t pointed it out specifically… der Bund. This pretty much THE way to refer to the federal parliament and executive.
And we have another instance of the formal erhalten being used instead of the more normal bekommen. (we had that in part one already).

The Question:

• Aus Deutschland sollen weiterhin Rüstungsgüter nach Israel exportiert werden dürfen.
• Arms exports from Germany to Israel should continue to be allowed.

What’s this about:

Germany exports military equipment to Israel. The question is whether we should stop and the background (besides general pacifistic positions of some parties) is most certainly the war in Gaza.

Language used:

If you ever wondered how translate “should continue to be allowed” – now you know one option. sollen werden dürfen.
And for the super nerds among you, here’s how it would look as a side sentence:

• …, dass aus D. weiterhin Rüstungsgüter nach Israel exportiert werden dürfen sollen.

This feels weird to me writing and reading it though and most Germans (including me) would trip if they try to pull this stunt in actual conversation :).
Specifically, our brains would start thinking if we have to do this switcheroo that we have to do in past tense.

• …., dass er nicht hat abwaschen wollen.
  instead of:
• …., dass er nicht abwaschen wollen hat.  (WRONG)

This second guessing whether we need this switch would trip up most of us.
Besides that, we could note the term Rüstungsgüter, which literally means “armament goods”, and which is an umbrella term for weapons, vehicles and all kind of other military tech.
And lastly, the sentence is a great example for just how different German word ordering can be to English. If you go element by element, you’d get:

• Out of Germany should continue military goods to Israel exported being.

Which is an absolute absurd travesty in English. Like… barely comprehensible. But in German, it’s super smooth and fluid.

The Question:

• Alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger sollen in gesetzlichen Krankenkassen versichert sein müssen.
• All citizens should be required to be insured in statutory health insurance.

What’s this about:

Here we go… the complicated German health system. Let’s go!
Germany has a mixed and somewhat complex system. By default everyone has to join the “gesetzliche Krankenversicherung” (public mandatory insurance). This does not mean government insurance though. There are multiple companies offering insurance within the “public field”, so there is some competition and choice.
These insurers HAVE TO insure everyone, so they can’t really reject sick people, old people or people without a job.

Then, there is private insurance and you can decide to leave public and join private if you’re self employed or earn above a certain limit as an employee (and some other special cases). This limit is fairly high, and it has been increased over the last few years, so only “rich” employees are allowed to switch.

Private insurance gives you better care, covers more, offers better treatment options and also, it’s often cheaper than public insurance, at least if you earn good money.
And as far as I understand it, they can do this because they do NOT have to insure low-income people and tend to have more healthy members. The public insurance has a strong element of socializing in it, so high-income members subsidize low-income members.

Now, if you paid attention, you might have noticed that private insurance gives you better care AND is cheaper AND tends to be open for the more wealthy people while low-wage employees are forbidden to join.
This sounds super weird and unfair.

But here’s what’s going on, as far as I understand it, and as most people do NOT actually know: doctors earn much more from private patients as opposed to public patients. A doctor doing some routine check for a privately insured patient might get 4x the money they’d get for a publicly insured patient, and private insurance tends to also pay all kinds of “nice-to-have” things that really make money for the practitioner. Many doctors can ONLY run their business profitably because of the share of private patients.
So the way I understand it, it’s just a system that has wealthy, healthy people subsidize health care for the less affluent, less healthy, while still having a somewhat free market and giving certain people the impression that they’re not paying for others AND that they can afford themselves the best care, when in reality they do indirectly contribute to the system, they just don’t know it.

For as convoluted as this sounds… I think this is actually a pretty clever system. Market forces and the desire for “me” is satisfied while also being social.
I’d love to hear what you think about this.

The question is about whether all people should have to join the public sector (which still means choice, but less “privileged private care”). Proponents say that it would lower cost for everyone, but considering the scheme that’s going on that 99% of people have no clue about, I’m not so sure if that’s really the case.

Language used:

Maybe sollen [] versichert sein müssen is interesting – shall have to be insured. Yes, you can “stack” modal verbs in German :).

• Die gesetzliche Frauenquote in Vorständen und Aufsichtsräten börsennotierter Unternehmen soll abgeschafft werden.
• The mandatory quota for women on the executive boards and supervisory boards of publicly listed companies should be abolished.

What’s this about:

This quota is about supervisory boards and boards of directors, NOT about CEOs and the like.
The current quota demands about 1/3 of board members of big companies to be women. BUT… this only applies to seats that open up, so no board member gets fired over this.
So far, the real quota went from 5% in 2014 to 7,3% now, probably mostly because no one is resigning.
There are similar regulations for public institutions. Overall, the share of women in leadership roles is a little below 30%, which is pretty bad in comparison to most European countries.
I’m honestly shocked at how bad we are and that we’re worse than several countries like Hungary, Bulgaria or Serbia, where Germans would fancy themselves as “more progressive”.

Language used:

Nothing in particular. The subject is very very very long, but that’s the same in English.

The Question:

• Ökologische Landwirtschaft soll stärker gefördert werden als konventionelle Landwirtschaft.
• Organic agriculture should be promoted/subsidized more strongly than conventional agriculture.

What’s this about:

Agriculture is subsidized in Germany, and the question is as to whether organic farming should get more “love” than conventional one.
This is a super duper complex topic with really good arguments on both sides, and I think as a layman, the only opinion you can have is… your opinion. I “like” organic farming, so I’d be a yes, but give a conventional farmer half an hour in a room with me, and they’ll convince me the other way. Then, bring in an organic farmer and they will turn me again. And so on and so on.

Language used:

A nice example for comparisons and how the verb is usually NOT at the end with them. You could move the als-part before gefördert werden, but it’s less common.
I think the best way to think of this is as the als-part being a “shortened” side sentence. Like… “… than conventional (is being supported.)”

The Question:

• Der Bund soll Projekte gegen Rechtsextremismus verstärkt fördern.
• The federal government should increase support for projects against right-wing extremism.

What’s this about:

Some of you are probably thinking that this is about the government setting up projects “top down”, but I think how this  mainly works (not only in Germany) is that there is a certain budget allotted to this, which projects can then apply for. Like…  someone starts an initiative in a small town, like for instance a youth Café or a festival against extremism, and they can then apply for funding from that pot.
And yes, with funding like these there is ALWAYS a certain amount of fraud. People making up a project just to get funding. This has nothing to do with government though. It has to do with people. There is way more fraud and scamming in the private sector (because there’s more money there). I think just because a portion of people will abuse the system that does not mean you should withhold funding from all the honest genuine people trying to really do something in their community. Just like most businesses in the private sector are honest, so are most projects that apply for funding.
This question is about whether support for projects against right-wing extremism should be increased.

Language used:

The only thing noteworthy here is the use of verstärkt and I suspect some of you are wondering what the difference is to stärker.
Well, stärker would work as well here. verstärkt sounds a bit more dry and technical. And possibly it leans a bit more toward “more often” or “more widely” while stärker leans a little bit more toward “more money to what’s already there”.
But that might also just be me over-analyzing.

The Question:

• Unternehmen sollen weiterhin die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte und des Umweltschutzes bei allen Zulieferern kontrollieren müssen.
• Companies should continue to be required to monitor the compliance with human rights and environmental protection among all their suppliers.

What’s this about:

This is a big one. I don’t know much of the details, but in essence it’s about the law with the beautiful German name   Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz. Literally, this means “supply chain due diligence requirement law”and it’s essentially “supply chain act”. It was passed in 2021.

This is the German attempt to follow UN conventions for economy and human rights, and it essentially means that a business has to “ensure” that all the parts and materials they’re using do not violate human rights, for example.
Like, let’s say you’re a manufacturer of machinery and you order some parts from abroad, you need to ensure that these parts were not produced by forced labor for instance and I think also that the material for the parts was sourced in alignment with the core guidelines.

I think the core idea of this is good, as it forces companies to pressure suppliers to improve sourcing or working conditions, which, as we all know, would not really happen if you let the free market reign.
BUT… this also sounds like a documentation nightmare. I think there’s a whole certification industry evolving around this. It’s great once everything is in place. Similar to web safety certificates, for instance, that everyone uses but no one knows about.
But setting up something like for supply chains in a global economy is a herculean task and can sink businesses due to the headache or extra certification costs.

Language used:

Nothing stood out to me, except it’s another example for modal stacking (“sollen kontrollieren müssen”). And it’s a nice example for a sentence being really long and the actual verb (“kontrollieren müssen”) being unclear till the end.
As a native speaker, in this sentence at least, you kind of “know” it already though. Like… you don’t really know the precise verb, but the “idea” is in the vortext and gets more clear as you read, especially you have the “Weltwissen” (general contextual knowledge). Like… if you’ve heard about this law, you’ll suspect this is going to be about controlling, ensuring, adhering or something in that field of meaning.

The Question: 

• Die Ausbildungsförderung BAföG soll weiterhin abhängig vom Einkommen der Eltern gezahlt werden.
• The education grant BAföG should continue to be paid based on the income of the parents.

What’s this about: 

BAföG stands for Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz (federal education support law) which is the law that regulates financial support for people going to university or doing an apprenticeship.
If you have no or low income, you can apply and you’ll get a monthly payment, half of which is a grant from the government and the other half is an interest-free loan from the government. It’s only paid for the “normal “studying time”, so if you need longer for no special reason, you’re on your own then.
I come from a poor background, so I partially financed my studies this way, and this BAföG also allowed me to study in Finland for 7 months, which was also supported, and which I would not have been able to do without. And which was the seed for my interest in language (which was NOT my studies), for my knowing English, so kind of for this website.
At least for the first portion of the studies, it would have been hard to work part time, and I also was mentally and psychologically not in the place to handle studies and a job, so yeah… BAföG gave me a bit of time when I needed it and I’m happy to support others now with my taxes.
The question is as to whether this money should depend on the income of the parents, to which I say a clear YES.
If you have no contact to your parents, or you hate each other, you always have the option to apply for “parent-independent support”.

Language used:

Learners often ask about the difference between zahlen and bezahlen and when it comes to paying in the sense of compensating for a service or good, the two are pretty much synonymous. But in the question here, bezahlen would NOT work, because the money paid is actually NOT a compensation for anything. It’s just a grant being paid and the word for that is zahlen.

The Question:

• Die Schuldenbremse im Grundgesetz soll beibehalten werden.
• The debt brake in the Basic Law should be retained.

What’s this about:

Germans are famous for being big on “saving”. During the financial crisis, the country took on a lot of new debt to stabilize the economy. Compared to today, the numbers were peanuts. But “back then” it made people so nervous that the parties came together to add a Schuldenbremse (debt brake) to our constitution (which took a two-thirds majority to do). This was in 2009 and since then, any government and parliament is limited in how much new debt they can take on. Of course, there are loopholes and stuff, but in recent years this has started being in the way of necessary investment, and it’s ultimately what caused the government coalition to break apart. SPD and Greens wanted an exception to finance stuff, but the FDP (liberal party) said no, because “our children have to pay it back”.
I’m curious what’ll happen in the next government, since the CDU has a financing gap of roughly 60 billion in their program and the AfD even has 130 billion, but both parties do not want to violate the debt brake. And these numbers don’t include new NATO spending yet.
So ultimately, I’m sure that any government WILL work around the debt brake.
And I personally think it’s high time. Germany’s total debt is currently about 59% of GDP. The US is at 124%, Japan is at 260%, Italy is at 138% and China is at around 80%.
In such a context, Germany is RIDICULOUSLY under-levered and we could take on a lot more debt to improve infrastructure, education, research and all kinds of yield bearing investments that our children would be happy to have completed when they’re adults.
I really don’t understand how the CDU and the FDP, who claim to be the most competent about the economy, do not seem to understand leverage and return on invest. They could not run a start-up that way, nor a normal business that wants to expand.
Like… I don’t even have to go to modern monetary theory. The conservative stance is stupid even within old school paradigms.
Now, the GOP in the US also (as usual) campaigned on cutting the deficit, but they have already floated a debt ceiling increase of 4 trillion.
Germany, as a big country with a strong currency, really has to “get with the times”. We’re still in way better financial shape than ANY competitor of similar economic weight.

Language used:

One thing to note is the term Schuldenbremse, which you will hear a LOT in the coming months if you follow German politics. And also, it’s a nice example for using beibehalten, when many learners might have just gone for behalten. Both words are about keeping, but behalten is about keeping in the sense of possession, while beibehalten is about keeping procedures, customs or “habits” in a somewhat formal sense.

The Question:

• Asylsuchende sollen in Deutschland sofort nach ihrer Antragstellung eine Arbeitserlaubnis erhalten.
• Asylum seekers should get a working permit immediately after applying for asylum.

What’s this about: 

At the moment, asylum seekers are NOT allowed to work immediately. I think there is a waiting period of at least 6 months, and there may be a longer limit if they live in a designated asylum housing project. I don’t know the details and ins and outs, it’s of course more complex than just that.
My opinion is that they should be allowed to work. I have met several who want to work, but they legally are not allowed to even if they already speak some German. Instead, they just sit around bored all day. Having this lack of purpose is not good for anybody’s psyche. It is not really helping with integrating and also, it’s a loss of productivity and a strain on tax payer money.
I really do not know what the benefit of this is, but then again, I haven’t looked into it, and there probably is an argument to be made against it. I just don’t know it.

Language used:

Couldn’t think of anything specific here, so let’s move on to the last one right away.

The Question: 

• Deutschland soll das Ziel verwerfen, klimaneutral zu werden.
• Germany should throw out the goal of becoming climate neutral.

What’s this about: 

The current law is that Germany aims to be climate neutral by 2045. This mainly means carbon neutral and as far as I understand it, that does include heating and traffic.
It’s a very ambitious goal, for sure. In 2023, carbon gas emissions have dropped by 10% within a year.
I know that many of you are now thinking “OMG, yeah, because Germany is de-industrializing!!”, so let me go on a little tangent here.
Germany’s manufacturing has a total share of 23% of total output, and 19% of the workforce is working in that sector. The numbers of the US are 12% of output and 10% of the workforce, so when American politicians worry about Germany de-industrializing, it’s kind of strange,
Germany’s output has declined, yes. But when you look for example at the industrialization intensity index, a metric for the role manufacturing has with in economy, you’ll see that it’s declining in MANY countries and that Germany actually is sitting pretty up there together with China, so compared to the average we’re way “over-industrialized”.
Here’s a graph:

Anyway, so the climate goals are definitely ambitious and we’ll probably miss them, but I think it’s great to have ambitious goals. When a certain someone says “Colony on Mars by 2040” that’s called amazing and ambitious by some people. When Germany says “Climate neutral by 2045 while still making steel and stuff!“, it’s called “ideologically driven lunacy” by the same people.
I personally want my country to be ambitious and bold and give it our best shot. It’s a challenge, we’ll have to make adjustments along the way, but throwing out the goal and giving is a clear no for me.

Language used:

This is a nice example for verwerfen which is the best word for throwing out some sort of plan, concept or idea.

***

And that’s it for today :).
Like last time, I hope you enjoyed it, and if you’re up for it, I’ll do a part three with the last third of the questions. Today was a bit more into politics, but I thought it might be some interesting insights that might help give a better idea about what’s going on in Germany, so I decided to be a bit more detailed, particularly about health insurance.
Little disclaimer… I am no expert on any of this. I did do research but if you KNOW that I said something non-factual, please tell me and I’ll correct it.

Of course, I’d love to read if you have any thoughts on any of the matters and if you have any questions, I’m happy to talk more in the comments.
But yeah, I hope you liked it, have a great day and bis zum nächsten Mal.