• Actionschnils@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah, but it not unlikely that “Die Linke” wont get into Parliament because of the “5% Barrier”(A Mechanism that prevents parties from entering the German Parliament, if they are below 5% total votes. There are some complicated exceptions, but basicly this is it). Furthermore many Parties dont want to form a coalation with them and this could be against german constitution … So this is very unlikely to happen.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      They are almost certain to enter because they’ll get three or more direct seats. Which isn’t complicated at all. Heck there’s plenty of CDU voters who’d vote for Gysi. It also doesn’t look too bad when it comes to taking the 5% hurdle directly.

      Of course, getting into parliament is not the same as getting into government, that would require a miracle.

      • Actionschnils@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Especially because its quite complicated or impossible (imho) to a enact a law that does exactly what they promise by not breaking the constitution: Its just populism and a lie

        • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          They are quite aware of the constitution and it’s implications. Complicated, sure, but not impossible. I recommend to listen to van Aken talking about the topic.

          Calling it a lie is disingenuous.

            • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Why do you keep calling it a lie? Their plan is concrete, actionable and reasonable likely to pass the courts. The one-time wealth tax in time of crisis (Vermögensabgabe) is well-grounded in the constitution and has precedent. The year-on-year wealth tax (Vermögenssteuer) also is based on the constitution (Art. 106 GG) and already exists on the books, it’s just permanently suspended because the constitutional court declared it illegal, for the reason that it didn’t treat real estate the same as other wealth. Which can be fixed, if a government wanted to.

              Is your problem that it won’t happen because Die Linke overwhelmingly likely won’t be part of the next government?

              • Actionschnils@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                17 hours ago

                Its about making it work.

                You already know that a lot of the rich people arent paying a lot of taxes, right?

                If you want to make it work a intended, you have to break the constitution.

                • federal reverse@feddit.org
                  shield
                  M
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  15 hours ago

                  Please find some source to corroborate that beyond “(imho)”. I already removed your previous comment for misinfo.

                  E.g. while the existing wealth tax law has been ruled unconstitutional, that is only because of a few details in the law. The only reason that the law has never been reformed in a way that is constitutional is that CxU and SPD were always against a reform. I.e. the only reason is that it would hurt large donors.

                • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  How? This is about enforcing existing laws. The rich not paying taxes, through legal loopholes and illegal tax fraud, is the exact problem. Your still haven’t explained what about the plan would break the constitution.

    • kwomp2
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      You can’t say it’d be against the constituion. That is debatable (and debated, see e.g. Wolfgang Abendroth).

      The interpretation of the constitution is subject to powerdynamics as well. And it’s the only smart way to design a constitution if it’s meant to be the everstanding stable foundation of a society. … cause you know, those tend to change