> The whole point of existence of a nation-state is that it can improve overall quality of life and security because it redirects and pools financing around and creates environment on which your Frankfurt can "finance itself". Again, without those people that "can't finance themselves", you have little economy and customers to run your market-based economy to finance yourself.
I think you are just plain wrong here. Frankfurt would do just fine without Berlin. Your points would make sense for the state of Hesse, where Frankfurt is the main source of income, while others have negative budget. But there the relationship you described, is indeed true: People are commuting to Frankfurt, that is why all the taxes are getting paid there. If not for the rural parts of Hesse, Frankfurt would look different.
Berlin on the other hand does not really benefit Frankfurt at all, from a tax point of view. In the contrary: If Berlin wasn't there, maybe Frankfurt would be the capital of Germany.
Germany is a nation-state, but also a federal nation-state. The whole point of federalism is, that each entity can decide, what quality of live means for them and what they want to do culturally. It also means, that these entities are responsible for collecting their own taxes and paying for their stuff.
Thankfully, German states are soon constitutionally mandated to have a balanced budget, so this will end.
> In the contrary: If Berlin wasn't there, maybe Frankfurt would be the capital of Germany.
Don't kid yourself. If it wasn't Berlin, it would be Bonn, Munich, Hamburg, or Cologne.
Berlin has the disadvantage of being separated and isolated for decades while Frankfurt has been able to exist in a world with a free market and heavy investments by the allied forces for more than 70 years. To blame Berlin for not becoming as rich as Frankfurt in about 25 years time is just stupid and ignorant.
>> In the contrary: If Berlin wasn't there, maybe Frankfurt would be the capital of Germany.
> Don't kid yourself. If it wasn't Berlin, it would be Bonn, Munich, Hamburg, or Cologne.
None of these cities have any history of being a German capital. To imagine Munich as the capital of Germany is outright funny, since they make it very clear, that they are the capital of the free state of Bavaria. Especially Bonn was chosen exactly for being not an important city, to show that it is a temporary solution. Frankfurt might have been able to keep the status as capital, because German democracy was basically founded in Frankfurt. It would have weakened the West in the cold war. Choosing it as a capital would have marked a historical endpoint, while the West bet on having that endpoint only after the reunification, which eventually happened [0].
Of course it is hard to argue about stuff like this, because if Berlin would not exist, maybe the wall would have gone through Frankfurt instead.
> Berlin has the disadvantage of being separated and isolated for decades while Frankfurt has been able to exist in a world with a free market and heavy investments by the allied forces for more than 70 years. To blame Berlin for not becoming as rich as Frankfurt in about 25 years time is just stupid and ignorant.
Nobody does that. There are plenty of other poor states in Germany, but Berlin combines it with it's unique attitude, which I sometimes find a bit provoking.
Thank you, this was a very enlightening discussion. Kind of makes more sense now why some in Berlin don't have much respect for the Schwaben -- at least of the condescending, finger-wagging kind.
Berlin is awesome as it is, and it's being changed by people who don't live in Berlin and who only want to make a quick buck. No wonder people are upset (I know I am).
> German states are soon constitutionally mandated to have a balanced budget, so this will end
I think you have a misunderstanding here. A balanced budget means no new debt can be raised. It has nothing to do with redistribution of tax income. In fact, just a few months ago the states agreed on a new redistribution scheme up until at least 2030.
Redistribution between federal states has always been a thing, even under Bismarck. It's a vital part of federalism.
I'd say redistribution is vital if you're sharing a currency (because normal monetary policies will only work over the whole monetary zone, so you want a mechanism to keep the sub regions in sync)
And that's why the Eurozone is currently not doing so well, we either need more redistribution (but the richest countries are kinda opposed to it) or we need to break it up somewhat.
I suspect having to pay for their own stuff would make Berlin's politics and administration better. There seems to be a bit of a "we can do whatever we want and someone else will pay for it" culture. Perhaps voters would punish the SPD for the BER disaster if money had to be taken from the BVG to fund it?
I think you are just plain wrong here. Frankfurt would do just fine without Berlin. Your points would make sense for the state of Hesse, where Frankfurt is the main source of income, while others have negative budget. But there the relationship you described, is indeed true: People are commuting to Frankfurt, that is why all the taxes are getting paid there. If not for the rural parts of Hesse, Frankfurt would look different.
Berlin on the other hand does not really benefit Frankfurt at all, from a tax point of view. In the contrary: If Berlin wasn't there, maybe Frankfurt would be the capital of Germany.
Germany is a nation-state, but also a federal nation-state. The whole point of federalism is, that each entity can decide, what quality of live means for them and what they want to do culturally. It also means, that these entities are responsible for collecting their own taxes and paying for their stuff.
Thankfully, German states are soon constitutionally mandated to have a balanced budget, so this will end.