Felix Oldenburg: “We All Want to Live in a Fair Tax System”
Felix Oldenburg says Germany’s wealth is too often locked up in inheritances and foundations, while private giving is falling short of what rising wealth would suggest.
Intelligence analysis by GPT-5.4 Mini
Oldenburg argues that Germany faces not only a state financing problem but also a crisis in private giving. He says much wealth is inherited and tied up in rigid structures, limiting how flexibly it can support society.
Oldenburg says money can get stuck like toys locked in a box. If rich families keep wealth frozen for heirs or foundations, less of it reaches new ideas, charities, or urgent problems.
Analysis
What Oldenburg argues
In this interview, Felix Oldenburg says the discussion about funding major public needs should not be reduced to state money alone. He draws a distinction between public financing and private financing, saying each has a different role in society.
He uses the example of Ise Bosch, who began supporting LGBTQ initiatives 25 years ago, to show how private giving can back causes that were not yet supported by parliaments or mainstream budgets. His point is that private money can help when a society does not yet have majorities for a cause, or when a project needs long-term commitment and room for unconventional ideas.
The problem he sees
Oldenburg says Germany is facing a crisis of private giving as well as a crisis in public finances. He says foundations in Germany are releasing too little money and that roughly 30 billion euros less has been donated than expected based on wealth growth. He also says higher earners give proportionally only about half as much as low- and middle-income earners, and that for the first time fewer than half of people are donating at all.
He argues that a lot of wealth is effectively frozen. In his view, inherited wealth is often treated as something heirs should preserve for the next generation rather than use freely. Family structures, wealth-management vehicles, and foundations can limit liquidity and leave owners with less control than outsiders assume.
Oldenburg does not reject foundations outright. He says the foundation model is fundamentally valuable and has done a lot for southern Germany and other regions. But he warns that many foundations are too rigid, too permanent, and too expensive to run, with costs for managers, tax advisers, and foundation lawyers reducing the benefit for everyone else.
His broader message
The interview’s core argument is that Germany needs a more flexible relationship between wealth and social responsibility. Oldenburg wants richer families and institutions to give more freely, while also questioning whether all wealth should be locked into structures that outlast the people who created them.
Key points
- Oldenburg separates public financing from private giving and says both have different roles in society.
- He argues that Germany has a crisis of private giving, not just a crisis in state finances.
- He says much of Germany’s wealth is inherited and effectively tied up in family structures or foundations.
- He claims foundations are often too rigid and costly, even though the model itself is valuable.
- He cites falling donation rates and a large gap between expected and actual giving.
If private giving becomes more flexible, more money could reach causes that public budgets do not yet cover. Oldenburg suggests that this could help support long-term projects and unusual ideas before they become mainstream.
If wealth stays locked inside inheritance rules and rigid foundations, less of it may be available for current social needs. Oldenburg also warns that costs for managers, tax advisers, and foundation lawyers can drain value before it helps anyone.
