ok, I'll try it as well...
English discussion will be an exception though, because of a mere lack of time.
Thank you, "Winston Smith", for your initative.
Dazu möchte ich auch vorschlagen, dass es vielleicht nicht schlecht wäre, wenn das
gez-boykott Forum
http://gez-boykott.de/Forum
eine englischsprachige Rubrik mit wichtigen Informationen hätte.
Das würde vielleicht helfen, die Aufmerksamkeit der internationalen Medien zu erregen.
Would be nice, indeed - however, the capacities are limited.
Let's figure out some kind of a work around...?
I am an American expat living in Germany [...]
There is a big english speaking expat community in Germany.
You could spread the word there.Everyone can contribute his own little part.
This special part could be yours.First of all this is a service fee and not a tax!!! That is so important that I will write it again: this is a service fee and not a tax!!!
Partially right
It is regulated as a
"mandatory 'service fee' for everyone" (contradiction in terms!) because a "tax" couldn't have been implementet by the federal states, which are regulating broadcasting in Germany.
Not only is this service fee not a “tax”, it is also not even backed by a specific law.
Now, that is - unfortunately - not right.
It is
very well "backed by a specific law", even though it is quite confusing.
I especially urge, not to let yourself mislead by misinformation such as "Rundfunkbeitragsstaatsvertrag" being just a "contract" or simply an "information by ARD-ZDF-GEZ".
It is an official, "legal" and registered federal state law.
The former "Gebühren-/ BeitragsBESCHEID", now "FestsetzungsBESCHEID" is not simply an "invoice".
It is an "administrative act" which becomes enforceable at law, if it is not being payed and formally objected by a "Widerspruch".
Please see
Clarification of deceptive videos regarding law/ contract/ bailiff/ marshal, etc.Klarstellung zu irreführenden Videos bzgl. Gesetz/ Vertrag/ GV, etc.http://gez-boykott.de/Forum/index.php/topic,10628.0.htmlHad this fee been a tax, implemented or backed by a law, then it would have been considered unconstitutional from the start.
Unfortunately, this doesn't happen just by itself...
In order to get a law
officially cancelled because of unconstitutionality, someone has to claim exactly that at the German highest court, the
Federal Constitutional Court/ "Bundesverfassungsgericht".
That court, however, referred the plaintiffs to the "normal channel" from the very beginning.
That "normal channel", the
German administrative courts, however, are well-known for the
looooooong duration of their cases.
Therefore, just this year these cases will finally be dealt with at the highest court
Federal Constitutional Court and Federal Administrative Court - overview/ table of casesBVerfG und BVerwG Verfahrensübersicht in Tabellenform.http://gez-boykott.de/Forum/index.php/topic,19081.msg141760.html#msg141760http://gez-boykott.de/Forum/index.php/topic,19081.msg141763.html#msg141763In March of 2016 it was even officially established in the German courts via extremely tenuous arguments that this service-fee is not a some kind of “stealth-tax”.
Again: Not quite right.
It was
"established" by
Jan 01, 2013.
In March 2016 above mentioned cases reached the highest court of the "normal channel", the Federal Administrative Court/ "Bundesverwaltungsgericht".
This has "only"
reconfirmed what all the other administrative courts have judged before.
You could call it "stealth-tax" - and "stealth-jurisdiction"...
To get around this “problem”, in blatant violation of the principles of European contract law, a contract was drafted between the individual state governments and the broadcasters which states that the public broadcasters may fleece every household for a flat fee.
Again, not quite right.
The
content of the "contract" was "negotiated" between the states and the public broadcasters - if not
highly influenced by the public broadcasters.
The "contract" itself, however, has been
signed only between the federal states - not between the states and the broadcasters.
That is a big difference.
This contract has then been
transformed into law by passing a bill in each state, that basically defined the content of the contract as "law".
Again - please see
Clarification of deceptive videos regarding law/ contract/ bailiff/ marshal, etc.
Klarstellung zu irreführenden Videos bzgl. Gesetz/ Vertrag/ GV, etc.
http://gez-boykott.de/Forum/index.php/topic,10628.0.htmlI think that there should be more information about this made available in the international community, which might help somewhat to put a stop to the abuse.
I totally agree - and I refer to my above comment:
This could be your part and the part of other expats.