3 ms·
Right, the line does get rather blurry when a service provider has the power to compel people to purchase their "service" whether they want to or not. Local gov
by nybble41 9y ago
Right, the line does get rather blurry when a service provider has the power to compel people to purchase their "service" whether they want to or not. Local governments like to position such payments as "fees"—it makes for better PR—but if there are penalties for opting out (such as not being permitted to occupy your own property) then I would consider it a tax. In the cases you mentioned, for example, there really isn't any significant difference between those mandatory utility "fees" and property taxes.
- mirimir 9y ago> but if there are penalties for opting out (such as not being permitted to occupy your own property) then I would consider it a tax. I agree. But I'm guessing that it's the same in Germany. They call them "fees" but they're really taxes. Except that they can't be used for other purposes.
- Xylakant 9y agoThere is a substantial difference between fees and taxes. Fees are tied to something specific. This has two implications: First, they cannot be used for something else. Second: The height of the fee must not exceed the cost of the service and thus is at least in principle something that can be checked. For example, some public health insurance providers in germany had excess money and they had to refund that to their customers. Taxes are under no such regime. It may seem like one is like the other, but it’s really an important distinction.
- nybble41 9y ago> Fees are tied to something specific. ... they cannot be used for something else. ... The height of the fee must not exceed the cost of the service.... In Germany that may be true, but I was speaking of the US, where the terms are used differently. There is no expectation here that "fees" can only be used to defray the cost of providing specific services.