How are LinkedIn users reacting to F.Merz's statement that “the welfare state is unaffordable”?

The Analysis of the LinkedIn comments reveals a deep mistrust of the political class and current priorities. Merz's statement merely serves as a hook for a broader unease that manifests itself in harsh criticism of the government, the alleged waste of taxpayer money, and the focus on international conflicts. The discussion is thus less a debate about the financial viability of the welfare state and more an expression of frustration and the feeling that the needs of the population are being neglected.

An evaluation of 100 LinkedIn comments on this topic. (Random sample)

The analysis is based on 100 independent commentaries on Friedrich Merz's statement “The welfare state is unaffordable.” The comments were manually assigned to five main categories, taking into account the dominant framework of each comment.

Results (quantitative).

Affirmation of Merz/unaffordable: 14%

Rejection of Merz/welfare state affordable or necessary: 6%

 Focus on Ukraine/war (“arms before welfare” etc.): 30%

Criticism of the system/politics (corruption, waste, “depose the government”): 40%

Neutral/humor or purely factual questions: 10

Result (qualitative).

Affirmation: typical line of argument “We can no longer afford all this; the state is overwhelmed.” Arguments are based on high social budgets and an aging population.

Rejection: few but pointed objections (“without the welfare state, domestic consumption will collapse,” reference to tax and subsidy gaps).

Ukraine context: very present; Merz's statement is constantly contrasted with billions in aid pledged to Kyiv (“money for weapons, but not for citizens”).

Criticism of the system: strongest bloc, often extremely emotional (“chase the rulers out of office,” “Germany is a madhouse”). Here, Merz blurs the lines with overall politics, frequent buzzwords: lobbying, special funds, tax burning.

Neutral/humor: isolated ironic punchlines or pure questions (“Who will end the war?”).

Content analysis of LinkedIn comments on Merz's statement

Tone.

The tone of the comments is predominantly negative to aggressively indignant. Around 70% of the comments contain derogatory terms. Objective and fact-based responses are the exception. A clear polarization is evident.

Conclusions.

The LinkedIn users in this sample hardly respond with a classic expert debate on the financial viability of the welfare state. Instead, the discourse shifts toward foreign and security policy costs and a general rejection of politicians.

The framing of “unaffordable” acts more as a catalyst for discontent with government spending in general than as a starting point for a debate on welfare state reform. The analysis shows that Merz's statement triggers greater dissatisfaction with the political situation and the government's priorities, which goes far beyond the question of welfare state financing.

Data source: 

LinkedIn comments on the topic ‘F. Merz's statements on the welfare state 2025