• federalreverse-old@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Could be worse, I guess. I live in a “secular” democracy that essentially collects members fees for the Catholic and Lutheran churches (and only those two!) via the federal income tax.

      • Captain Janeway@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Germany, state-recognized churches collect taxes from their members in order to finance their activities as well as wages. Everyone who is a member of an officially recognized religious group automatically gets a percentage of their monthly wage taken from their paycheck. Usually, this amounts to around 9% of income tax — with the exception of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, where the church tax amounts to 8%.

        For native Germans, church tax is often automatically collected. Many Germans are baptized at a young age and thereby become members of a particular church, which means they pay taxes to that church when they begin to earn income as an adult.

        If you’re a foreigner moving to Germany, you can declare your affiliation to a church when you register at your local citizen’s office.

        9%? That’s absurd. Is there a way to remove yourself from this?

        • federalreverse-old@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is there a way to remove yourself from this?

          Sure: There is a third box “no confession” next to “Catholic” and “Protestant” on the form. You can check that and those 9% remain with the state instead.

          German secularism has a few more peculiarities. Many charitable organizations e.g. running hospitals or institutions caring for the homeless, elderly, and disabled are in fact religious (Diakonie, Johanniter, Caritas, Stadtmission, …). This has some unfortunate effects: They often hire people of Christian faith only, meaning atheists or adherents of other religions are mostly excluded at these organizations. There have also been cases of a doctor at a Christian-run hospital denying the abortion because of their faith – despite abortion being legal here. However, much of the money these organizations receive is in fact public money, supposedly spent on serving the public. Another wrinkle is that Religious Law is used when it comes to e.g. prosecuting rape cases involving priests etc. Somehow, this separate system of law that doesn’t really seem to work particularly well is accepted by the German state.

        • wgbirne@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just want to clarify: It is 9% of the income tax, not 9% of the income. Still too high, but not as absurd as some people may think after reading this incorrectly. I know some people who thought that it is 9% of the income although they were paying church tax for years…

          • Captain Janeway@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly I didn’t realize that. That does make it a bit more reasonable but it’s still a lot of the income tax. But the other explanations I’ve read sort of make it make sense. Churches were the original social services for the needy and Germany basically coopted the model into their tax system - rather than tearing down religious hospitals or making them private.

            I get it, but it’s also weird!

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      Taxing religious organizations gives them official representation in government affairs which is just as bad, if not worse.

      • Fisk400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Definitely not how that works. All companies are taxed and they don’t get any special representation outside lobbying that they were going to do either way and churches do in fact put a lot of the money they should have payed in taxes into lobbying.

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, but well-connected companies use regulatory capture to structure taxes as a burden on their competition.

              Consider for a moment how churches would be taxed. Maybe they are taxed on their assets. That would disproportionately affect larger churches with valuable real estate holdings, like the Catholic and Mormon churches. Maybe the donations they receive are taxed. That disadvantages newer churches which don’t have corporate investments or endowments. Tax land? Hurt cemeteries. Tax salaries? Favor Quaker meeting houses where there is no specific pastor.

              Look, I don’t think churches should be involved in politics. Any that donate to candidates or endorse a party should lose their tax exempt status, because they are no longer churches. But a blanket removal of all tax exemptions for religious organizations is a threat to religious freedom. It would allow the religious leaders in government to play favorites and pick winners, kind of like they do now already.

                • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is that what I said?

                  Tax code is applied by politicians. Do you really expect Christian Conservatives to fairly tax Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus at the same rates as their own churches? Freedom of Religion cannot exist when political leaders are able to tax competing religions into oblivion.

          • mateomaui@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            To some degree, agreed, but your original assertion is still wrong. Unless you count all the devoutly religious people in Congress, and they already have that representation.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not taxing them hasn’t kept their fingers out of the American government.

        Far from it.

        Hell, the current speaker is trying to convince everyone that the government was always intended to be based on religious dogma.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please elaborate…

        Like, do you think McDonald’s as a corporation gets to vote?

        Do you think priests and preachers don’t get to vote now?

  • Otter@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    A lot of these are things that we can improve

    Here’s one we can’t: giraffes 🦒

    an old meme:

    • vivadanang@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      The U.S. Geological Survey’s most recent water use data for Utah shows the state uses about 38 million gallons of water on golf courses per day.

      PER FUCKING DAY.

    • YourFavouriteNPC@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Golf is equivalent to licking an entire countryside so nobody else can use it. The only activity in human history that used more space for less people were the Apollo moon landings.

  • livus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Billionaires and Guinea Worm.

    The good news is we are on the verge of eradicating Guinea Worm.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    These Boston dynamics robot dogs

    But in reality, military aerial drones are much more terrifying. It sounds like a sci-fi dystopia that a billionaire could type your name, press a kill button, and within a few minutes a drone locates and bombs you. But this tech has already existed for over a decade, and is being used by the US in the Middle East and North Africa.

    • sean@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think you just type a name and set it to go. Someone is remotely piloting that drone.