Jörg Dittrich, President of the Crafts Industry, has issued a warning regarding planned tax reforms, stating they risk placing an excessive burden on successful professionals. He pointed out to the “Bild am Sonntag” that many companies in the crafts sector function as sole proprietorships, meaning their income tax effectively serves as their corporate tax.
Dittrich argued that while political discussions often focus on higher tax contributions from high earners, this disproportionately affects those who are already the primary income generators for their businesses. While relief for corporate tax is supposedly being discussed, the “three-quarters of businesses” in the craft industry operate as owner-operated sole proprietorships and, according to him, are being left out of these considerations. “They are left to fend for themselves and are expected to pay more” he stated, characterizing the situation as detrimental to the sector.
He advocated strongly for tax policies that align more closely with performance incentives. He frequently hears the argument-from self-employed individuals, but also from lead workers and salaried skilled workers-that increased effort does not lead to increased reward. Therefore, any reform must signal that hard work remains profitable. Although he conceded that some increased contribution might be necessary, he stressed that this burden must not fall on the high achievers who bear entrepreneurial risk and who, critically, the industry needs to invest. He questioned how they could invest if the government takes their money away first.
Looking at the financing of social security systems, Dittrich called for fundamental structural reforms, noting that labor is currently overloaded with taxes and contributions. This excessive burden drives up the cost of services and leads to service gaps. He warned that a situation where services don’t happen means no social contributions are generated, creating a “death spiral”.
Finally, in the debate over working hours, Dittrich argued for greater flexibility. While he acknowledged that a standard eight-hour workday remains a key value for trade unions, he suggested that the desire for greater flexibility often originates with the employees themselves. If workers are willing to work longer hours temporarily in exchange for more leisure time later, this arrangement “should be allowed to be tested”. However, he added that misuse must be prevented, concluding that in a stagnant economy, new methods must be embraced, demanding increased labor flexibility.
