I've reviewed your answers now Klanky and where our differences lie are:
If you don't mind I'd like to address a few of these points.
Corporate taxes (which you want to lower)
By raising corporate taxes you are in fact decreasing revenue for the nation. Why would you want to on one hand punish the corporations that do stay in the country, and at the same time push the corporations who can't afford it out of the country, thus losing money.
There would still be a basic right to not being randomly fired even if this were to be changed, but as it is there are far too many hoops to jump through to fire someone. It's not like anybody could do what they want if this were changed.
Well, I voted neutral on this right? I was thinking more about it, and I think the only effective way to solve this is by saying yes. Ideally I'd like people who don't need it to not get it, but if you'd have to check every single case as to whether or not they are on a good foot with their parents, and can convince them to pay for their studies, that would be far to much bureaucracy, which is something I'd like to avoid. So I think I'd effectively also lean to yes on this one.
ecological farming (it costs more so it should recieve more aid, if we're going to aid farmers, could as well aid the ones that do it properly)
While I'm all in favor of ecological shit, I think the wrong way to do it is to just pay people who are constantly running at a loss to continue going like that. It encourages laziness if people can be unprofitable and bailed out.
That's not a mentality that should be encouraged. Instead you should spend the money on improving the whole process of ecological farming. Along the lines of "build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day, teach a man to make a fire once, he'll be warm the rest of his life".
You know what I mean? Whenever possible one-time payments should be preferred to a continuous non-ending stream of payments.
DB (we privatized our rail, it's just meant more delays, higher costs and generally shitty service)
The DB already has shitty service, high costs, and lot's of delays. If it's gonna suck, I want it to suck at a cost to itself, and not a cost to the taxpayer.
BTW, here's some quick arithmetic. My mother's car was bought at a cost of about 15 grand, and you can probably figure a depreciation of 1 grand each year for the first 10 years (on average). Add to this a yearly service costing about 200, and 700 euros to insure it in my name (it's a lot cheaper in my mother's name, but I'm talking worst case here, a 20 year old guy), and 50 euros in tax per year. 12000km * 5.3l/100km = 636l, times 1,35?m = ~850?. Sum total is 2800? a year, for 12000km. That makes about 23,50 per 100km.
The trip to Munich from my parents' house is 50km each way, so ?23,50 for the round trip. The cheapest train to munich costs ?12,50 each way, so ?25 round trip.
This is just an example of one common trip I make, with different trips you may sometimes come out slightly cheaper, or break even, but you are definitely going to be in this ballpark.
What I'm saying is that if it's already cheaper to drive your car alone (before you even think about carpooling), then there's not much reason to take the train. Not to mention the unfriendly employees, the random plebs you wind up on the train with, the fact that it takes nearly twice as long as the car, and the irregular running times. The only time I'd take a train is when I'm drinking and can't drive. But wait, the last train runs at 11pm. So I'm gonna need to take a taxi home anyways. No, I don't want to be financing this fail with my taxes.
Note: this applies to the nation railway system, the DB. The MVG (Munich Transport Company), who runs the subways, trams & buses. They run regularly, and at nighttime, and offer a good alternative to driving and parking your car in the congestion that is the most densely populated city of Germany. They are municipally owned, and work rather well, although local transport systems have been shown to work well under private ownership as well.
GMO food (I don't like it)
GMO food is actually going to be more ecological and healthier for you, by reducing the amount of pesticides/herbicides that you wind up eating, and that wind up sinking into the ground water. "I don't like it" doesn't tell me what your problem with it, but when a technology does no damage, and has tangible benefits, I see no reason to stand in the way of progress.
pensions (they've worked hard all their lives and their pensions are not that high to begin with)
This is an interesting one. The obvious answer would be "get less money, pay less". But what that effectively means is that somebody who paid 1 million in a while ago, only gets 500000 out, just because people nowadays are earning less. That's hardly fair to him, and it makes you wonder why he even bothered working so hard and paying taxes in the first place.
So thinking about it, I may have to revise my decision to a neutral standpoint, but on the other hand it is simply not profitable to pay out money that we don't have. I think the entire Pension system is in dire need of a reform, and TBH I'm not really sure how I'd try to make the current one work.
school system and municipial elections (I think you should be able to influence your local politics)
Why thank you for trusting me with being able to influence my local politics, but even though I'd like to make my opinion count here, I'm not sure a lot of people should be allowed to vote, not having been here long.
Although, I read up on the FDPs proposal, and what they are saying is that non-EU-foreigners who have been here over 5 years should be allowed to vote locally. And it's the "over 5 years" part that convinces me that this might be viable. So maybe yes, given the caveat that you have to have been in this municipality for 5 years.
(btw, I don't know if you are aware of this, or how the system is in Sweden, but foreigners are already allowed to vote on a local/municipal level, if they are from an EU country - it's only the non-EU foreigners like me and the turks who aren't allowed to)