麻豆无码版

German newspapers call the government鈥檚 decision to cut energy taxes on fuels for three months to soften the impact of rising prices a 鈥溾�� and 鈥溾��. The commentaries follow economy minister聽Robert Habeck鈥檚 statement that he aimed to tighten the country鈥檚 antitrust law聽amid concerns that oil companies do not pass on a tax cut on fuels to consumers. The ifo 滨苍蝉迟颈迟耻迟别听聽according to which oil companies passed on 85 percent (petrol) to 100 percent (diesel) of the discount.

Whether every cent of the discount is passed on in Germany can rightly be doubted, but for the most part the fuel rebate reaches consumers,聽. Still, lowering the tax was short-sighted and wrong from the start, as the incentive to save fuel decreases, the carbon footprint increases, and it has been proven that wealthy households benefit disproportionately, Schlandt writes. 鈥淲hen short-sighted patronage politics and anti-market populism complement each other, the result is a low point in German politics.鈥�

The discount is a 鈥渂illion-euro gift to car drivers pushed through by the FDP against all ecological sense,鈥澛�. Minister Habeck鈥檚 proposal to tighten antitrust law was first and foremost a threat. 鈥淚t is rather doubtful that the mineral oil companies will be impressed in the short term,鈥� he writes.

The fuel discount has been contentious聽from the start, and many researchers and NGOs have voiced their opposition for various reasons. It would聽encourage greater use of fossil fuels, is聽targeted at mid to high-income consumers听补苍诲听enables oil companies to make windfall profits.