The coalition is launching a relief package so that citizens can better cope with the high energy prices. There is criticism of the scope and distribution of financial aid.
The federal government’s planned relief package to compensate for increased energy prices has met with a lot of criticism. The Parity Welfare Association complained that it was socially unfair. The environmental organization Greenpeace made a similar statement. The opposition in the Bundestag also spoke of insufficient measures.
The coalition of SPD, Greens and FDP had agreed to abolish the green electricity levy, which has been part of the electricity price, as early as July. The commuter allowance is to be raised retroactively to January 1 from the 21st kilometer. The employee lump sum for income tax will be increased by 200 euros to 1200 euros. Children affected by poverty should receive an immediate surcharge of 20 euros per month from July 1st because of the high energy prices. Recipients of unemployment benefit II, basic security and social assistance should receive a one-off subsidy of 100 euros.
Criticism from the CDU and CSU
The CDU and CSU described the resolutions as insufficient. “Even after the decision of the coalition, the state earns more from taxes and certificates from the skyrocketing energy prices than the traffic light now wants to give back for relief,” criticized the energy expert of the Union faction in the Bundestag, Andreas Jung (CDU). “In order to effectively relieve the burden on citizens and companies, further taxes must therefore be reduced: electricity tax, network charges and value added tax on electricity, gas and district heating.”
CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt made a similar statement. The abolition of the EEG levy is too small a building block, he criticized. “The federal government has to get to the taxes.” With the commuter flat rate, after the traffic light decisions, only a mini-relief for long-distance commuters remains. CSU financial expert Sebastian Brehm said: “Red-green-yellow leaves the people out in the rain who keep our country running with their work and thus ensure that money comes into the treasury.”
“This is a fatal result,” said Ulrich Schneider, general manager of the Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband, of the German Press Agency: “Instead of targeted support for those who really need it, the money is poured out with the watering can. The households with the largest wallets and the highest power consumption benefit. Hartz IV recipients are once again left behind with a completely inadequate payment of a one-off payment of 100 euros. » The result of the coalition committee is neither ecologically goal-oriented nor budget-wise sensible and certainly not social.
Linke board member Maximilian Becker called the relief package “an indictment of social and climate policy”. It will not relieve the people who are particularly affected by the increased energy prices. “Because while poor people get a one-time subsidy of just 100 euros, high earners can look forward to a few hundred euros more in their wallets thanks to the increase in the commuter allowance. The manager will benefit more from the traffic light relief package than the commuting nurse,” criticized Becker.
reactions
The Association of Municipal Companies (VKU), of which municipal energy suppliers are members, reacted mostly positively. The early abolition of the EEG surcharge is absolutely correct, said VKU general manager Ingbert Liebing. “Of course, the municipal utilities will pass on the elimination of the EEG surcharge and implement it in full when the new price calculations are now pending,” he assured. It is also true that the coalition has decided to provide support, especially for low-income households, in the form of the heating cost subsidy. However, further measures such as reducing the electricity tax are necessary.
Greenpeace traffic expert Marion Tiemann called the increase in the commuter allowance “the opposite of social justice”. As a rule, people from the suburbs or the surrounding area, who had to travel long distances to get above-average paying jobs, benefited the most from this. In order to help low-income households, “the federal government should instead only increase the flat rate for income-related expenses”.
Source: Stern
Jane Stock is a technology author, who has written for 24 Hours World. She writes about the latest in technology news and trends, and is always on the lookout for new and innovative ways to improve his audience’s experience.
