ᐅ Incentives for Photovoltaic Systems – Easter Package

askforafriend schrieb:

Well, combustion engines will still be permitted until 2035

Just this week, Australia’s largest coal-fired power plant (yes, the one with all the coal) announced without political pressure that it will shut down operations in 2025 because it can no longer compete economically with renewables. It’s not always about what is “allowed.”

guckuck2 schrieb:

Yeah, nicely tax-subsidized. Belongs in the trash just like the diesel privilege.
When it comes to building a house, you don’t wait for politics.
Is there anything more than just a hopeful statement in the press yet—like a bill draft, coalition agreement, or allocated funding? If not, nothing will probably happen this year.

You do realize there is a monetary benefit, right? 🙂 Hmm, I think if Mr. Habeck wants to meet the targets, it can only happen with tax money. Who would buy an electric car today without the 9,000 euro (about $9,500) environmental bonus? Many people take the subsidy for their third or at most second car. The classic example: buying a Tesla and selling it for a high price to Denmark after six months. People aren’t concerned about climate change; they’re concerned about their wallets. I think everyone here agrees on that, since building a house is a climate disaster. Too much space for one person.

Hate in one, two… 🙂

Deliverer schrieb:

That changes if you a) have children, or b) educate yourself about climate change. ;-)

a) I do
b) I do

It just seems that no one cares—right now, 25 nuclear power plants are being commissioned in France. So much for sustainability.

That is not true. If you look at the figures that Makron was forced to make public shortly before the election, you can clearly see how France is moving away from nuclear power toward renewable energy.

askforafriend schrieb:

You do realize that there is a taxable benefit involved, right? 🙂

I could give you a long explanation, but I'll keep it brief:
You receive a company vehicle for private use as a component of your salary, instead of a cash payment. The amount you pay is ideally only equivalent to the vehicle’s depreciation, which is a huge distortion of the actual costs that truly arise from using the car.
Ever wondered how that works? Who covers the rest? You get a cheap car flat rate—how is that possible? You don’t see that anywhere else!
Here’s a hint: it has to do with significant tax advantages.
And not only that, social security contributions are also manipulated. Instead of, for example, receiving €5000 more gross salary—which would be subject to income tax and social security contributions—you effectively only pay income tax on the vehicle’s value, but not on fuel consumption, wear and tear, insurance, and so on.
Social security contributions? Well, miraculously, you don’t have to pay those on this kind of benefit... and neither does your employer. Funny, isn’t it?

I could mention more aspects. The reduced value-added tax related to the company car arrangement with private use alone is worth billions every year. But I think you now have an idea why your taxable benefit is at best just a fig leaf. We all end up footing the bill.

askforafriend schrieb:

Hmm, I think if Mr. Habeck wants to reach the targets, it can only be done with taxpayers’ money. Who would buy an electric car today without the €9,000 environmental bonus?

Oh yes, Habeck again, used as a synonym for bashing the Greens. You do realize that neither Habeck nor any other Green politician created the current electric car subsidies, right? So better point the finger at those who have been in charge of the economy and transportation over the past years, or rather decades. And give the Greens a chance to mess things up personally, instead of blaming them for the lethargy and ignorance of their predecessors (by the way, the exact same issue applies to the current KfW subsidies, which were also cut by someone else without any sensible transition period or adequate funding).
But I won’t overly criticize the predecessors either. Subsidies are tricky—either very complex and then don’t reach the target audience, or simple and then prone to abuse.
Selling 15,000 subsidized electric cars (€90 million taxpayer money) abroad is roughly equivalent to one week’s worth of the diesel privilege—and we have had that for almost 30 years. Enjoy, I’d say!

askforafriend schrieb:

Many people use the subsidy for their third car or at most a second car.

So what? Those second or third cars would probably exist anyway, just powered by fossil fuels.
At the same time, it’s these smaller second or third cars that after three, four, or five years supply the used car market for lower-income buyers. Sounds reasonable!

guckuck2 schrieb:

Have you ever thought about how that could work? Who pays the rest? You get a cheap car flat rate—how is that even possible? You don’t find that anywhere else!
Here’s a small hint: it has something to do with significant tax advantages.

Obviously, you (with all due respect) have no clue how company cars work. But since it seems so important to you, and you are already reacting so strongly, I’ll explain it to you. Maybe it will change your perspective.

My employer pays (yes, with the money earned by the employees) real money as a full-service lease rate, including depreciation, interest, maintenance & wear package, tire replacement, vehicle licensing fees (yes, you also have to pay those again on company cars), vehicle tax, fuel, and other costs such as safety inspections, driver’s license verifications, etc., and all the usual bureaucracy we have here in Germany. Let’s say a Skoda Octavia then has a monthly rate including fuel of 700 euros. This (real!!) money is actually transferred by my employer to the leasing company. These are (actual!) revenues for the leasing company, which in turn pays its employees, etc. A completely normal process in Germany 🙂

My employer can deduct these lease payments (just like any other business expenses worldwide !!!) from taxes.

So, you see, my employer has genuinely paid !!! money for the car. By the way, I use this vehicle for work—which is why I have the car in the first place—but you would probably say I should pay privately for the mobility costs related to work.

Now, my employer also allows me to use the company car privately, which is treated like any other taxable benefit. Usually, that is 1% of the gross list price plus a distance allowance of 0.03% per kilometer from home to work. For example, for the Skoda Octavia with a 45,000-euro gross list price, your taxable benefit is 450 euros plus (if you live 15 km (9 miles) from work) 15 km * 0.03% * 45,000 euros = 202.50 euros. So, your taxable benefit is 652.50 euros. This amount is added to your gross salary!

Let’s say you earn 4,000 euros gross per month. That would be, in tax class 1, about 2,491 euros net (social contributions: pension insurance 372 euros, unemployment insurance 48 euros, long-term care insurance 75 euros, health insurance 318 euros, income tax 643 euros, church tax 51.48 euros). So, you pay a total of 695 euros in taxes and 813 euros in social contributions.

Now the calculation with the company car:

4,000 euros gross plus a taxable benefit of 652.50 euros equals 4,652.50 euros gross. The net would be about 2,808 euros, but since the taxable benefit is deducted from this new net amount, you end up with 2,156 euros left. This means you pay 335 euros for the private use of the company car. By the way, your new social contributions with the company car are pension insurance 432 euros, unemployment insurance 55 euros, long-term care insurance 87 euros, health insurance 369 euros, income tax 831 euros, church tax 66 euros. Total taxes are now 898 euros (previously 695 euros) and social contributions 945 euros (previously 813 euros).

1) I honestly cannot understand how you come to the conclusion that I don’t pay social contributions on the company car. It’s always the same with any taxable benefit, whether it’s a company car or other perks from your employer.

2) My employer incurs costs of 700 euros for this vehicle. Yes, that’s real money that needs to be earned first (by me, by the way 🙂 ). I myself have additional costs of 335 euros (net) for this. So, in total, my employer and I pay quite a lot for this car, don’t you think?

guckuck2 schrieb:

So what? The second or third car would have existed anyway, just running on fossil fuels.

Then maybe that’s the problem—we have too many cars, not the type of drive. It’s worth thinking about 🙂 By the way, it’s difficult, especially with second cars, to drive enough kilometers to ever balance out the CO2 footprint. But I’m pro e-mobility, so fine by me. However, electric cars are mostly in shades of gray, not white—it would, for example, make more sense to limit the number of cars instead of electrifying all of them... But what do I know 🙂

guckuck2 schrieb:

Diesel privilege – and we have had it for almost 30 years. Treat yourself, I’d say!

The diesel privilege should have been abolished long ago. Outside of Germany, no one really cares about diesel. The problem was that some years ago, people believed diesel cars emit less CO2 than gasoline cars (which is true) – so they were supported. But this turned out to be a dead end because fine dust and other emissions are obviously bad as well. The diesel cars currently produced are finally cleaner – and now, luckily, almost no one wants them anymore 🙂