The FDP has criticized the abolition of parental allowance for high-income earners planned by Family Minister Lisa Paus (Greens) and has proposed a different distribution of the benefit. The FDP Vice-Chairman Johannes Vogel was already rejected by the minister.
The background is the savings target of the finance minister, FDP leader Christian Lindner, to the family department. Paus wants to achieve this by abolishing parental allowance for couples with a taxable income of 150,000 euros or more (instead of the previous 300,000 euros).
“A certain savings potential”
Vogel said on the TV talk show “Anne Will”: “I think it’s wrong if we just shave off the parental benefit with the lawn mower, even in an area where we talk about engineers and doctors.” He supported a proposal from the FDP to require couples to align their parenting months more closely – if this does not happen, only one partner should receive parental allowance. In addition, Paus also “still has a certain savings potential in the area of the numerous funding programs,” said Vogel.
Paus immediately rejected this on the show. “If that works with the partnership, then that’s not a cut,” she said. “That’s why I can’t suggest it.” According to her, alternative savings options would only be cuts in the advance maintenance payment for women living alone whose partner does not meet his payment obligations, and in the child allowance. She doesn’t want either, as Paus made clear. She is already making cuts in the free programs, so there will be fewer opportunities for voluntary service.
“In my opinion the best option”
“I’m open to better suggestions – but I looked at it and, from all these bad variants, I came up with what I think was the best variant,” explained Paus, referring to the cancellation of parental allowance for high earners. “That’s how I’m going to bring it in now.”
In view of the coalition dispute that has once again been openly held on the subject, Vogel made it clear that he expects public disputes to continue in the future. He admitted that the style of the coalition had to be improved. But: “Perhaps we also have to get used to the fact that debates are more public in terms of content – one is style, the other content – than in coalitions of the old kind.” That doesn’t have to be “a bad thing … if there is a good result at the end”.
