Given the pressure to restructure the budget, tax issues are probably one of the most important sticking points. But there are also conflicts in social, educational and ecological issues. A willingness to compromise is therefore required.
The ÖVP wants to cut additional wage costs and reduce the overall tax rate from currently around 43 to 40 percent. She wants to reduce the input tax rate on income from 20 to 15 percent and abolish the 40 percent tax bracket. The People’s Party would like to further reduce the corporate tax (KöSt) for companies, which was recently reduced to 23 percent. The ÖVP wants to counter-finance this through cuts in social benefits, fewer subsidies, but also through growth impulses from tax cuts.
More on the topic
Domestic politics Kickl insists on the will of the voters, SPÖ, Neos and Greens are ready
Reduction in working hours or full-time bonus?
The SPÖ is going in the opposite direction here. She advocates for a tax increase to 25 percent again. Further SPÖ wishes to the detriment of employers and owners have so far been a no-go for the ÖVP, such as a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. SPÖ boss Andreas Babler also wants a reduction in working hours, ÖVP chairman Karl Nehammer, on the contrary, wants a full-time bonus.
When it comes to social issues, the ÖVP’s focus is on “temporary help for self-help”. Social assistance for immigrants should only be available after five years, and unemployment benefits should decrease progressively. The SPÖ, on the other hand, wants to increase the net replacement rate for the unemployed to 70 percent. A strong welfare state – including a new basic child welfare system – and a similar pension system are part of the core content of the Social Democrats. In the health sector they want to push back on private medicine, the ÖVP wants to ensure more statutory health insurance doctors.
Differences in the asylum and migration areas
There are also different emphases in the asylum and migration areas. The People’s Party is relying on toughness here and would like to see asylum centers and prisons in third countries, a suspension or at least a quota on family reunification and further tightening of access to Austrian citizenship. The SPÖ wants at least asylum procedures at the EU’s external borders and more agreements to make it easier to deport rejected asylum seekers. Both can agree on neutrality and support for Ukraine in security policy.
The People’s Party also wants to live performance as its credo in education. The ÖVP wants to reintroduce ability groups across the board in middle schools. She also has in mind a “compulsory education” test at the end of compulsory schooling. In contrast to differentiation, the SPÖ insists on a common school for children aged six to 15 and the expansion of all-day schools.
When it comes to climate protection, the ÖVP is slowing down and using “common sense” to achieve this. No bans, but new technologies (“green combustion engines”) should help achieve the Paris goals. For the SPÖ there is “no alternative” to CO2 neutrality by 2040. That’s why she wants the climate protection law that was strangled by the ÖVP in the last legislative period. A transformation fund worth 20 billion euros should be available for an eco-social transformation of the economy. However, both parties can be enthusiastic about the construction of further large road projects.
Interview with Dr. Hans Müller, Political Analyst
Editor: Welcome, Dr. Müller. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the current political landscape regarding budget restructuring and tax issues in Austria. The ongoing discussions seem quite intense. Can you give us an overview of what’s happening?
Dr. Müller: Thank you for having me. Yes, we’re witnessing significant tension between the ÖVP, which is pushing for tax cuts and reduced corporate tax rates, and the SPÖ, which advocates for increasing taxes to support social programs. This fundamental disagreement is at the heart of the budget negotiations.
Editor: The ÖVP has proposed cutting wage costs and lowering income tax rates. What are their main motivations behind these proposals?
Dr. Müller: The ÖVP believes that lowering taxes will stimulate economic growth. They contend that these cuts will generate more revenue in the long run, enabling funding for essential services without putting additional financial strain on taxpayers. However, this approach raises concerns about the impact on social welfare programs, as they plan to offset tax cuts by reducing social benefits and subsidies.
Editor: On the other hand, the SPÖ is proposing a tax increase. How do they justify this position?
Dr. Müller: The SPÖ argues that a progressive tax system is essential for ensuring a robust social safety net, particularly in challenging economic times. They believe that higher taxation on wealth and inheritance can fund improvements in social services, healthcare, and education. Their goal is to support preventative measures and welfare systems, which they see as critical for maintaining social equity.
Editor: There also seems to be a divergence in views regarding social welfare policies. Can you elaborate on that?
Dr. Müller: Indeed. The ÖVP is emphasizing “temporary help for self-help,” which limits social assistance for immigrants and proposes decreasing unemployment benefits progressively. In contrast, the SPÖ wants to strengthen the welfare state by increasing unemployment support and advocating for new family welfare systems. This stark contrast is likely to be a significant sticking point in negotiations.
Editor: We’ve also seen differing stances on immigration and asylum policies. What are the key points of conflict here?
Dr. Müller: The ÖVP is taking a tougher stance on immigration, advocating for stricter controls and a more stringent asylum process. They propose measures such as asylum centers in third countries and stricter family reunification rules. Meanwhile, the SPÖ favors more humane approaches, pushing for asylum procedures at EU borders and agreements that facilitate the deportation of rejected asylum seekers. Both parties agree on supporting Ukraine, showcasing some common ground amid their differences.
Editor: Lastly, how do these differing priorities reflect broader societal values in Austria?
Dr. Müller: The polarization between the two parties encapsulates a larger debate within Austrian society about the role of the government in economic and social life. The ÖVP’s market-oriented approach suggests a preference for individualism and self-reliance, while the SPÖ emphasizes collective responsibility and solidarity. How these conflicts resolve will significantly shape the political landscape and the welfare state in Austria moving forward.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Müller, for your insights. This topic is certainly complex, and it will be interesting to see how things develop.
Dr. Müller: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial time for Austrian politics, and I look forward to seeing how these negotiations unfold.
And limitations regarding asylum seekers and their rights. They support ideas such as creating asylum centers in third countries, suspending family reunification, and tightening access to Austrian citizenship. On the other hand, the SPÖ is emphasizing the need for fair asylum processes at EU external borders and aims to streamline deportations of those whose applications are rejected. While both parties agree on principles of neutrality, they differ on how to approach these issues practically within the context of human rights and humanitarian obligations.
Editor: With all these differences, how do you see the future negotiations shaping up?
Dr. Müller: The negotiations are likely to be prolonged and contentious. Both the ÖVP and SPÖ are deeply entrenched in their positions, reflecting broader societal divides on taxation, social welfare, immigration, and climate policies. If the parties cannot find common ground, it may lead to a gridlock in the legislative process. An agreement will require significant concessions from both sides, especially in areas where their interests most dramatically diverge, such as social welfare and immigration policy.
Editor: Thank you for your insights, Dr. Müller. It seems that Austria is at a critical juncture regarding its political and social policies.
Dr. Müller: Thank you for having me. It will be crucial to observe how these discussions evolve and what compromises might emerge in the interest of the Austrian public.
