Budget speech 2017

Madam chair, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us two SPD proposals. In the one would like to reduce the property tax by 50 points, what the city treasury in the long term by 170 points annually.000€, not including the costs of preparing and sending the change notices. In addition one would like to lower the kitagefehren in rotenburg with ganztagsbetreuung around 50€ and with two-thirds around 30€. According to the SPD calculation, this would be another 50.000€ only in 2017.

Seriously it would have been, the resulting annual fee shortfall from 2018 or for the kitajahr from 1.8.17 to name. From 2018, the loss of fees would then namely at 122.000€ (lt. Bgm.) and 117.000€ (SPD) move. In addition, we must reckon with a higher staffing requirement at the kitas, as quite a few parents will then certainly re-register their children from half-day to 2/3 or full-day, if these additional offers become so cheap. For all kindergartens in the city, we must calculate at least 2 educator positions or 80.000€ to be calculated.

For a whole year, both applications thus swallow up 370.000€, almost the full repayment of 400.000€, which we have to repay every year at least in the overdrafts according to the sustainability statutes. Except these 400.000€ we still have in the budget a profit of 100.000€. Mind you, according to the plan, which can also change. And already the SPD wants 370.000€ annually in future years. Do you want to prove that you are a party of solid finances, as you call yourself in your own rotenburger kurier?.

Do we want to make the same mistakes as were made when we had an absolute majority and accumulated over 25 million in overdrafts?? Nothing has been learned?

There was a heated discussion in the committee the day before yesterday. The SPD and the family advisory council implored the committee members to send a signal to the parents and the citizens. They would also have to have something from this, if the city is doing so much better again, etc.

Ladies and gentlemen, we think fee reductions at the present time would be exactly the wrong signals, because we are far from being out of the woods and the actual seriousness of our situation would be trivialized.

I can also not see that we are already so much better off to be able to distribute charities again. We still have overdrafts in the amount of 10.800.000 €, although the country took over 11 million and makes interest subsidies at a value of 6,5 million €. These must be reduced as a matter of priority, this is also our legal duty, because all citizens are liable for the overdrafts alone, with 785€ per capita, whether pensioner, employee or child. (10.8 million. € : 13.750 inhabitants are 785€) we are convinced that the repayment of loans is more important to our citizens than a ridiculously small reduction in fees, which may have to be reversed or even adjusted more strongly just 1 or 2 years later.

Such a fee roller coaster rejects the UBR strictly

With the redemption of the current account credits we give very well also again something back to the citizens, by lowering the per capita indebtedness. And if we don't lower daycare fees, but instead leave them at current levels, that also sends a signal to parents. We want their children to stop struggling with the remaining millions of overdrafts. And for the children, the city wants to do a lot in this budget. Kita and family center, playgrounds (game preserve), mini golf course, vacation care, etc. These are also investments and activities that mainly benefit the children.

And the expenditure for the MER we have decided together to put rotenburg on track for a good future. These are also expenses for our citizens and their children.

UBR is also in favor of reducing property tax and daycare fees, but only and only if this can be done permanently. Both are desirable in any case, but is the implementation of these goals reasonable at this point in time??

Our answer is clearly NO.

For a single-family house like mine, this makes a tax reduction of 29 € per year for the owner, mtl. 2,42€. Now it is countered that there are many who are worse off and who have to live in rented accommodation. For them 29 € /a is also money. But again, it is important not to spread alternative facts or fake-news, because this argument unfortunately falls short.

For a rented condominium of newer date with 94 sqm in best location and TOP equipment including elevator 314,46€ property tax is due in the year. SPD's property tax cut gives tenants a savings of only €1.67 mtl., a whole 20€ per year.

Older dwellings with smaller equipment have lower unit values and thus also the land tax is still much lower and lies mtl. Between 50 cents and 1€. It follows: A property tax cut thus favors those who can afford great villas with correspondingly large properties.

But if we put the surplus into paying off overdrafts, for which every citizen is liable for €785 without distinction of age, occupation or income, the wealthy contribute more to debt repayment than families with many children or those not so blessed with riches.

On a 5-member working-class family is therefore 3925 € of the current account debt, it saves 6€ to 12€ annually. On a married couple with middle single-family house to generous mansion only 1570 € of the debts are allotted. In the case of property tax relief, they get back 30€ to 70€ per year, even though they have benefited from decades of low property taxes.

SPD policy for more justice cannot be that!

There are still massive uncertainties as to what rotenburg's financial future will look like. What happens if the losers of financial reform are proven right, in whole or in part, in their lawsuits in court? Then immediately several 100 could.000€ missing in the cash register.

What happens when interest rates rise again? Currently, we have the overdraft for next to nothing. An increase to 1% or 2% is immediately an additional cost of 100.000€ respectively. 200.000€ per year. What happens if the current good economy starts to weaken due to external influences (brexit, trump's USA protectionism or difficulties of the southern countries with the EURO)? A decrease of only 1% will also result in several 100.000€ drop in key allocations of income tax shares, etc. Impact.

In other words

Then we have negative budgets again, forcing renewed and then even higher tax and contribution increases. For this, the SPD will again blame globalization and the low funding of the municipalities by the state, as we know it from the past. This has been used several times to succinctly justify the over 25 million in overdrafts accumulated in 10 years of absolute SPD majority. I know you don't like to hear this, but with applications like this, I have to remind you of this. The fact that one can do also something, in order to brake the debt rise, was ignored despite our constant reminders. And it is not true that the SPD would have happily seized the opportunity of the bailout, as they want to make the citizens believe in their rotenburger kurier. A good half of the SPD parliamentary group rejected the bailout at the time because they believed the 1. The city council members and the state parliamentary group believed the claim that the rescue package would hit the socially weak in the state because the city would then have to cut social services. The opposite has been proven and we can all be proud of having managed this.

The population on 31.12.2015 14.411, in which 852 residents of the initial reception facility were included. This number has shrunk by 654 to 198 people at the end of 2016. Our current number of inhabitants should thus be about 13.750 lie. This is a decrease of 4,53. The key allocations as well as shares in the value added tax are with well 10.500.000 € expelled. If these funds were to depend linearly on the number of inhabitants, by eliminating most of the refugees we would save about 475.000€ less, but with a time delay in 2 to 3 years.

SPD's comments on kindergarten fees

Let's turn to the SPD's comments on kindergarten fees in its rotenburger kurier newspaper. I quote: "the rotenburg SPD is the party of families and children, but also the party of solid finances."One notices that the writer entered only one year ago into the city politics. Which was before, is faded out simply, although we have to still nibble at it. If you can make the still owed 10.8 million current account credits disappear, we can gladly talk about lower kindergarten fees. But to pretend that all this is already possible just because the
rotenburger SPD to its national party a request had to take a law initiative, in order to realize the complete fee liberty of the kitas in hessen, is augenwischerei. While it is nice that mr. Munscher can act as a direct line to the state party and delivered the motion there, he will also have to deliver the bad news that the state parliament could not grant it.

As far as we know, the SPD is not in government in wiesbaden. There one can make well cost-pregnant requests. Visions and lofty goals are great, even if you know yourself that they can't be realized anytime soon. But one should not pretend to the population, as if the introduction was only a formality.

I don't know anyone in this room who wouldn't be in favor of free child care. But this can only be done by the state.

The proposal to reduce daycare fees in rotenburg by €50 for all-day care and by €30 for two-thirds daycare is pure wishful thinking without a feasible proposal for counter-financing. We simply can't afford it yet in the current uncertain financial and economic climate. The fact that the SPD deigns to also spread so-called alternative facts: "in comparison with other cities and municipalities, rotenburg charges the highest fees." I find alarming, as it simply does not correspond to the truth. The sweeping nature of this accusation is irresponsible. Which municipalities are meant, nationwide, statewide or in the county? Already in the circle there are 3 to 5 municipalities, which take higher or similarly high contributions.

Indeed, a consequence of lower contributions for longer care could motivate more than a few parents to also opt for longer care time for their children. On the one hand, this would be a positive development, but on the other hand, more staff will have to be available for this purpose. In small afternoon groups, children can be included without additional caregivers; elsewhere, sharing or a second caregiver must be used. We estimate very carefully that an additional personnel expenditure would have to be created at least to the extent of 2 places for own and external kitas again, which would increase the personnel costs by approximately 80.000€ + X would increase.

Who would benefit from this reduction in contributions? Not only the parents, but also the district. This would cost just under 30.000€, which it takes over from the budget youth welfare for socially weaker families. Do we really want that? Despite this, our revenue from parental contributions is still significantly below the 1/3 level at around 15% and the additional revenue loss is not 50.000€ or 117.000€, but a good 200.000€.

For us the proposal is also socially unbalanced. As a reason for the reduction of the all-day care by 50€ was mentioned, one must support the working and often also single mothers, so that these could use the longer opening times also, in order to be able to work longer. But this lowering around 50€ causes z.B. Also that the additional hours in the afternoon only with 33 cent/hour care to account, while the half-day care costs further in the morning about € per hour, thus the triple. Here it is completely forgotten that there are also not few single mothers with more than one child, of which one is already in the school and comes at 12 or 1 o'clock home. She will have to take care of all her children in the afternoon because she can't go to work. It has nothing of the requested fee reduction. Why should this mother pay three times as much for 1 hour of morning care as her neighbor does for an additional hour of care in the afternoon?? Same service, same contribution! That is fair!

For us the proposal is also socially unbalanced. As reason for the lowering of the ganztagsbetreuung around 50€ one called, one must support the working and often also single mothers, so that these could use the longer opening times also, in order to be able to work longer. But this reduction by 50€ causes z.B. Also that the additional hours in the afternoon would only cost 33 cents per hour of care, while half-day care would continue to cost about € per hour in the morning, i.E. Three times as much. Here it is completely forgotten that there are also not few single mothers with more than one child, of which one is already in the school and comes at 12 or 1 o'clock home. She will have to take care of all her children in the afternoon because she cannot go to work. She has nothing of the requested fee reduction. Why should this mother pay three times as much for 1 hour of morning care as the neighbor for the additional hour of care in the afternoon?? Same service, same contribution! This is fair!

Or is this proposal meant as an incentive to motivate as many mothers as possible to work all day??

It is a mystery to me what the SPD wants to achieve with these motions, which instead of 150.000€ a hole of 370 per year.000€ in the city coffers? She is not a candidate for mayor. Is this supposed to be an election campaign aid for the candidate for chancellor schulz?? Then the property tax reduction would be the opposite of more justice, which schulz wants.

A last word about the elevator in the DGH erkshausen. Yesterday, we took a look at the situation – as promised to the head of the village. We were greeted by a big station. Beside the local leader and further members of the local advisory board also 2 coworkers of the architect's office were present. We have been convinced that there is obviously no cheaper solution than the one proposed and that accessibility, as it is in other dghs, cannot be solved in any other way. Unfortunately, there is no other way to meet the needs of the disabled, who are not only wheelchair users, but also people who are generally unable to walk or stand, with or without a walker. The elevator will also facilitate the operation of the DGH.

This former school is built up and no one wanted to buy it or take it over by themselves (associations). However, it is and will probably remain the central hub of the village. And if we don't want our villages to become even more deserted, we must of necessity invest money, even if it doesn't pay off, because the purely financial cost-benefit ratio is not right. We will therefore no longer make a request to remove the elevator from the budget.