Anywhere other than Germany where than happens?

As I understand it, there are parts of France that spent time as parts of Germany and are still somewhat culturally German that do church tax in a similar way - much of what was Alsace-Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen).

To be clear: (almost) no one is forced to pay church tax in Germany - only members of the churches that have an agreement with the government to collect it on top of income tax have to pay it, and you can choose to leave those churches. For Protestants ("evangelisch"), that's usually not as big of a deal as it is for Catholics who still believe; there are plenty of non-church-tax-collecting Protestant churches around the country, including the one I'm a member of.

"Almost": there were many couples with very unequal incomes in which the non/lower-earner would stay in the church so that the family would still get the various services (baptisms, weddings, preferential admission to church-affiliated schools, etc) while the higher earner would "leave" (on paper), leaving the family paying far less in church tax. That loophole was closed - if the higher earner isn't a member of another church collecting church tax, they can be required to pay church tax to their spouse's church. I'm not sure this is still in effect, but it was for a while.

▲

szszrk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In Germany it's not really true. AFAIK you pay those taxes only if you are registered follower of 3 main religions. You literally can opt out, they are a counter example.

Poland is the one I experience it. Church is funded in multiple ways. At least 3 billion PLN a year from concordat deal from 90's. Priests have pensions and annuities. Churches pay no taxes on (heating) fuels. Schools pay for Religious Education classes, very often run by priests or nuns. Uniformed services almost always pay for cleric's services or clerics fully in their services.

Of course church still gathers funds on their own, sometimes using dark patterns.

	▲	graemep 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think tax breaks are different from direct funding, the same for payment for specific services at a reasonable price. For example the UK exempts virtually all religious bodies from tax, and its on the same basis as a huge range of things (e.g. amateur sports, equality and diversity, community facilities...). I would not consider that state mandated payment for services. I do not know enough about the concordat or how Polish pensions work to comment on those. I would be interested but there does not seem to be a lot of information online (e.g. the wikipedia article is a stub)

▲

falcor84 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If we look outside Christianity, what comes to mind is reading about the ultra-orthodox in Israel, and obviously about Iran.

▲

graemep an hour ago | parent [-]

I was thinking of Christianity as I was responding to a comment that used the word "church".

However, besides that, subsidies from general taxation are not the same as payments for a service received (i.e. going back to it being a "subscription service"), whereas something like the German system where the payment is linked to entitlement to services (if other comments here are accurate) can be reasonably characterised as a subscription service.

▲

lotsofpulp an hour ago | parent [-]

I disagree with the distinction between subsidies and payments. The math is zero sum, either way purchasing power is undesirably and forcibly reduced from one entity and given to another.

	▲	graemep 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is not the distinction I am making here. I even partly agree with you (with some nuances). I am making a distinction between being made to pay through general taxation (e.g. as a pacifist is forced to pay for the military, an extreme libertarian for public services in general) and being made to pay in order to use the service (e.g. like a Netflix subscription). Almost everywhere they exist, subsidies for religion are like the former, not the latter.