German Election Results (and Wahl-O-Mat III)

Hello everyone,

And welcome back one last time to the German Election Weeks Special!
It’s finally over, the results are in, and as usual, the polls were highly accurate.
No, I do not mean this ironically. The polls are really on point usually.

So yeah, the election is over and today is going to be the last day we’ll talk about German politics for a long while. Big promise :).
But because many of you wanted a part three about the German election topics, we’ll do just that today.

Wahl-O-Mat Review – Part 3

We’ll go over the last 14 questions together, and I’ll give you some context and insight into the current situation. Not all of them are terribly interesting, but there are some “big” ones in there, like abortion or minimum wage and taxes to some extent.
And of course, I’ll also look at the language used again, but there aren’t really many new surprises.
So yeah… not the most fascinating article maybe, but all good things are three :).

If you want to check out the other two episodes, you can find them here:

• German Election Topics – Part 1
• German Election Topics – Part 2

And also this one:

• The German Election System Explained

But before we dive in to the Wahl-O-Mat questions, I want to give you a quick summary of the election results.
So if you’re ready, let’s jump right in.

The German Elections – How it Went

Like I said, the polling was largely accurate, so there were no really big surprises on the federal level.
But there was a lot of suspense.
Here’s an overview over the results.

CDU /CSU

The CDU/CSU block (conservative) won 28,5%. They’re the strongest party, but considering that they polled at 33% just November and the result is one of the worst they ever had, this is nothing to be proud of. Their front runner Friedrich Merz, who has never actually governed anything but has worked at a high position at BlackRock, will likely become our next chancellor.

SPD

The SPD (social democrats), the party of the former chancellor Scholz, has lost big (-9%) and got 16,5% of the vote, which is awful, considering they’re the oldest German party, the one with the most members and they’re close to unions and workers .

The Greens

The Green party, which was also in government until now, lost slightly and got 11,6% of the vote but not as bad as SPD. Their front runner has said he has no aspirations to continue being in a leading role of the party, which in my opinion, means that the party will drop below 10% soon as he was a voice of reason within a party that can be a bit on the crazy side sometimes.

AfD

The AfD is a hard-right populist party that was founded to leave the Euro but has since moved further and further right, and not really willing to kick out the actual Nazis that they have in their ranks.
The ran on deporting every immigrant who doesn’t have asylum, including those that are working full-time, saying that they can then “come back” with a work visa. They also ran on “anti-woke” and “traditional family” and all that stuff. What they didn’t run on, but what is said in their program is a giant tax cut for the ultra wealthy billionaires. Their budget proposal is short 130 billion Euro, which they say they’ll save once all the immigrants who are here for social security payments are gone and unemployed people don’t get money anymore. Which is of course absolute nonsense, but people voting for them don’t care about facts, they care about their feelings and “vibes”.
The front runner of AfD is a lesbian woman who lives with her partner, who has Indonesian roots, and their two kids in Switzerland and who some people say has  been seen snorting cocaine in Berlin clubs. Her wife does have a Sisyphos sticker on her phone, which is one of the biggest and “most Berlin” clubs that we have. Her being the front runner of this party is a living cognitive dissonance, and that theme continues within the party as well.
Part of her party says that Germany is a colony of the United States, yet Alice and others were very very happy and proud to be endorsed by Elon Musk, who knows next to zero about German politics by the way. The AfD was AGAINST his Tesla plant in Brandenburg, among other things.
The party got 20,5%, much of which came from the former east of Germany, where in some regions, the party got above 40%.
Ever since the wall came down, the east has had a significant Nazi undercurrent, but this is the first time, these people are included in a party that also covers part of the conservative spectrum.
The one good thing about the 20,5% is that Elon Musk and J.D. Vance with all their praise for AfD did not really move the needle. By and large, no one in Germany cares what Elon thinks and says we should vote.

Die Linke

The one big surprise was the party Die Linke (quite left party), which was polling at 4% 3 months ago and gained almost 9% of the vote now. They ended up absolutely dominating Berlin, where they pretty much doubled their previous results, regardless of district. So if they were 14 before they were 28 now and so on.
This is a BIG surprise for me. I knew that some districts are left, but that Die Linke ends up the strongest party in Berlin as a whole, and dominating even some rich districts, is crazy!
How’d they do it? They became TikTok famous, had a very very motivated base of primarily women, ran on social fairness and taxing the rich more and I think they also fished some votes with their stance on the Israel-Palestine matter.
But honestly, the deciding factor was them going viral. The AfD has been using social media for years to get into the heads of young people and Die Linke was the first party who managed to authentically do it as well, and it worked.

FDP and BSW

FDP is the liberal party of Germany. They were in government now and they were the ones obstructing a lot of things and ultimately blowing it up, hoping to form a coalition government with CDU after the elections, because they just like the conservatives better.
Well… didn’t work. It was a close call, but they missed the 5% hurdle and are out of parliament. Their front runner Christian Lindner is stepping back from politics which makes me very happy.
He’s going to sit around on some board and get big money while doing nothing.

BSW is a new party that is named after Sarah Wagenknecht. She used to be a prominent face in Die Linke, but left about a year ago to form her own party and get some serious money from Russia. She is left on some issues, right on other issues and I think her main and unique selling point is that she likes Russia and wants Germany to stop all support. I know more than one person who have considered voting for her just because of that, which ultimately has nothing to do with Ukraine at all but simply with the fear of a big nuclear war.
I think her play was to leave Die Linke and take most voters with her, but she failed and they didn’t make the 5% hurdle either. It was super close though, and them getting in would have changed the configuration of possible majorities significantly, so BSW and FDP being in or out were absolute game-changing things even though the parties are small at the moment.
I think part of the people who followed her from Linke to BSW are now big sad, because they won’t work in parliament while Die Linke is drowning in seats.

Voter participation

And here we have really great news. The voter participation rate was 84%, and it could have yet been higher if all the people abroad had gotten their ballot on time (many didn’t, so couldn’t vote. Law suits in 3,2,1).
84% is the highest number we had since the 90s. Many people joined parties and I have heard a lot of politics talk in cafés and bars, so people did participate, which is a great sign for democracy, regardless of the result.

Now what?

The one coalition that everyone is kind of expecting now is CDU/CSU with SPD, which is also called “grand coalition”, since those two parties each have close to a million members and used to be the big kids on the block.
Besides that, also CDU and AfD would have a majority. For that to happen, I think AfD would need to get rid of certain people who are fairly openly Nazis though, which, as it looks, they’re not willing or able to do. Also Alice Weidel saying things like “Hitler was a communist” makes me doubt CDU/CSU is able to stomach a coalition, regardless of how much overlap there may be in terms of substance (and there is significant overlap).

The third option would be a minority government with the Greens that gets tolerated by SPD, but I think the only reason for that would be to keep Habeck in government, which is something Friedrich Merz low-key would like (my personal opinion). But this is never happening because the gaps between the CDU/CSU in its current form and the Greens are too big, and the leader of CSU Markus Söder from Bavaria has “Greens derangement syndrome”, a medical condition that compels him to only talk about the Greens and say how bad they are.

One of the first issues the CDU as the winner have raised was whining about the new election rules being unfair and needing to be changed back so we have a bloated parliament again. Priorities, I guess.
They also said, we need to reform the debt brake, something they were staunchly against just a week ago.

None of this is surprising.

My personal hope is that they do a coalition with the AfD, so the AfD can finally start tearing itself apart from the inside. Something you do not need to do, if you’re opposition and running “against the system”. But when in government, all the cracks will become apparent.
I want them in government now, and there’s a good chance that this coalition will blow up eventually. I also think once the rich got their tax cuts, they’ll be happy and stop pushing the society to the right with money and media (Die Welt, Bild).
There’s a poll where 83% of respondents say they perceive their personal situation as good, but below 20% of the same respondents perceive the economic situation of the country as good.
This is the result of this constant media brainwash.

If we get a grand coalition, everyone gets bored, SPD will lose even more votes and the AfD will get 25%+ next time and possibly end up the strongest party.

All right.
So that’s my personal view on where things are at the moment. Let’s see what happens.

And now, if you’re up for it, here are the last 14 questions of the Wahl-O-Mat.
It’s quite long, so feel free to stop at any time.  Or skip to the last question, where I break down how much taxes and social security you pay in Germany, if you’re working minimum wage :) (spoiler: it ain’t half the money).

Wahl-O-Mat – The Last 14 Questions

The Question:

• In Deutschland soll die 35-Stunden-Woche als gesetzliche Regelarbeitszeit für alle Beschäftigten festgelegt werden.
• The 35-hour workweek should be established as the standard legal working time for all employees in Germany.

What’s this about: 

Currently, the standard full time work week is 40 hours, which means 8 hours per day effective working time.
This is NOT a legal standard though, but rather a widespread (market) consensus. The law says no more than 8 hours per day (exceptions are possible) and 6 days a week.
People want to work less and ideally, they want the same pay. The employer side is of course not interested at all in people working less for the same pay.
The push for putting it into law what full time actually means exactly is to force employers who tend to rest on the “40 hours is the standard so if you work less, you get less money”.
Something like that.
Me personally, I lean toward being against this. People should have more freedom to work longer if they want to and the 35 hour workweek should be a result of a free market, not of policy. But I haven’t really looked into any arguments of either side, so this is pure gut opinion.

Language used: 

I can’t think of anything specific, so let’s just move on :)

The Question:

• Schwangerschaftsabbrüche sollen in den ersten drei Monaten weiterhin nur nach Beratung straffrei sein.
• Abortions should continue to be permitted without penalty in the first three months only after counseling

What’s this about: 

The current situation is as follows: abortions are illegal based on law and punishable by jail time. This is §218, that you might hear in talk shows.
However, the law also states, that it is free of punishment if the following conditions are met:

• within the first 3 months,
• the WOMAN wants it (not the man)
• the woman takes counselling from a state certified person (usually a doctor),
• it is performed by a doctor
• and the person performing the abortion is not the same person that did the counselling.

This is a compromise between progressive forces in society and the conservative side and the church.
Basically, you can get an abortion, but you have to talk to someone about it before. I don’t really know how these counselling look like. Some people argue that women get pressured and guilt tripped into keeping the child. However, I think mostly, it’s just an informational talk about the risks of the abortion and the possible consequences, so the woman really makes an informed decision.
Either way, the question is basically about whether the legal situation should stay as is. So abortion is formally illegal, but not punished, if done within 3 months and after counselling.
Parts of society want the §218 removed, so this basic notion of illegality is gone.

Language used: 

This is a great example for how this whole “stuff at the end” thing forcing native speakers to wait till the end.
In many instances, a native speaker will be able to guess mid-sentence what the verb is going to be. The elements and context simply lead toward one conclusion. Not so in this case though. The verb is “straffrei sein” (free of punishment), but unless you’re really familiar with the matter, it could just as well be “verboten sein” or “möglich sein”.
So here, a politician in a talk-show would really need to wait  and could not just interrupt mid sentence.

The Question: 

• Der Euro soll in Deutschland durch eine nationale Währung ersetzt werden.
• The Euro should be replaced by a national currency in Germany.

What’s this about:

The Euro was introduced in 2001 or so, and some people are still big sad about it and think Germany is much better off with its own currency, because then “We wouldn’t have to pay for lazy southern Europeans” .
It’s mainly the AfD that wants this, but mainly to pacify the party wing that is still big sad about the olden days.

 Language used:

No notes here, so I’ll just recall the use of soll for should. Using soll make the German statement basically a paraphrase of “I want that….”. That’s the vibe it has, while sollte sounds a bit more “objective” in the sense that it could mean “It might be good if.. but it’s not necessarily what I want.”

The Question:

• Beim Ausbau der Verkehrsinfrastruktur soll die Schiene Vorrang vor der Straße haben.
• When expanding transportation infrastructure, rail should take priority over road.

What’s this about: 

This one is pretty self explanatory. The federal government owns the rail network as well as the Autobahn and it does all kinds of infrastructure maintenance and also expansion and the question is whether rail or road should have “first dibs”. So if there’s funding for a new rail-line or a new autobahn, which one should they go for.
Rail is faster, cheaper and more environmental friendly than road. For instance, you can go from Berlin to Munich in 4,5 hours, all the while sitting comfy with WIFI, while it’s 6,5 hours by car (unless you go 200, of course).
Having more such connections would be a big upgrade, in my opinion.

Language used:

Maybe we could note the word der Vorrang, or let’s say the phrase Vorrang haben vor, it’s usually used as the full phrase. It’s a formal phrase for the idea of having priority over something else.
And the noun die Schiene, which is the word for a single rail track but which is also used for rail as a concept. It’s related to English shin and the original sense of the common Germanic ancestor was long, narrow log.

The Question:

• Ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten sollen auf die zukünftige Rente angerechnet werden.
• Volunteering work should be credited toward future pensions.

What’s this about: 

Of course there needs to be at least one question about pensions :).
Pensions are a BIG topic in German politics and have been ever since I can think. I feel like Germans are actually a bit obsessed with the topic and I have seen many talk shows recently where you people, in their early 20s, were worried about not getting save pensions when they’re old.
And I’m like… Bro, Bro-essa… be young, be wild, be free! Build something, get rich. What the hell are you worrying about pensions!
I think they just hear it from parents and grandparents and the media and so they just kind of join the talk.
And I’m wondering… is this a German thing, or do young people do that in your country too? Let me know in the comments please :).
But anyway… the pension you get from the government depends on how many years you have worked or paid into the fund and how much you earned. And the question is as to whether volunteering should be counted as work. So suppose you work 20 hours a week and volunteer for refugees another 20, and you do that for 5 years, should those 20 weekly hours be considered normal working time or not.
My first reaction was “Yeah, of course.” but not soon after I started second guessing because first of all, this opens a HUGE opportunity for fraud where people just volunteer on paper and the other aspect is that maybe, some of those volunteer positions  could and should actually be a proper job. I have not made up my mind about this and probably there are one bazillion arguments I have no clue about.

Language used:

Two notes here – first the word das Ehrenamt, which literally means honor position. German also has the word freiwillig, which is “free willed” and which is the number one translation for voluntary. But in the context of volunteering work, Ehrenamt and ehrenamtlich are more common, because that has more focus on there being some sort of fixed position.
Helpers after a natural disaster would be freiwillige Helfer, because it’s more immediate and momentary.

And then, we have the verb anrechnen, which is basically about the idea of adding (an-) something to someone’s balance.
In the context of a refund after returning a package on Amazon, the better term is gutschreiben though, because you get something back.

The Question: 

• Die Grundsteuer soll weiterhin auf Mieterinnen und Mieter umgelegt werden dürfen.
• Property tax should continue to be allowed to be passed on to tenants.

What this is about:

If you own land, a house or an apartment, you have to pay property tax. It’s levied by the municipality, so it can vary widely across regions.
Landlords can and typically do pass on their annual property tax to their tenants as part of the so-called Nebenkosten (additional costs, ancillary costs). Apparently, some parties want to change that and I am all for it because I view property is an asset that increases in value over time. The property tax is a tax on this asset and I really don’t see one single f***ing reason why the tenants should pay it, as they’re NOT the benefactors of the asset’s increase in value.

Language used:

For one thing, we have another nice verb cluster … soll umgelegt werden dürfen (should be allowed to be passed on).
One day, you’ll be able to do this :).
And also interesting is the phrase umlegen auf, which is a really common term for the idea of taking some sort of cost and dividing it up onto a bunch of others.
Like for instance the monthly coffee bean cost of an office could be umgelegt auf every single employee. Think of it as an excel sheet that is flipped over and overlaid onto another excel sheet.
Not really a verb you’ll need to use in practice but I’m sure you’ll see it sooner or later.

The Question:

• Das Streikrecht für Beschäftigte in Unternehmen der kritischen Infrastruktur soll gesetzlich eingeschränkt werden.
• The right to strike for employees in critical infrastructure companies should be legally restricted.

What’s this about: 

As far as I am aware, workers in civil service and critical infrastructure are largely forbidden from striking. I don’t know the ins and outs of this and there have been multiple strikes for instance by rail and also garbage collection and also police, but I also think that those are rarely “all out”.
So I understand the question as asking for FURTHER restrictions, but I am actually not sure. Maybe it’s just about keeping the status quo and not loosening it.

Language used:

Nice example for einschränken, which makes me visually think of putting a tight frame around something. German also has the verb limitieren, but the vibe of that is more about numbers and a limit.

The Question: 

• In Deutschland soll es auf Bundesebene Volksentscheide geben können.
• In Germany, there should be referendums at federal level.

What’s this about:

Germany does NOT have the option for referendums on a federal level, except when it’s about redrawing state lines.
The reason for this is that Germany has had bad experiences with it and when the Basic Law (our constitution) was written, the people decided to focus on Germany being a representative democracy. The idea is that decisions are made by representatives who are more capable of making complex decisions for the good of the country.
The people designing the Grundgesetz were afraid of the way populists could misuse federal referendums.
Proponents of federal referendums usually cry “democracy”, but the reality is that referendums are possible on state and local levels and that there usually isn’t much participation at all, so a lot of people do not actually want to be asked on an individual basis.
And also, the people who whine about “their voice being silenced” usually also do not have any interest in actually participating in democracy on a municipal level, where they could join a party and affect real change and policy and also rise through the ranks. There is plenty of opportunity, but instead of using it, they complain about an opportunity that they don’t have, because that’s always easier than actually doing something.
I am in favor of no federal referendums. I think most people are capable of making an informed decision in their interest in THEORY, but most people are NOT able to make an informed decision in their interest if they’re bombarded with opinion manufacturing from interest groups. It’s also hugely distracting for a society. I personally prefer the moderating buffer of a parliament.

Language used: 

Nothing particularly special here besides the word der Volksentscheid which literally means “people’s decision”.
We do have the word das Referendum too, and you may find it in the same context, but I think Volksentscheid is the legal term.

The Question: 

• Unter 14-Jährige sollen strafrechtlich belangt werden können.
• Under 14-year-olds should be able to be prosecuted.

What’s this about:

Currently, those under 14 can not be subject to criminal prosecution. However, sometimes under 14 year olds do commit serious crimes like drug related things or homicide or murder.
Currently, depending on the crime, they might be put into rehabilitation centers or just get counselling, but they cannot be put in jail and do not get a criminal record.
Some people argue that the age should be lowered and that, say, a 13 year old should be treated like a young adult instead of like a child.

Language used:

First of, I want to point out belangen and belangt werden, which is a typical formal translation for to prosecute. The focus is here on the concrete court case, and not on the general act of going after someone.
The other thing I want to mention is more about English. I am not sure as to how idiomatic it is to say “should be able to be prosecuted”. To me, it sounds odd, because it sounds like being prosecuted is some sort of skill.

The German können is different because here it covers the notion of possibility. The sentence sounds less like something under 14 year olds are “able to do” but what possibilities there are for them.
Let me know in the comments if the English translation is accurate and idiomatic and if it feels weird in any way. To me it does, but DeepL, ChatGPT and LeChat (Mistral) used this phrasing.

The Question:

• Deutschland soll sich für die Abschaffung der erhöhten EU-Zölle auf chinesische Elektroautos einsetzen.
• Germany should advocate for the abolition of the increased EU tariffs on Chinese electric cars.

What’s this about: 

In 2024, the EU introduced tariffs on electric cars coming from China, with rates ranging from 17% to 35%, depending on the brand/manufacturer.
Official reasoning is that Chinese car makers are heavily subsidized, which may be the case, but EU subsidizes all kinds of things too. The real reason is that Europe wants to protect its own manufacturers.
Apparently, Germany has been a voice AGAINST the tariffs, because German automakers fear that retaliatory tariffs could hurt their exports to China. Also, their current EV offerings kind of suck, and they’d love to keep building and exporting gas engines, I guess.

Language used: 

Nice example for sich einsetzen für which is a common way to express the idea of promoting or fighting for. You could maybe think of it as “put oneself in the seat of something”.
Also a great example for the huge arc that reflexive structures like this can create. Reflexive pronouns usually come SUPER early (soll sich) so in that moment, we’re starting the verb already, but then it takes till the end for the payoff. Of course, we also have the arc of soll…. einsetzen, but I feel like the connection of a verb with its reflexive pronoun is much stronger, so having them this far apart creates quite a bit of suspense and subsequent “relief”. Wait for it, wait for it…. wait for it a little longer. Hold on, just one more noun group… and bammmm. The prophecy has been fulfilled.

The Question:

• In Deutschland soll es weiterhin generell möglich sein, neben der deutschen eine zweite Staatsbürgerschaft zu haben.
• In Germany, it should continue to generally be possible to have a second citizenship in addition to German citizenship.

What’s this about:

This is pretty self explanatory, so no notes.

Language Used: 

And no notes here either :).

The Question:

• Für junge Erwachsene soll ein soziales Pflichtjahr eingeführt werden.
• A compulsory year of social service should be introduced for young adults.

What’s this about: 

Currently, in Germany there is a so called “Freiwilliges soziales Jahr”, FSJ for short.
This means that you work one year full-time in the social field in some sort of support position, gaining work experience, bridging wait times for studies, orienting yourself in life and contributing to society.
Possible fields can be youth centers, retirement homes, museums, public gardens, nature reserves, NGOs and so on.
Of course, it’s NOT meant to be a role that you need proper training for.

Back in the day when we had mandatory military service for men, this used to be the replacement option for those who did not want to serve due to pacifistic word-views or  physical lack of fitness.

I guess some parties want to make this year mandatory, but I feel like there’s a danger of it being used by companies and places to get cheap labor, which is NOT the idea.
It could however help alleviate pressure from certain sectors, like for instance retirement home care. I used to do the mandatory civil service in such a place. You’re not supposed to do any actual care work that you’d need an education for, but you can help staff with cleaning rooms, feeding people, helping with making the bed and so on. And you’re one person there that is NOT stressed out and so you have some time to actually engage with the people living there.
If it becomes mandatory, there needs to be a good system in place to make sure it’s not abused.

Language used: 

Nice example for the verb einführen as a translation for introduce and how it’s different from vorstellen.  If introduce is used with the focus presenting, then vorstellen is the way to go. einführen is about adding in practice.

The Question:

• Neue Heizungen sollen auch zukünftig vollständig mit fossilen Brennstoffen (z. B. Gas oder Öl) betrieben werden dürfen.
• New heating systems should still be allowed to run entirely on fossil fuels (e.g. gas or oil) in the future.

What’s this about: 

The question boils down to whether you should be allowed to install a new heater into your home that purely runs on oil or gas.
At the moment, that’s how the majority of heating systems work, but Germany wants to lower its emissions and one way to do that is to switch from oil/gas heating to a heat pump which is run on electricity.

The question is NOT about whether you can operate your already installed heater. It’s about whether you can install a completely new one that fully runs on burning fossil fuels.

I don’t know where I stand on this. I do think that Germany should steer in the direction of weaning us off from oil and gas, but I’m not sure as to whether incentivizing  and marketing heat-pumps could be enough and more productive than bans. Give proper incentives and let the market do the rest.
Banning things often creates a bigger backlash.

Language used:

We’ve seen the word weiterhin a LOT in these questions. Here, they finally switched it up and used auch zukünftig. I can’t really find a relevant difference in meaning. Maybe it’s sounding a little more focused on the future, rather than continuity, but if the question had weiterhin in it, I would have understood it the exact same way.
Other than that, we have vollständig, which is a good formal word to have for the sense of completely.

The Question:

• Der gesetzliche Mindestlohn soll spätestens 2026 auf 15 Euro erhöht werden.
• The statutory minimum wage is to be increased to 15 euros by 2026 at the latest.

What’s this about:

For a long time, Germany didn’t have a federal minimum wage. It was introduced in 2015 and was 8,50 Euro back then.
Over time, it was raised to the current level 12,28.
Proponents of a further increase say that it has not kept up with inflation and they want to raise it to 15 Euro, which is an increase of 20% from the current level.
I find that interesting because this would mean that inflation since 2015 has totaled almost 80%. The official rise in prices is about 15% but of course that highly depends on where you live and what you buy. New rents in big cities for instance have increased way more than that.
I think the 15% number is too low and does not reflect the reality of many people, but I also do not think that prices have almost doubled since 2015.
So if small and medium businesses say that they cannot afford to pay 15 Euro, I kind of believe them, because I don’t think they have doubled their prices since 2015, but they will have to raise them to pay this new wage.

Also, I think 12,28 is okay-ish.
Actually, let’s break it down, so you get an idea of what you make in a low-wage job in Germany.
A person working for minimum wage in Berlin full-time (160 hours a month) would have a monthly pay of roughly 1950 Euro.
Here’s the breakdown of what they’d have to get deducted from their income:

•  182 Euro  – pension insurance
• 167 Euro – health insurance
• 47 Euro – long-term care insurance
•  25 Euro – unemployment insurance
• 87 Euro – taxes <—– THIS is taxes, the rest is NOT
• Total deductions:  508 (26%)

Little side note –  lots of people who earn this amount or slightly above are whining about the government taking away half the income in taxes. They’re arguing like they make 100k a year or more not realizing that they’re actively arguing against their own self-interest.

Anyway, so a person working full-time minimum wage without any extra pay (weekend or night shifts or tips) will have 1442  Euro take-home pay. Whether or not this is enough highly depends on your living situation and how much rent you pay, but I am not sure if raising it 20% is justified and sustainable without businesses passing on the cost to the consumer.
Which by the way is also a form of “redistribution”. More affluent people will pay more for goods and services that people with less money might skip out on. So the more affluent people will contribute to the raised minimum wage.

And here comes a hot take: Me personally, I’d rather pay more in lump sum taxes and LESS when I go to have a cocktail. So I’d prefer a slight tax increase if in turn the deductions and employer contributions get lowered so people take home more of their salary, which would have the same effect as raising minimum wage, but at a lower overall price level (at the cost of more redistribution in form of taxes).

But this is really just my opinion :).

Language used: 

No notes :).

***

And that’s it.
Phew!!
This is probably the longest article I have ever written here, and I thought about splitting it into two, but then I decided against it because we’ve had enough politics and it’s time to get back to German learning again :).

Thanks a lot for being up for this, I really enjoyed switching up the topic for once and also reading your thoughts and impressions in the comments.
Like I said… regardless of results, I think 84% voter participation is a great sign and it makes me optimistic for the future.
This election has changed something in how people engage with politics in Germany, and I think it changed for the better.

Anyway, that’s it for today. Let me know all your thoughts and questions in the comments.
I hope you enjoyed this, have a great week and I’ll see you next time with… gasp… German learning content!
Bis dann!!