Speeches, Interviews and Articles
Taxation
Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble in an interview with "Die Zeit"
In an interview with Die Zeit German Finance Minister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble talks about his reputation for being
uncompromising, about showmen in politics and the new-found freedom he finds in advancing age.
Date 10 February 2011
ZEIT:How independent are you, Minister?
Schäuble:I feel free.
ZEIT: When you became Finance Minister you said you wanted “to be loyal but independent”. Why did you feel it
necessary to emphasise your independence?
Schäuble: I didn’t. But when one wants to make the best contribution to the success of a government, it’s essential to be
clear about one’s role in that government.
ZEIT: What is your role?
Schäuble: I am Finance Minister. I am the oldest member of the cabinet. In other words I epitomise the long-term
memory of the Federal Republic. Since I also don’t have to strive to become something else, I possess a greater measure
of inner freedom than others.
ZEIT:But aren’t you dependent on your health?
Schäuble: You’re right there. Last year, when I lay in hospital for a long time I was greatly preoccupied with the
thought of growing old. Like most people, I resisted the idea of growing old. However, I know that at some point I have
to start to getting used to the idea. The moment you come to terms with it, you realize you’re gaining a new freedom.
ZEIT: And what is that?
Schäuble: Perhaps my new-found freedom is being able to feel contentment, be grateful. Regrettably, I invested less
time, discipline and energy in rehabilitation than I should have done. Certainly, I could have become a bit more
independent. Life in a wheelchair is not getting any easier but I don’t harbour any resentment. I’m not bemoaning my
fate.
ZEIT:Are you dependenton politics?
Schäuble: No. I’ve always enjoyed being involved in politics. It’s my passion.
ZEIT: And suffering is part and parcel of it?
Schäuble: I don’t see it in such heroic terms. I have a job that I find fulfilling and fascinating. Of course, I’ve had
occasion to ask myself: am I still up to it? Up to now the answer has always been “yes”. Anyhow I’ve told myself that
it’s no bad thing if the Finance Minister is lying in hospital. Then his cabinet colleagues can’t make any great demands
on him.
ZEIT:But that’s not a tactic you can use over and again.
Schäuble: At the end of the day, my illness has not affected my ability to perform my job to any significant extent. I’ll
remain Finance Minister as long as I’m convinced that I can fulfil the duties of my office. I feel quite comfortable with
this attitude. That’s why I’m inwardly very free.
ZEIT: Where does conscientiousness end and dependence begin?
Schäuble: The conscientiousness tag is often applied by others. In fact, I’m quite good at switching off. I’m not
constantly phoning or faxing, not at all! I love a bit of peace and quiet. I’m not really Protestant in that sense. My
fundamental character traits are laziness and convenience.
ZEIT:Something you hide quite well.
Schäuble: I was raised to observe certain standards of decency. My older brother Frieder once said about our father: He
was a decent man. For me too that’s a very important criterion. And my mother was the same. One time she didn’t have
any change for the parking meter, so she drove back the next day to put in the money. That’s sweet – or, if you like,
simply decent.
ZEIT:The impression you make on us is thoughtful and at the same time at ease, with a somewhat wry sense of humour
but still always spoiling for a fight. The media recently presented a different picture: Schäuble is tough, bitter and
obstinate. How do you see yourself?
Schäuble:At any rate not in that light.
ZEIT:But rather?
Schäuble: To say that I’m obstinate or bitter or mean is rubbish. Those who know me don’t say that either. I like to
mock. But sometimes I realise that people don’t understand my type of irony. I’ve often found that. I suppose it’s my
fault. My wife always says I should smile a bit more.
ZEIT:Does independence make you lonely?
Schäuble: Up to now I haven’t thought about whether I’m lonely or not.
ZEIT:The FAZ[Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung] called you the “loneliest minister in the government”.
Schäuble:Not everything the FAZ says is right.
ZEIT:As Finance Minister you frequently experience situations where you’re out on a limb, most recently during the
coalition row about the simplification of the tax system. The talk was of a sum in the region of €300 million and the
question of when employees will get tax relief. Not an earth-shattering issue, really, but all of a sudden you were painted
as an obstructionist. The parliamentary party leaders from CDU/CSU and FDP wanted the tax relief to be back-dated
to 1 January 2011. You insisted on 1 January 2012. The FDP members of the government called you “wayward”. Your
own parliamentary party accused you of“obstinacy”.
Schäuble:€300 million is not exactly chicken-feed for the federal budget and that’s the message I wanted to get across.
We in the CDU executive had already reached agreement on this issue. Volker Kauder had called me and expressed his
agreement. So there was no reason for me to feel isolated. But at the end of the day the CDU had to agree on a joint
solution with its coalition partner the FDP. So tax relief will be granted this year, but the budget will only be burdened
with it next year.
ZEIT:So you got your way.
Schäuble:Yes, but paying out money in December so that it takes effect in the budget in January is the kind of
budgetary policy I don’t really like. That’s why I fought against it for a long time and then said that if the parliamentary
parties decide on it in parliament then I can’t prevent it.
ZEIT:If the FDP sells a political trick as a victory, what does that say about the FDP?
Schäuble:I don’t have to comment on that. I’ve made up my mind not to let this business annoy me any longer. Quite
simply I find it a bad example of the way political decisions are reached, in many respects.
ZEIT:But surely it can’t be the first time that you have experienced a decision being distorted in the political process.
Possibly you yourself were involved in decisions like that from time to time?
Schäuble:I can’t think of any similar instance. But at the end of the day the world keeps turning, and in the end, the
Finance Minister might even benefit from it. Because right now everyone has a guilty conscience.
ZEIT:Politics and political parties are increasingly losing respect. Do you as an important political figure over recent
years take that personally?
Schäuble:Well, it does make me sad. I often wonder why that is so. Certainly one reason is that people take whatever
has been achieved for granted – whether it’s Germany’s reunification or our increasing prosperity. That is the curse of
successful politics. Everything that we already have is suddenly not as important any more. People then say: We have
other worries. At the same time the world is changing rapidly. The mechanisms acting between politics and society have
changed. One has to communicate differently. People are choosing their outstanding personalities based on other criteria
than were applied previously. Just look at the circus with Lena or, if you want another example, the Karl-Theodor zu
Guttenberg phenomenon.
ZEIT: Nice comparison.
Schäuble:There are parallels but they have less to do with people and more to do with the media.
ZEIT: It has to do with people who are particularly popular in the media. Will it only be the showmen who succeed in
the politics in the future?
Schäuble:We’ll have to wait and see. But you won’t find me among the showmen. For me, the content is and always
will be crucial. But I know, I’m 68 and my health has its limits.
ZEIT: You have seen so many politicians come and go. What is different about Guttenberg?
Schäuble:He has a number of specific skills.
ZEIT: He can talk.
Schäuble:Yes, he is obviously good at that. He has something that fascinates people. Incidentally, it’s the same with his
father. But I don’t think he’s superman. I think highly of him because he has achieved a lot: Think of the basic decision
in favour of a reform of the Bundeswehr or the fact that he called Afghanistan a combat mission. When I said the same
thing as Minister of the Interior, everyone said: “Schäuble is mad”.
ZEIT: Do you as one of the party’s leading politicians feel a special responsibility not to harm the CDU/CSU’s most
promising young politician?
Schäuble:As Finance Minister I do not want to harm anybody.
ZEIT: At the moment the Defence Minister does not want to save as much as he should save according to the coalition
agreement. If you don’t want to harm him, does that mean he gets a discount?
Schäuble:Even I can’t change the basic rules of arithmetic. Guttenberg’s original idea was to reduce the number of
professional and temporary soldiers to 163,500. That went up to 185,000. That was a deliberate political choice, but
costs more. That is why our joint decision was: up to 185,000 soldiers within the limits of the current financial planning.
Anyone now drawing the conclusion that more money is needed for this will have to learn: that is not what was decided
upon.
ZEIT: So no concessions?
Schäuble:The coalition decided that the current financial planning will stay as it is. Increasing the net government
borrowing is something we cannot do under any circumstances.
ZEIT: You said that you epitomise the long-term memory of the Federal Republic in the cabinet. What have we learned
from the old Federal Republic that still holds good today?
Schäuble:What I said about the long-term memory was all right, but to rake over that now is unfair. Mr Brüderle, Ms
Leutheusser and I are living reminders of the time before reunification, the time when Germany was divided. And at a
cabinet get-together it’s nice when a few people can tell stories about the old days.
ZEIT:And what’s your favourite story?
Schäuble:For example,I can recount what it was like when I was Chief of Staff at the Federal Chancellery in the
1980s.
ZEIT: You can also talk about how your relationship with Helmut Kohl developed in the 1990s. In early February there
was a film on television from the Duels series by Stephan Lamby. Did you watch it?
Schäuble:No, I didn’t. I was out.
ZEIT: Will you watch it?
Schäuble:What for? My wife watched it. But that chapter is closed as far as I am concerned. I don’t have any problems
with Helmut Kohl any more. Anyway the film is a prime example of how you cannot get rid of certain prejudices.
ZEIT: So you do know the film?
Schäuble:I can guess what is shown. The title alone implies that we duelled. That’s nonsense. I didn’t want to topple
Kohl, not even in 1998 when it became evident that we were not going to win the parliamentary elections. But in the
public mind – and in the mind of Helmut Kohl – there is a firm conviction that Schäuble wanted to become chancellor
and that if Kohl had stepped down in the spring of 1998, Schäuble would have become chancellor. My opinion is that
Schäuble wouldn’t have become chancellor anyway. Even with Schäuble as our candidate we would not have won the
elections in 1998. Perhaps we would have had a grand coalition instead of an SPD/Green government. Whether that
would have been better is an open question.
ZEIT: You are not offended at the suggestion that the CSU/CDU would have had a better chance in 1998 with you as
their candidate.
Schäuble:Perhaps we would not have lost as badly. But I don’t think we would have won. At the time people from the
CSU/CDU came to me in droves and said we needed to talk to Kohl. So I told them: go on then, talk to him! Why
should I of all people talk to him? I did in the end but nothing came of it.
ZEIT: At Easter in 1998, a few months before the parliamentary elections, you travel to Kohl who is on holiday and ask
him to stand down in your favour. “Come on, let me do it”, you say. But he won’t. And you cannot break free of him?
Schäuble:I said to my wife at the time even before setting off: If I talk to him, our relationship will never be the same
again.
ZEIT: Why did you do it anyway? Out of a sense of duty or were you convinced you could do it better?
Schäuble:I knew that we would not win with him any more and I did not want to be accused of being too cowardly to
tell him that. But I knew beforehand that I would not get anywhere.
ZEIT: When you think of the time up to 1998, how would you describe your working relationship?
Schäuble:We had a close relationship and Kohl could trust me. He knew that I would not go behind his back. In my
arrogant way I sometimes said: I’ll decide the way he would, if he understood it. That worked well; it wasn’t contrary to
his interests or mine and it wasn’t bad for the country either. All in all, we were quite a good government.
ZEIT: Have you ever regretted being loyal?
Schäuble:No, I haven’t. I was certainly one of the better qualified members of parliament. But I did not expect to have
that kind of political career – hadn’t even imagined it. I definitely owe that to my close working relationship with Kohl.
ZEIT: Then came the donations scandal and with it the rupture.
Schäuble:When disaster struck, it was clear what the younger people were saying: Schäuble is much too deeply
involved; he can’t make the break. I did try to somehow manage the separation process between the CDU and its
honorary chairman but that ended up in terribly hurt feelings. Everyone in the CDU executive who told him that he
should name the secret donors or give up his honorary chairmanship was in Kohl’s eyes a traitor or a coward. After all,
everybody owed everything to him.
ZEIT: Did Kohl surprise you with this anger that suddenly erupted? Did you get to see a completely different side of
him?
Schäuble:No, not at all.
ZEIT: Had you always suspected that he had this potential?
Schäuble:No, that wasn’t it. But I could understand why, in that phase where his life’s work was being wrecked, he
said: If that’s the price I have to pay, then I’ll take you all with me. I was always able to explain Kohl’s actions well, but
that is all over. I feel sorry for him now. I hope that he is coping well in his old age. Our relationship was over for me
when he insinuated that I was also someone whom you might suspect could be involved in shady dealings.
ZEIT:In 1994 you accepted a donation of 100,000 Deutschmarks from the lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber, the
whereabouts of which is still a subject for debate.
Schäuble:Do we really have to go into that again? No one is interested in that any longer.
ZEIT: At the time you were unable to prove that you had duly forwarded the donation to the CDU treasurer, Brigitte
Baumeister. This made you vulnerable to attack. And Kohl, who himself stood at the edge of the abyss on account of the
donations, wanted to drag you down with him.
Schäuble:That’s why I said to him: Helmut, I’ve spent enough of my life with you – enough is enough! I have nothing
to add to that. Full stop.
ZEIT: You’re assuming that Kohl had a pact with Schreiber to destroy you.
Schäuble:I can more or less explain his relationship with Schreiber – I have no further questions in that regard. I was
just annoyed that I didn’t figure it out earlier.
ZEIT: Where did you go wrong in the whole affair?
Schäuble:I reacted wrongly in the Bundestag when in response to an interjection I said nothing about the donation. But
in that situation I wasn’t even aware of it. In 1994 I organised a fund-raising dinner on behalf of the party that Mr
Schreiber attended. The next day he appeared in my office and said: “I like you, here’s 100,000 Marks, use it as you see
fit.” Of course, I replied, “It’ll go straight to the party, thank you very much.” I forwarded the donation to the party
treasurer and said as well: “Send Schreiber a receipt so he knows I duly booked it for the party.” A couple of weeks later
Ms Baumeister said: “Can’t you send him a signed copy of your book?” Later that became significant.
ZEIT: When is the next time you saw Schreiber?
Schäuble:Years later I read that the public prosecutor was looking for the man. When I spoke to Ms Baumeister about it
she acted as if she had never heard the name. Somehow it struck me as peculiar. It took ages before she finally admitted
that he hadn’t wanted a receipt, so that the money never appeared in the party’s statements of account. I could of course
have reported it to the president of the Bundestag then, but was I obliged to? That’s my story and it will dog me to the
end of my life. That’s the reason why I’m vexed and that’s why I don’t want to hear any more about it.
ZEIT: It won’t leave you in peace.
Schäuble:That’s not true.
ZEIT: You’re reacting in a very emotional way.
Schäuble: Well, after all I was the victim of an intrigue involving criminal elements!
ZEIT: And still you say today that you don’t want to hear any more about it.
Schäuble:What would you do? I wrote a book about it; it’s all in there. You know, there are a couple of details of the
story that leave a very bitter taste. For a while people went as far as crossing to the other side of the street when they
saw my wife coming. That wasn’t very pleasant. Insinuations that I had embezzled money I found very hurtful. That’s
disgraceful and wrong.
ZEIT: Your brother Thomas has said he wouldn’t have tolerated that business with Kohl.
Schäuble:It’s true, he always viewed Kohl with a critical eye. Whether it wouldn’t have happened to him I don’t know.
I read the advance copy of the book by Walter Kohl with some dismay. I wasn’t aware either that his son went through a
crisis. He now writes about it openly. But I don’t know whether a book is a good way of settling up with one’s father.
ZEIT: You have four children yourself. How far did your job as politician affect your role as a father?
Schäuble:I don’t know. All the time you’re growing older while your children are growing into adulthood. But I make
an effort to keep my mind open to changes that younger people can better explain to older people.
ZEIT: When you became Finance Minister in 2009, you stressed your loyalty. Did the Chancellor have any reason to
doubt it?
Schäuble:I said to her: “You know what you’re letting yourself in for. You won’t be getting a very biddable minister. It
won’t be easy with me but I’m loyal.” And I think I’ve shown that to be the case. In 2002, when I was still in the
opposition and was about to become the deputy leader of the party, Angela Merkel asked me “Will that work? You used
to be my boss, now I’m yours?” I told her at that time that I couldn’t see any problem. It’s pleasant working with Ms
Merkel.
ZEIT: Perhaps it was important to stress your loyalty because you knew the demands that were going to have to be
made of others?
Schäuble:In terms of financial policy we were relatively consistent.
ZEIT: Whom are you demanding a lot of?
Schäuble:I am asking citizens to reconcile themselves to the fact that the excessively high net government borrowing
will have to be reduced. 80 percent of the population thinks that is right. That is why I also expect all cabinet members
to recognize that two plus two equals four. Politicians would always prefer two and two to make forty, which is why I
always draw attention to the coalition agreement and the debt brake. If we want to adhere to these, there won’t be a lot
of room for tax relief. This led to my being accused of wanting to damage the FDP. That’s nonsense! I wish the FDP
every success. I don’t think it is that important whether the FDP has two percent more in the polls and we have two
percent less or vice versa. What counts with me is that the government does its job well.
ZEIT: The FDP doesn’t appear to be very sure about your kind concern.
Schäuble:This government quite simply set itself the task of reducing the public debt to create a basis for stable
economic and social conditions in the long term. That has been quite successful to date, although apparently it doesn’t
seem to count as far as our track record is concerned. There’s too much talk about what hasn’t been achieved, or not
achieved yet.
ZEIT: But politics thrives on future prospects. What else do you want to achieve? What is the overriding goal of your
policies?
Schäuble:For the Federal Republic of Germany to face up to globalisation and a rapidly changing society and succeed
in maintaining in the future what it achieved in the last 50 years. That is the most important political goal. In addition,
European unification must be furthered. This is why political responsibility means convincing the population over and
over again that investments in the future of Europe, in spite of all of its flaws, all of its complexity and all its
bureaucratic nonsense, are also good for our country’s future.
ZEIT: The population doesn’t appear to believe that.
Schäuble:Moving Europe forward is very difficult. That’s why it makes me angry that the European institutions, the
Commission as well as the Parliament, have failed miserably to promote progress towards European integration. You
only actually hear the EU parliamentarians whenever they say what they are not going to go along with because they’re
representing national interests. Their actual task is to persuade the public that the most important national interest is
successful European integration.
ZEIT: You’re regarded as the last European in the cabinet. What kind of Europe would you like?
Schäuble:A Europe of diversity where the things that Europe can only do together are indeed tackled together. Many
things that are still today the sole responsibility of the nation-states have to be reassigned completely. Decisions at
European level will then have to be legitimised just as democratically as is the case today at national level.
ZEIT: So you would like French, Spanish and Greek parliamentarians to have a say in how much tax the Germans pay
and when they take retirement?
Schäuble:I would like the countries of Europe to be more closely coordinated. And I would like a Europe that faces up
to the reality of globalisation. Realistically, we should recognise that more than one-and-a-half to two percent growth
for Germany is neither sustainable nor even necessarily desirable.
ZEIT: Is 2011 the decisive year for the independence of the euro?
Schäuble:That somewhat trite phrase is not appropriate in a serious interview. It’s an ongoing endeavour.
ZEIT: What will Germany have to give up in order to achieve more in Europe?
Schäuble:We cannot build a united Europe if we say that everyone has to become like us. You cannot move a
community forward if you are absolutely convinced that you do everything right and the others do everything wrong.
Accepting the differences will be the most important thing. Admittedly, that’s not always easy.
ZEIT: How does that fit in with the concept of economic governance as currently propagated by the Chancellor? Isn’t
there a tacit belief that the rest of Europe would do well to follow our lead and that Europe should become more
German?
Schäuble:You underestimate the Chancellor. Of course we should try to push as much as possible of what we think is
right in Europe. But the majority of the CDU is not under the illusion that everything in Europe should be like it is in
Germany.
ZEIT: Does your coalition partner see that the same way?
Schäuble:The FDP follows the same course. Sometimes it sounds a bit Eurosceptic – perhaps partly because some
people think the FDP should adopt this stance. But I hope that the FDP resists the temptation.
ZEIT: Last spring you campaigned for greater integration in Europe – also despite resistance in the ranks of your own
party. In the meantime much of what you called for has become the German government’s official position. What does
that say about the government?
Schäuble:A part of my own inner freedom is that I never say I knew all along. That is not helpful.
ZEIT: Norbert Blüm once said: Politicians fail because of their strengths and not because of their weaknesses. Was he
right?
Schäuble:Strengths are always a temptation too, and can lead to failure. But if you’re no good at your job, you fail
because of your weaknesses. And that’s even worse.
Marc Brost und Matthias Geis conducted the interview.
© Die Zeit. All rights reserved
© Federal Ministry of Finance