IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/80-36-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Familiensplitting der CDU/CSU: Hohe Kosten bei geringer Entlastung für einkommensschwache Familien

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Ochmann
  • Katharina Wrohlich

Abstract

As part of their election manifesto, under the heading "family income splitting", the German Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CDU/CSU) has proposed increasing child benefits by 35 euros per month and raising the tax-free allowance for dependent children to the same level as the basic personal tax exemption for adults. According to calculations by DIW Berlin, if this proposal were to be implemented, families with children would be around 700 euros a year better off, on average. The higher the family's income, the more tax relief they would receive. Families in the lowest income decile only stand to gain an average of just under 300 euros per year, while those in the upper decile will be approximately 840 euros per year better off. Consequently, tax relief for low-income families is below average and yet, the total cost of the reform is more than seven billion euros per annum. In the context of family taxation, the French family income splitting system is frequently cited as a model. The present study outlines the German family allowance system and also the reform proposed by the CDU/CSU as examples of "real" family income splitting (Familienrealsplitting) and compares them, in terms of their structure and impact, with the French system of "notional" family income splitting (tarifliches Familiensplitting). The analysis reveals that the current German model is already, to a great extent, more generous than the French one. Should they be implemented, the CDU/CSU plans would further increase the financial benefits already provided to German families under the current system. However, it is generally the case that all income splitting models have the serious disadvantage of undermining the important family policy goal of enabling a reconciliation of work and family life. [...] Die CDU/CSU schlägt in ihrem Wahlprogramm unter dem Stichwort Familiensplitting vor, das Kindergeld um 35 Euro pro Monat zu erhöhen und den Kinderfreibetrag auf die Höhe des Grundfreibetrags für Erwachsene anzuheben. Dies würde nach Berechnung des DIW Berlin Familien mit Kindern durchschnittlich um rund 700 Euro pro Jahr entlasten. Die Entlastung steigt mit dem Einkommen. Im untersten Zehntel (Dezil) der Einkommensverteilung beträgt die durchschnittliche Entlastung der Familien knapp 300 Euro pro Jahr, während sie im obersten Zehntel rund 840 Euro ausmacht. Familien mit geringen Einkommen werden also unterdurchschnittlich entlastet. Insgesamt kostet die Reform mehr als sieben Milliarden Euro pro Jahr. Im Zusammenhang mit der Familienbesteuerung wird häufig das französische Familiensplitting als Vorbild genannt. In dieser Studie werden der deutsche Familienleistungsausgleich sowie der Reformvorschlag der Union als Varianten eines Familienrealsplittings in Art und Wirkung mit dem tariflichen Familiensplitting in Frankreich verglichen. Es zeigt sich, dass schon das bestehende deutsche Modell in weiten Teilen großzügiger ist als das französische. Die finanziellen Vorteile für deutsche Familien würden sich bei Umsetzung der Unionspläne vergrößern. Generell haben alle Splittingmodelle den gravierenden Nachteil, dass sie dem familienpolitischen Ziel der Vereinbarkeit von Beruf und Familie entgegenwirken. Angesichts der hohen fiskalischen Kosten des Unionsvorschlags sollte deswegen in Erwägung gezogen werden, die Mittel eher in Maßnahmen zu investieren, die einen solchen Zielkonflikt nicht aufweisen, wie zum Beispiel den Ausbau qualitativ hochwertiger Kinderbetreuung.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Ochmann & Katharina Wrohlich, 2013. "Familiensplitting der CDU/CSU: Hohe Kosten bei geringer Entlastung für einkommensschwache Familien," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(36), pages 3-11.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-36-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.426851.de/13-36-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Bach & Johannes Geyer & Peter Haan & Katharina Wrohlich, 2011. "Reform des Ehegattensplittings: nur eine reine Individualbesteuerung erhöht die Erwerbsanreize deutlich," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 78(41), pages 13-19.
    2. Kai-Uwe Müller & C. Katharina Spieß & Katharina Wrohlich, 2013. "Rechtsanspruch auf Kitaplatz ab zweitem Lebensjahr: Erwerbsbeteiligung von Müttern wird steigen und Kinder können in ihrer Entwicklung profitieren," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(32), pages 3-12.
    3. Baclet, Alexandre & Dell, Fabien & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2005. "Income Taxation and Household Size: Would French Family Splitting Make German Families Better Off?," IZA Discussion Papers 1894, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Stefan Bach & Imke Brüggemann-Borck & Ferdinand Fichtner & Kristina van Deuverden, 2013. "Aktuelle Steuerreformvorschläge haben kaum Auswirkungen auf das Wirtschaftswachstum," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(35), pages 3-10.
    5. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2006. "Familiensplitting begünstigt einkommensstarke Familien, geringe Auswirkungen auf das Arbeitsangebot," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 73(31), pages 441-449.
    6. Bergs, Christian & Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas & Schaefer, Thilo, 2006. "Das Familienrealsplitting als Reformoption der Familienbesteuerung," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 86(10), pages 639-644.
    7. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich & Peter Haan & Johannes Geyer, 2008. "Documentation of the Tax-Benefit Microsimulation Model STSM: Version 2008," Data Documentation 31, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    8. Stefan Bach & Peter Haan & Richard Ochmann, 2013. "Reformvorschläge zur Einkommensteuer: mehr echte und weniger kalte Progression," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(30), pages 3-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Richard Ochmann, 2013. "Reformvorschläge zur Familienbesteuerung," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 1, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Becker, Irene & Schüssler, Reinhard, 2014. "Das Grundsicherungsniveau: Ergebnis der Verteilungsentwicklung und normativer Setzungen. Eine empirische Analyse auf Basis der EVS 2003 und 2008," Arbeitspapiere 298, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf.
    3. Holger Bonin & Anita Fichtl & Helmut Rainer & C. Katharina Spieß & Holger Stichnoth & Katharina Wrohlich, 2013. "Zentrale Resultate der Gesamtevaluation familienbezogener Leistungen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(40), pages 3-13.
    4. Hermann Buslei & Katharina Wrohlich, 2014. "Besteuerung von Paaren: das Ehegattensplitting und seine Alternativen," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 21, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Margit Schratzenstaller, 2015. "Familienleistungen und familienpolitische Instrumente in ausgewählten europäischen Ländern," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 88(3), pages 195-209, March.
    6. Holger Bonin & Anita Fichtl & Helmut Rainer & C. Katharina Spieß & Holger Stichnoth & Katharina Wrohlich & Anita Dietrich, 2013. "Lessons for Family Policy – Central Results of the Ex-Post-Evaluation of Monetary Family Related Benefits in Germany," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 66(18), pages 22-30, October.
    7. Eichhorst, Werner, 2013. "Wie weiter am deutschen Arbeitsmarkt?," IZA Standpunkte 61, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Margit Schratzenstaller, 2014. "Familienpolitik in ausgewählten europäischen Ländern im Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 50840, February.
    9. Margit Schratzenstaller, 2015. "Family Benefits and Family Policy in Selected European Countries," WIFO Bulletin, WIFO, vol. 20(15), pages 166-179, September.
    10. Bofinger, Peter & Buch, Claudia M. & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2013. "Gegen eine rückwärtsgewandte Wirtschaftspolitik. Jahresgutachten 2013/14 [Against a backward-looking economic policy. Annual Report 2013/14]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201314.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Margit Schratzenstaller, 2014. "Familienpolitik in ausgewählten europäischen Ländern im Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 50840, February.
    2. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2008. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution, Work Incentives, and Household Welfare?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 64(1), pages 115-142, March.
    3. Bofinger, Peter & Buch, Claudia M. & Feld, Lars P. & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Wieland, Volker, 2013. "Gegen eine rückwärtsgewandte Wirtschaftspolitik. Jahresgutachten 2013/14 [Against a backward-looking economic policy. Annual Report 2013/14]," Annual Economic Reports / Jahresgutachten, German Council of Economic Experts / Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, volume 127, number 201314.
    4. Fichte, Damian & Herrmann, Karolin & Lemmer, Jens & Schemmel, Lothar & Stern, Volker & Warneke, Matthias, 2013. "Bausteine für eine Reform des Steuersystems: Das DSi-Handbuch Steuern," DSi-Schriften 1, DSi - Deutsches Steuerzahlerinstitut des Bundes der Steuerzahler e.V., Berlin.
    5. Junyi Zhu, 2014. "Bracket Creep Revisited - with and without r > g: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 23(3), pages 106-158, November.
    6. Stefan Bach, 2014. ""Reichensteuer"-Diskussion: Hintergrund und Perspektiven," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 16, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    7. Manuel Schechtl, 2020. "Taxation of Families and “Families of Taxation”? Inequality Modification Between Family Types Across Welfare States," LIS Working papers 800, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    8. Wrohlich, Katharina, 2006. "Labor Supply and Child Care Choices in a Rationed Child Care Market," IZA Discussion Papers 2053, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Nina Hetzer & Andreas Peichl, 2010. "Tax reform despite empty public coffers?!," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 63(01), pages 28-35, January.
    10. Schaefer, Thilo & Peichl, Andreas, 2006. "Documentation FiFoSiM: integrated tax benefit microsimulation and CGE model," FiFo Discussion Papers - Finanzwissenschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 06-10, University of Cologne, FiFo Institute for Public Economics.
    11. Christina Boll & Malte Jahn & Andreas Lagemann, 2017. "The gender lifetime earnings gap—exploring gendered pay from the life course perspective," Journal of Income Distribution, Ad libros publications inc., vol. 25(1), pages 1-53, March.
    12. Chang Woon Nam & Christoph Zeiner, 2015. "Effects of Bracket Creep and Tax Reform on Average Personal Income Tax Burden in Germany," CESifo Working Paper Series 5626, CESifo.
    13. Holger Bonin & Anita Fichtl & Helmut Rainer & C. Katharina Spieß & Holger Stichnoth & Katharina Wrohlich, 2013. "Zentrale Resultate der Gesamtevaluation familienbezogener Leistungen," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 80(40), pages 3-13.
    14. Haan, Peter & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2011. "Can child care policy encourage employment and fertility?: Evidence from a structural model," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 498-512, August.
    15. Stefan Bach & Martin Beznoska & Viktor Steiner, 2016. "Wer trägt die Steuerlast in Deutschland? Verteilungswirkungen des deutschen Steuer- und Transfersystems: Forschungsprojekt, gefördert von der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, volume 114, number pbk114, Enero-Abr.
    16. Viktor Steiner & Katharina Wrohlich, 2006. "Introducing Family Tax Splitting in Germany: How Would It Affect the Income Distribution and Work Incentives," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 612, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    17. Clemens Fuest & Björn Kauder & Luisa Lorenz & Martin Mosler & Niklas Potrafke & Florian Dorn, 2016. "Hidden tax increases - the extra tax burden of the bracket creep and the expected impact of income tax rates "on wheels" on tax reliefs," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 76, October.
    18. Müller, Kai-Uwe & Steiner, Viktor, 2010. "Labor Market and Income Effects of a Legal Minimum Wage in Germany," IZA Discussion Papers 4929, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Johannes Geyer & Viktor Steiner, 2007. "Short-Run and Long-Term Effects of Childbirth on Mothers' Employment and Working Hours across Institutional Regimes: An Empirical Analysis Based on the European Community Household Panel," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 682, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    20. Peter Haan & Katharina Wrohlich, 2010. "Optimal Taxation: The Design of Child‐Related Cash and In‐Kind Benefits," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(3), pages 278-301, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    income taxation; family taxation; tax reform;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H24 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies
    • D31 - Microeconomics - - Distribution - - - Personal Income and Wealth Distribution
    • H26 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Tax Evasion and Avoidance

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:80-36-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.