Citizens' debate: Property entails responsibility!
After two weekends of intensive discussions, 40 randomly selected citizens from all over Germany presented their recommendations for a fairer tax and fiscal policy in Erfurt on 29 June 2025.
Among other things, they are calling for:
- a one-off levy of 10 per cent on large liquid assets, spread over a period of ten years
- an inheritance tax that kicks in earlier for heirs of large estates and companies
- the abolition of private health insurance in favour of universal health insurance
- the transfer of civil servants' pensions to the statutory pension system
- pensions to be tax-free up to 1,500 euros per month
- the consistent prosecution of tax avoidance and the publication of cases of fraud
- binding co-determination by the population on major government spending, for example through referendums or citizens' assemblies
‘The public debate shows that when people listen to each other, viable compromises can be reached – even on complex issues such as taxes and finances,’ says Roman Huber, executive director of co-organiser Mehr Demokratie. ‘Even without prior knowledge, people are capable of making coherent recommendations that are in the public interest.’
‘It was amazing.’
Members of the mini-public spoke about their experiences on the last day of the Citizens' Debate: ‘It's amazing. What is hardly possible in normal life worked wonderfully here,’ said one participant.
Another participant explained: ‘It was very difficult for me to imagine what to expect here, but it turned out to be a great experience. The two weekends have had a lasting impact on me.’ A third citizen who was selected feels ‘enriched on many levels, in terms of knowledge and as a person. It was fantastic. I hope it will work the same way in other debates.’
Bringing discussion to the centre of society
The aim of the ‘Citizens’ debate on fair taxes and finances’ was to address one of the most challenging and at the same time most important topics of the current federal government and to bring the discussion to the centre of society.
The participatory project was supported by a civil society alliance consisting of the Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit (Tax Justice Network), the Bund der Steuerzahler (Taxpayers' Association) and the NGO “Mehr Demokratie” association.
People felt deceived
To justify the citizens' debate, the initiators refered to a recent survey for the ZDF Politbarometer. Although a majority of respondents were in favour of the recently approved special fund of over 500 billion euros, almost three quarters of respondents stated that they felt deceived by Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU).
Merz had rejected high additional debt before the Bundestag elections on 23 February 2025. After the election, Merz changed his mind on this issue, citing the current political situation.
Amendment to the Basic Law passed
On 18 March 2025, the Bundestag passed several amendments to the Basic Law that would allow the federal and state governments to take on several hundred billion euros in new debt. The new debt will be used to finance defence and security and to strengthen infrastructure.
Money is also to flow into the transport and energy network, hospitals, educational facilities and digitalisation. In addition, funds from the special fund must be used to achieve climate neutrality by 2045.
The citizens' debate started with the issue of fair taxes and finances. It made suggestions from the centre of society on how taxes and finances can be made fairer.
Online participation to kick things off
An online participation in the citizens' debate on the participation platform make.org focused on two questions
- What can and do we want to afford as a society?
- And who should pay for it?
The answers centred on
- What tasks should the state take on?
- How should it finance them?
- What is feasible?
- What is fair?
From 24 March to 4 May 2025, interested parties were able to submit their own ideas and vote on proposals from other participants. More than 18,000 people submitted their own proposals and around 330,000 votes were cast.
Most important results of the online debate
- Criticism of waste: Many are calling for more transparency in the use of taxpayers' money - but concrete savings proposals often remain vague.
- Heavier burdens on the wealthy: There is broad agreement in favour of taxing large fortunes and international corporations more heavily.
- Different ideas on the welfare state: Opinions diverge between more support and more personal responsibility.
- No simple formation of camps: Three large groups are emerging - alongside market-liberal and redistribution-friendly positions, a third, sceptical group, which alternates between the two camps depending on the issue and shows room for compromise.
Under the key question ‘Who should pay for all this?’, 40 randomly selected citizens debated their own ideas and values over two weekends in Erfurt from 28 May to 1 June and from 27 to 29 June. They also heard presentations by experts and were presented with the proposals from the online participation.
Guidelines for tax and financial policy
The aim of the debate was to enable participants to discuss this complex topic in an informed manner. Instead of a fixed catalogue of recommendations, the aim was to highlight lines of conflict and discuss individual proposals using examples. The end result is a value-based overall picture with guidelines for tax and financial policy.
The results of the citizens' debate are now presented to politicians who are responsible or important for tax and finance issues in a public debate.
2,000 people randomly selected
In a first step, ten cities and municipalities from all over Germany were selected to take part in the lottery: Bad Salzungen, Bannewitz, Hanover, Leimen, Neutraubling, Neuwied, Regensburg, Uetersen, Wenden and Wiesbaden.
A random sample of all registered residents aged 16 and over was selected from their population registers. Invitations to take part in the mini-public were sent to the 2,000 addresses obtained in this way on 4 April. 100 invitees (5 per cent) applied to take part.
Representing the diversity of the population
The random selection created a group of people that reflected the diversity of the population as closely as possible in terms of age, gender, geographical origin, size of place of residence, migration background, political affiliation to parties and attitude to taxes and finances. In addition, people who were otherwise not interested in politics should be targeted.
In order to address these people personally, volunteers swarmed out to the ten selected locations in April to approach the randomly selected people at their front door and invite them to take part once again. This door-knocking was intended to increase the number of responses to the written invitation and, above all, to reach people who would otherwise not have taken part. The door-knocking was organised by the experienced association ‘Es geht LOS’.
Allowance of expenses and reimbursement of costs
In a second step, the members of the Citizens' Debate were randomly selecte from the responses in which those interested in participating provided further personal details. The selection was made using a random algorithm, which ensured that the group reflects the diversity of the population.
All participants in the mini-public in Erfurt received an expense allowance of 600 euros for their commitment. Travel and accommodation costs were also covered.
The Citizens' Debate was financially supported by the Robert Bosch Foundation, the Schöpflin Foundation and GLS Treuhand.
Feasibility study on citizens' assembly
Back in 2023, the Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit, with the support of the Robert Bosch Foundation, conducted a feasibility study to analyse the extent to which the topic of ‘justice and taxes’ is suitable for a federal citizens' assembly. A central part of this was a pilot project in which randomly selected participants discussed what they consider to be unfair in Germany. In addition, they jointly developed a proposed question for a future citizens' assembly: ‘Between performance and respect: How much inequality can democracy tolerate?’