>Payroll taxes are typically flat-rate taxes levied on wages and are in addition to the taxes on income. In most OECD countries, both the employer and the employee pay payroll taxes. These taxes usually fund specific social programs, such as unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old age insurance.
Social security and pesnions aren't financed by taxes, in Germany taxes are not earmarked for a specific purpose.
If you would replace social security and pension contributions by private insurances with the same costs people wouldn't have more money available but the Germany's index position would be better.
You could even double the costs and the index would claim an advantage for workers even though they would have less money.
They used the pension money for other things so it's logical to pay it back.
And just because tax money is used for pensions doesn't mean the socuial security and pension contributions are tax burden.
Like I said, if all social security was through private insurance the tax burden would be lower but the people wouldn't have more money.
Health insurance proved otherwise. As long as you are healthy you pay less but as soon you get sick more often it gets way more expensive.
But the later wouldn't be recognized as tax burden.
Tax burden itself is a useless measure, the total cost of living is better.
>Like I said, if all social security was through private insurance the tax burden would be lower but the people wouldn't have more money.
It won't be that lower. The German pension has existing liabilities that they must pay. Since it is backed by the state, it will inevitably be paid by the taxes.
Even if the pension payments were abolished, just to pay existing entitlements, the taxes would be increased proportionally. The public pension can be considered a plus in a young country with a healthy demographics. In a geriatric state such as Germany, it is a big burden.
The Tax Foundation simply presents the data collected by the OECD[1]. You don't have to trust them.
>Social security and pesnions aren't financed by taxes, in Germany taxes are not earmarked for a specific purpose.
This is wrong. Because the pension contributions are not enough to cover the payments, every year billions from the tax revenue is used to pay the pensions. The German pension system is effectively bankrolled every year with the tax money.
>If you would replace social security and pension contributions by private insurances with the same costs people wouldn't have more money available but the Germany's index position would be better.
This is also wrong. The other countries have social security (For example: Australia). Unlike Germany, they don't charge for public pension separately. The contributions are included in the income tax. So it makes perfect sense to include it in the total tax burden for Germany.
> Because the pension contributions are not enough to cover the payments, every year billions from the tax revenue is used to pay the pensions.
Because the pension contributions are used for non-insurance benefits that should actually be paid for by all taxpayers, such as the mothers' pension or the equalization of pensions for retirees in East and West Germany.
BTW "every year billions from the tax revenue is used to pay the pensions" proves social security and pension contributions aren't taxes. Tax money is a subsidy not the main source.
>This is also wrong.
That part is totally missing my point. It's about the ranking. Without public social security the ranking would be better but worse for the workers and just because it's a tax in Autralia you can't simply count it as a tax in Germany.
If you want to compare you need the total costs of living not the tax burden.
Tax burden is just leverage to help companies and harm workers.
Replace taxes by fees and the tax foundation is happy, the people not so much.
>If you want to compare you need the total costs of living not the tax burden.
>Incredibly high taxes? Denmark has higher taxes.
Why would you compare total cost of living to find which country has the higher taxes? It doesn't make sense. Besides, you claimed Denmark had higher taxes. It has been proven that it was wrong.
>Tax burden is just leverage to help companies and harm workers.
I would like to hear how you reached this conclusion.
>just because it's a tax in Autralia you can't simply count it as a tax in Germany.
Yes you can, if your goal is to make a fair comparison between countries. The OECD uses it for measuring the tax burden on income. Especially because, the countries like Germany use 'creative labelling' to hide how much money they collect each year.
>Because the pension contributions are used for non-insurance benefits that should actually be paid for by all taxpayers, such as the mothers' pension or the equalization of pensions for retirees in East and West Germany. BTW "every year billions from the tax revenue is used to pay the pensions" proves social security and pension contributions aren't taxes. Tax money is a subsidy not the main source.
You've just proven my point. Because the money can be easily shuffled around, in practice, it is no different than income tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation
>Payroll taxes are typically flat-rate taxes levied on wages and are in addition to the taxes on income. In most OECD countries, both the employer and the employee pay payroll taxes. These taxes usually fund specific social programs, such as unemployment insurance, health insurance, and old age insurance.
Social security and pesnions aren't financed by taxes, in Germany taxes are not earmarked for a specific purpose.
If you would replace social security and pension contributions by private insurances with the same costs people wouldn't have more money available but the Germany's index position would be better.
You could even double the costs and the index would claim an advantage for workers even though they would have less money.