Nobody in Germany talks openly about a wealth levy. The Chancellor does talk very openly about the EUR 2.8 trillion sitting in German savings and current accounts — as does the European Commission about instruments to “mobilise” that money. This article sets out what was actually said and planned, which legal foundations already exist, and why asset holders should not wait for a draft bill before asking the question.
What was said
At the CSU party conference on 12 October 2024, Friedrich Merz said:
German accounts, savings and current accounts, hold EUR 2.8 trillion. Imagine for a moment that we were able to mobilise just 10 percent of that — at a reasonable rate of interest: for public infrastructure in Germany; for building out what we need in education, in the public sector, across the whole of public infrastructure.
And further: “We are not short of capital. We are short of sensible instruments to mobilise this capital so that it serves a common purpose of our country.”
Fairness requires the fact-checkers’ reading: in that speech Merz spoke about incentives for private investment, not expropriation — capital to be mobilised “at a reasonable rate of interest”. The European Commission likewise stresses voluntariness throughout the Savings and Investments Union, and the EU has no taxing power of its own in any case. Reading the speech as the announcement of a forced loan overstretches it.
None of which changes the underlying position it reveals: the state has a capital requirement, it has quantified that requirement publicly, and it is looking for instruments. Which is precisely why it is worth examining the instruments that already exist.
The Savings and Investments Union
The European Commission presented its strategy for a Savings and Investments Union (SIU) in March 2025, under Commissioner Maria Luís Albuquerque. At its core are European savings and investment accounts, the removal of distribution barriers for funds, and tax incentives modelled on successful national schemes.
The stated goal is expressly to mobilise private capital for investment — the areas named are infrastructure, sustainability, digitalisation and defence. Participation is voluntary; buying shares or bonds remains the investor’s decision.
The point almost nobody knows
Here is the genuinely relevant piece of information, and it has nothing to do with speculation.
The German wealth tax was never abolished. In its decision of 22 June 1995 the Federal Constitutional Court declared only the specific design unconstitutional — real-estate assets were valued more favourably than other assets, which breached the principle of equality. The court did not object to the wealth tax as such.
Since 1 January 1997 it has therefore simply not been levied. The legal basis remains in place: Article 106 of the Basic Law expressly provides for a wealth tax and assigns its revenue to the federal states.
And it has been done before
The second fact rarely raised in the debate: the Federal Republic has already carried out a wealth levy — on a scale that makes today’s proposals look mild.
- 14 August 1952
Burden Equalisation Act
Enacted to offset the property losses of war and expulsion. The wealth levy amounted to 50 percent of assessed asset value.
- Payment terms
120 quarterly instalments over 30 years
The levy was payable in up to 120 instalments. The annual burden therefore came to roughly 1.67 percent — payable out of yield, without touching the substance.
- Exemption
5,000 marks
Below the threshold, assets were untouched — the levy targeted the wealthy, not small savers.
- 22 June 1995
Constitutional Court strikes the valuation, not the tax
The wealth tax has not been levied since 1997 — Art. 106 of the Basic Law remains in force unchanged.
The 1952 design is instructive precisely because it defeats the usual counter-argument: that a wealth levy would have to destroy substance and is therefore unrealistic. The Burden Equalisation shows the opposite — spread over three decades, a 50 percent levy was serviceable out of current yield. Anyone looking for a template will find one in Germany’s own statute book.
Our assessment
To keep the line clear: everything above is documented. What follows is our assessment as a service provider — not a forecast and not legal advice.
A wealth levy has not been decided, is not in the legislative process and has not been announced by the current government. At the same time, the constellation on the other side is one that asset holders should register: a publicly quantified capital shortfall, a municipal investment backlog of EUR 231.2 billion, a government spending ratio above 50 percent, an intact constitutional basis, a historical implementation model — and a chancellor who has done the arithmetic on EUR 2.8 trillion of private deposits out loud.
None of that compels the conclusion that the levy is coming. It does mean its possibility should stop being treated as far-fetched.
What can be prepared
The effective steps are unspectacular, legal and fully declared — and they only work when set up before the event:
- Jurisdictional diversification: do not hold assets in a single legal system only
- Currency diversification outside the euro area
- Build a Georgian account or structure while still living in Germany — declared there
- Have exit taxation under § 6 AStG calculated today, not later
- Prepare tax residency and an actual move as an option
- Waiting until a draft bill exists
- Relying on secrecy — Georgia has reported under CRS since 2024
- Moving assets abroad undeclared
The decisive point remains the same as across this whole topic: a structure on its own achieves nothing while you are resident in Germany — details in Georgian company, German authorities. It takes effect with relocation, and the cost of that is set out in Emigration: 8.2 million Germans. The overall location balance is in Government ratio 50.3%.
Frequently asked questions
FAQ
Is a wealth levy coming in Germany?
Nothing has been decided and no draft bill exists. What is documented is the underlying position: EUR 2.8 trillion in private accounts, which Chancellor Merz expressly identified as mobilisable capital in October 2024, a municipal investment backlog of EUR 231.2 billion and a government spending ratio above 50 percent. Whether that becomes a levy is a political question — that the instruments are in place is a legal fact.
Was the wealth tax not abolished in 1997?
No. On 22 June 1995 the Federal Constitutional Court declared only the specific design unconstitutional, because real-estate assets were valued more favourably than other assets. The tax as such was not objected to. Since 1 January 1997 it has merely not been levied, and Article 106 of the Basic Law still expressly provides for it. Reintroduction requires only a simple law with the consent of the Bundesrat.
Has Germany ever had a wealth levy before?
Yes. The Burden Equalisation Act of 14 August 1952 imposed a wealth levy of 50 percent of assessed asset value, payable in up to 120 quarterly instalments over 30 years. The annual burden was therefore around 1.67 percent and serviceable out of yield. An exemption of 5,000 marks protected smaller estates.
Does the EU Savings and Investments Union mean a forced loan?
No. The SIU is a capital-markets project: European savings and investment accounts, fewer distribution barriers for funds, tax incentives. Participation is voluntary, and the EU has no taxing power of its own — only national parliaments can levy taxes. What is notable is not compulsion but the shift in perspective: private savings are now openly regarded as a funding source for public tasks.
Why does timing matter so much?
Because wealth levies are assessed on a cut-off date — on the assets within reach on that day. Acting only after a draft is published leaves almost no room to structure. The same logic governs departure: exit taxation under § 6 AStG is measured on company value at the moment of leaving and rises with every year of growth, and since 2025 ETF and fund units are covered too.
Does simply moving assets abroad help?
Not undeclared — that would be tax evasion, and Georgia has participated in the automatic exchange of information under CRS since 2024. Accounts are reported regardless. What works legally is diversification across jurisdictions and currencies with full declaration and, if you want it, an actual relocation of residence and centre of life.
This article is general information and does not constitute legal or tax advice. The quotations are from Friedrich Merz’s speech to the CSU party conference of 12 October 2024; the legal points refer to the Federal Constitutional Court decision of 22 June 1995, Art. 106 of the Basic Law and the Burden Equalisation Act of 14 August 1952. The section “Our assessment” is expressly marked as an assessment and is not a forecast. As of August 2026, subject to changes in the legal situation.