Nächste Ausgabe

2/2025: Taxes and debt. Fairer financing of rising public spending

In recent decades, public spending has increased significantly in the Federal Republic (and not only there). Although revenues have also increased during the same period, spending has outpaced revenues, with the exception of the years 2014 to 2019. The coronavirus pandemic from 2020 and the energy crisis in 2022 have led to record deficits in the financing of public budgets. To improve the security situation in the Federal Republic, to make the necessary investments on the road to climate neutrality and to bring public infrastructure up to the required standard, public spending will continue to rise in the future.

Because the state and the economy have been separated and the state does not generate any income from economic activities, public budgets receive the money necessary to finance their expenditures primarily from taxes and secondarily from fees, contributions and proceeds from the sale of assets. If revenues do not cover expenditures, they are financed by borrowing – and can and may, according to broad consensus, whenever corresponding expenditures flow into long-term investments.

The way in which the state finances its spending influences the economy and society. Alongside the law, taxes are probably the most effective means of steering individual economic activities in the public interest. In addition, taxes and public borrowing have a redistributive effect. Through taxes, redistribution tends to occur 'from top to bottom' between different incomes and wealth, or more precisely: taxes can be used to balance out the primary distribution of income and wealth (as calculated in the national accounts) in the real economy. By contrast, the 'redistribution' of public debt necessarily occurs 'from bottom to top', namely in favor of the wealthy, whose loans are serviced with taxpayers' money.

In order to limit Germany's national debt and the borrowing of public budgets, the German Bundestag and Bundesrat incorporated a debt brake into the Basic Law in 2009: “The budgets of the Federation and the Länder shall, in principle, be balanced without revenues from borrowing.” (Art. 109 GG). It is true that a deviation from this is permitted in the event of an economic development that deviates from the 'normal situation' and 'in the event of natural disasters or extraordinary emergency situations'. However, even then, 'the income from loans must not exceed 0.35 percent in relation to the nominal gross domestic product' (Art. 109 GG). Although the federal states are also subject to this constitutional debt brake, some of them have incorporated it into their state constitutions. The national debt brake tightens the fiscal rules that have been in force in the European Union since the Stability and Growth Pact (1992) and the Fiscal Compact (2012). While these rules were mainly applied against other member states in the past, they have recently also been used against Germany. Nevertheless, with a public debt-to-GDP ratio of below 70%, Germany is one of the least indebted industrialized countries.

For decades, the German state has been unable to fulfill the constitutional mandate of Article 109 to finance public spending without borrowing. It has been and remains unable to do so because it has been unable to impose sufficiently high taxes on its citizens and businesses, and thus to make them contribute in line with their ability to pay. This inability is particularly evident among high-income citizens with large assets – and increases with the level of taxable income and assets. The state has also been unable to finance its increasing spending in the recent past by raising taxes or improving tax revenues. Politically, 'higher taxes' for the super-rich are being brought into play; however, this has not been implemented (at least so far). In 1997, the wealth tax was suspended, so that since then no one in Germany has paid a wealth tax. The discussion is therefore focusing more on increasing borrowing and, to this end, on lifting the debt brake. However, there was not a sufficiently large political majority for this either in the legislative period that is now coming to an end. This is likely to be the main reason for the failure of the traffic light coalition – following the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on the second supplementary budget law for 2021. The unresolved problem and the dispute over the debt brake will also persist in the next legislative period. Thus, 'taxes' and 'public debt' remain as ideologically highly charged topics of dispute for the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the special issue of EthikundGesellschaft, these controversial topics are to be addressed under the proviso of justice. In view of the necessary increase in public spending, the question arises as to how public finances can be regulated in a way that is both sufficient and fair. In the face of the promise that 'less state' would get Germany further, the question is asked whether increasing public spending is necessary to cope with the challenges of the future and to ensure the future viability of a democratic society, and therefore needs to be politically enforced. The question also arises as to whether the politically easier solution, the increasing borrowing by the state, – in view of the resulting 'redistribution' from bottom to top – is also the better and, above all, fairer solution for tight public budgets. In view of the high investment requirement, the constitutional debt brake is being questioned. Should it be resolved or at least relaxed to restore the German state's ability to act with regard to major future tasks – and if so, how? Above all, however, the question is whether and how the state can better mobilize society's potential through taxation and how it can make greater and more effective use of high-income and wealthy citizens to finance public spending.

Editor: Matthias Möhring-Hesse.

1/2026: No game. Wargaming and serious gaming in the age of AI

Can war be learned through play? Is it ethically justifiable to train how to fight enemy units in a gaming scenario? Does the presentation of realistic training as a 'playful simulation' carry the risk of blurring the categorical distinction between simulated scenarios and real conflicts?

These questions are not merely theoretical, but reflect existing practice. Military and civilian organizations around the world are increasingly relying on game-based learning and serious gaming to train complex and critical skills without taking real risks. This development raises ethical questions that affect peace policy, military, technological and civil society aspects in equal measure and require interdisciplinary discussion.

The contributions in this special issue can focus on considerations of the moral quality of technology ethics as well as on the epistemological, phenomenological or ontological status of such simulations. Equally, military and peace ethics as well as civil society considerations on the possible blending of reality and simulation are expressly welcome. We welcome interdisciplinary, empirical studies as well as contributions from military practice, the games industry and games research.

Editors: Kathrin Bruder, Lukas Johrendt, Gerhard Schreiber

2/2026: Potenziale und Grenzen des Pazifismus in Geschichte und Gegenwart

The volume explores the potential and opportunities of pacifist approaches with a view to the past and present, particularly in light of the political situation worldwide. To this end, areas of discourse will be opened up by academics and peace practitioners who will jointly define the topic area.

›No more war!‹ - This pacifist demand can also be found time and again in the Christian discourse on war and peace. The question of the possibilities of pacifist convictions and non-violent conflict resolution strategies has taken on a new urgency, especially in view of the many and varied armed conflicts currently taking place; just think of Ukraine or the Middle East.

This volume on pacifism pursues a twofold goal: on the one hand, the field of pacifism is to be further explored ecumenically and interdisciplinarily, and on the other hand, the networking of academics and peace practitioners can be further strengthened. Pacifism offers the ideal subject area for this. After all, basic pacifist convictions can be one of the motivators for a corresponding commitment to peace work or civil conflict transformation.

The interdisciplinary conference therefore aims to analyse the origins of pacifism on the one hand and to examine the relevance of the concept for the present day on the other. In particular, the challenges, opportunities and limits of civil conflict transformation in the present will be analysed.

Editors: Benedikt Brunner, Gabriel Rolfes, Sarah Jäger.