Wie die EU die Schulden zurück­zahlen könnte

POLITICO fragt: “How will the EU repay the billions to fund Europe’s recovery?” Nett, aber natürlich völliger Blödsinn. Niemand hat ernsthaft die Absicht, diese Schulden jemals zu begleichen. Im Gegenteil, es werden immer mehr Schulden werden. Dennoch können wir ja der theoretischen Übung von POLITICO mal folgen. Was wäre, wenn die EU wirklich tilgen wollte?

  • “(…) the European Commission readies a proposal to raise a host of new levies at the EU level to repay the hundreds of billions over the next three decades. The size of the EU recovery package was agreed at €750 billion in 2018 prices in budget negotiations; that’s about €800 billion in current prices.” – bto: Ich denke, diese Zahlungen dienen nur dazu, die Institution der EU zu verfestigen. Es geht nicht um die Tilgung der Schulden, sondern um weitere Umverteilungsinstrumente.
  • “Should the push for new levies fail to gather consensus, the fallback options — to repay grants over the years through increased payouts to the EU budget, or alternatively, through budget cuts — are also highly unpalatable to many countries.” – bto: keine Budgetkürzungen. Keine Beitragserhöhungen. Ergo: Umschulden, würde ich sagen.
  • “The Commission has said its preferred option to repay more than €400 billion in grants plus interest costs is to collect new taxes feeding into the EU’s budget, known as ‘own resources. The other portion of the recovery fund, up to €386 billion in loans, should be repaid by EU countries.” – bto: “Eigene Ressourcen” waren schon immer das politische Ziel. Und natürlich dienen diese neben einer massiven Umverteilung zulasten Deutschlands der Mehrung der Macht der EU-Bürokratie.
  • “(…) the magnitude necessary, (is) around €15 billion a year (…) That amount, the Commission estimates, should be sufficient to repay the borrowed funds by 2058. The Commission is working on a proposal for three new levies, which it plans to unveil by the end of June. The proposal will likely include an extension of the bloc’s carbon-trading scheme, a carbon border adjustment mechanism, and a digital tax.” – bto: Die deutsche Industrie bezahlt dann Geld an die Länder mit weniger Industrie und höherem Atomkraftanteil. Auch Umverteilung und vor allem Schwächung Deutschlands.
  • “The proposed extension of the bloc’s cap-and-trade emissions trading system to the buildings and transport sectors is estimated to bring in about €10 billion a year, according to the Commission. But it is already facing resistance from a number of countries, ranging from Poland to Portugal, amid worries it will increase costs for industry and households. This is, however, the likeliest one to go ahead in some form.” – bto: Es klingt so schön grün und deshalb kommt es.
  • “Plans for an EU-wide tax targeting digital companies, expected to generate €1.5 billion a year, were called into question, as the U.S. earlier this month counter-pitched a global levy on the world’s largest companies. Brussels doesn’t want to give up, but its plan to nevertheless introduce a ‘soft’ digital levy may not go down well in Washington and export-mindful EU capitals, who fear a parallel scheme would stoke the ire of key trading partners.” – bto: Es ist sehr unwahrscheinlich, dass das kommt. Die Verlagerungsmöglichkeiten der Unternehmen sind hoch, die US-Regierung wird sie schützen.
  • “(…) a plan to tax certain polluting imports, known as a carbon border adjustment mechanism, could bring in potential revenue of €5 billion to €14 billion a year, depending on the design of the levy. But the idea has so far received only limited buy-in within the EU, and backlash from abroad — and even the Commission seems unwilling to use it, rather than leveraging it as a threat to coax other large polluters into higher climate pledges.” – bto: Wir haben letzte Woche gesehen, dass es vor allem die Armut in der Welt erhöht.
  • “The EU is also adamant that any new levy should remain in the EU’s budget, even after the recovery fund — which has been described as a one-off instrument — is repaid.” – bto: Das ist klar, schon davor werden wir erleben, dass es nicht zur Tilgung verwendet wird.
  • “(…) letting the Commission raise its own taxes, as it would mean giving the EU executive a further attribute of a full-blown government: a treasury. That, observers say, would be a further step toward fiscal integration, which many countries aren’t keen to take lightly.” – bto: Nur die Deutschen sind begeistert und zahlen freudig für das Projekt.
  • “If no new source of income can be agreed on, the alternatives to repay the recovery fund are increased contributions by EU countries to future EU budgets, or decreased EU expenditure. (…) From 2028, the debt costs are driving a wedge into the budget. It changes the calculation because it will mean that more countries will have to become net contributors (…).” – bto: Allein schon das ist undenkbar. Man wird das Geld zum Zinsendienst leihen.
  • “(…) the bill is large, and someone eventually has to pay up. Or perhaps not — if countries agree on permanent EU-wide debt. That’s been a taboo subject, but recent calls, most notably by Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, for an EU safe asset have given new impetus to the debate. And even if the EU’s recovery fund has been explicitly construed as a one-off instrument, it’s widely considered as a test case for further fiscal integration.” – bto: das strategische Ziel Frankreichs, Italiens und Spaniens. Deutschland ist erneut wie eine Hausfrau, die mit Profis Poker spielt. Man kann das schulterzuckend hinnehmen. Aber es wird nicht nur unseren Wohlstand deutlich mindern, sondern uns auf Dauer überfordern. Und was passiert, wenn wir nicht mehr zahlen können?

politico.eu: „How will the EU repay the billions to fund Europe’s recovery?“, 28. April 2021