Monday, May 18, 2015

Günther Jauch TV criticism: Performs heirs to growing injustice? – RP ONLINE

According to a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany inheritance must be changed. It’s about the requirements for being spared from companies heirs in inheritance tax. The Karlsruhe holds in principle for appropriate, but disproportionate. Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) wants now that companies and workers generally protected and will never be paid out of the operating out the inheritance tax must – for which he earns a lot of criticism but

What is fair when it comes to that. heirs goes? After that asks not only the political process but also the employed Günther Jauch in his mission on Sunday evening. “Undeservingness rich – heir is fair?” was the title of his mission. But Jauch seemed less the current political debate, but rather the book by journalist Julia Friedrichs, entitled “We heirs. What money does to people” to take the opportunity to discuss the issue.

Friedrichs, the shares has inherited a house, sees the new heritage Gsell stem to be unjust. In their view, there is a growing injustice, because here rather count the descent than the performance. And they kept trying to explain – and at the same time made thus creating a powerful advertisement for her book

Jauch but still had other guests invited.. There were castle heiress Stephanie Countess von Pfuel, poverty researcher Christoph Butterwegge, wealth researcher Thomas Dryen and drugstore operator Dirk Rossmann. The moderator tried to instigate an envy debate, giving him but hardly succeeded. Only Dryen stated that his feeling after the envy debate was greater in Germany than in other countries.

It turned out rather that it is not about envy or non-envy, but to different points of view from the each biography out. Pfuel about stressed that she has prepared 20 years its role has studied extra-forestry instead of their desired profession, so that they can inherit the legacy and it is justice – and now of course also employers. Rossmann again made it clear that he would never inherit his sons his business, if they had not been shown to be able and willing. Butterwegge again it took the opportunity to put the issue of justice in the foreground. Expectable positions in a rather tepid shipment

There were then Butterwegge and Rossmann, who dominated the debate -. And, of course, could not agree what brought at least a little fire in the debate. Rossmann repeatedly emphasized that it still comes to the performance of the state as a whole. Because if heirs of company would heavily taxed, even jobs could be at risk. Butterwegge against heirs keeps for a good time to take responsibility. But he means to pay inheritance tax. And a rate of 50 percent could be there in it for him perfectly.

Obviously, no one wanted to be different from both of its view. And therein sees assets researchers Dryen because the big issue of debate as a whole. If you continue to Bypass so confrontational with the issue, you do not get ahead, he said – and suggested to look individually, which heirs do with their inherited. True to the motto: Who does nothing socially, can it also neatly pay taxes

-ad-slot = “4812096195″ data-max-num-ads = “1″ />

LikeTweet

No comments:

Post a Comment