The bullshit expenses like broadcast and so on can absolutely be reformed, but that's just a few billions here and there. The overwhelming majority of the spending (130 bn € per year, next biggest is the military with just 34 bn €) for the social system cannot decrease, thanks to the demographic it has to be increased every year until the birth rate is stabilized, which as described cannot happen if young people are busy paying for pensions.
And btw. the tax revenue from federal roads was 6 bn € last year, while the the ministry of transport spend 8 bn € on it's federal roads. Of course there are also 33bn revenue from the gas tax, which was introduced with the argument that roads need to be paid for, but yeah as described, if we cut the tax, pension funds will die. Revenue from VAT and income taxes are just ~ 80 bn € each, appropriate spending would just collapse the system instantly.
Here are the sources as an interactive chart, unfortunately only in German: https://www.bundeshaushalt-info.de/
With all that being said, maybe the Germans are less likely to be educable in that regard, and thus you're perhaps right that a fair and logical tax system won't fly. If so, it might work in Japan's society.
§ 11 Auftrag
Auftrag der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten ist, durch die
Herstellung und Verbreitung ihrer Angebote als Medium und Faktor des
Prozesses freier individueller und öffentlicher Meinungsbildung zu
wirken und dadurch die demokratischen, sozialen und
kulturellen Bedürfnisse der Gesellschaft zu erfüllen.
Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten haben in ihren Angeboten einen
umfassenden Überblick über das internationale, europäische, nationale und regionale
Geschehen in allen wesentlichen Lebensbereichen zu geben. Sie sollen hierdurch die
internationale Verständigung, die europäische Integration und den gesell-
schaftlichen Zusammenhalt in Bund und Ländern fördern. Ihre Angebote haben
der Bildung, Information, Beratung und Unterhaltung zu dienen. Sie haben Beiträge
insbesondere zur Kultur anzubieten. Auch Unterhaltung soll einem öffentlich-rechtlichen
Angebotsprofil entsprechen.
The main issue isn't with the 18 EURO per month, it's how it's used. If they cannot use it appropriately, it should be at least cut back so that it's just 5 EURO per month.
One could argue that technologically we could and probably should easily replace most of the programming with something that requires paid-for access keys. That way, one can reduce the mandatory part to a bare minimum while still allowing those who want it to get rest of the content. Then the argument would be that it has to be accessible by everyone, though with that argument you could say analog TV may not be turned off as long as there is still one analog TV set around.
I'm glad that Germany doesn't force a church tax or alternative payment to some similar org like Finland or many other nations do. At least one bug that doesn't exist in Germany.
The version I quoted is from the 2013. Private TV and radio existed by then. It has been reworked and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations.
> I'm not saying there shouldn't be culture per se,
But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post)
> but the amount of money spent in the networks is disproportionate to the positive effect it has these days.
[citation needed] A lot of german tv shows and niche content would not be produced if not for the public broadcast. They also produce a lot of stuff I consider waste, but that's my personal opinion, others may like it. I dislike opera and dance theater as well, but meh - it's still state sponsored as are other cultural venues that I do frequent and others may abhor. Funding culture is a wasteful process per se. The alternative is privatization of culture, so that mainly culture survives that either appeals to a large enough part of society or to a private wealthy donor.
> One could argue that technologically we could and probably should easily replace most of the programming with something that requires paid-for access keys. That way, one can reduce the mandatory part to a bare minimum while still allowing those who want it to get rest of the content. Then the argument would be that it has to be accessible by everyone, though with that argument you could say analog TV may not be turned off as long as there is still one analog TV set around.
This is contrary to the idea. The whole mandate aims at having a broadly and freely accessible canon of news, educational and cultural media that reflects as much of our society as possible.
> But there are plenty of soap operas on private networks, too. We would not lose anything if they would stop producing those [...] private companies, which would create the same service.
Which is questionable at least: Take Lindenstraße for example: I personally dislike it but without question is has been on the forefront of bringing important topics to the TV screen and probably the most diverse cast of all soap operas produced in germany. The english wikipedia page only has a short paragraph, read the german page if you can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindenstra%C3%9Fe#Cast Notable example are showing homosexuality in 1986, the first homosexual kiss in 1987 (the actors received death threats as a consequence), ... No private soap opera in germany dares to touch sensitive topics. American soaps are a bad substitute.
I also agree about theater and opera, though the tickets for those aren't cheap and you don't get a free ticket just because you paid for public broadcasts.
Figured as much based on some of the text.
> and rewritten, new media such as apps and online media has been included in the scope, partially by the constitutional court. The actors that try and prevent that as much as possible are the private TV stations.
Yeah, I never understood why someone like RTL would be opposed to ARD or ZDF's online content. the only explanation I got was that they want to limit where the content is available how and see it as a competition, otherwise why would they be the cause for only limited time online availability of publicly funded videos. I wonder how it's handled with BBC's iPlayer and if they also have an expiry date demanded by private media.
> But you did: "to produce just what the mandate requires, not daily soaps, game shows, " (taken from your previous post)
I know, though I don't consider the content cited here culture, and I may be wrong about that, yes. My interpretation of the cultural aspect is to preserve and document the genuine culture of Germany so that it's visible to Germans and foreigners alike. Stuff like game shows or soaps are pretty much the same globally, so there's nothing interesting German-culture-wise in them. In the past cultures used to be very different but with globalization and the massive reach of Hollywood I'd say culture has been homogenized in popular content to more than 95%. Legally speaking, though, you're right.
RTL is owned by Bertelsmann, which owns roughly every media company in Germany.
Game shows and other forms of entertainment are not about education and keeping the population informed via government funded channels. You might argue it's too late to change it now, but the TV landscape would quickly adjust and formats would move to other networks where they belong and are still broadcast without DRM.
The whole 7.6bn/year fund being used for stuff people wouldn't actively select to pay that much for problem reminds me of the misappropriation of the road tax of 8bn/year which trucks pay on a per-km basis. 8bn should be more than enough to build and maintain public roads, but it's apparently used for other needs, all because taxes are not purpose-bound by law. What's the political solution? They're trying to extend highway taxes to private vehicles too in order to build roads. The German government is in dire need of a more logical treasury that's accountable to the electorate outside of 4-year-period-elections for misappropriation or over-/under-spending. If the roads in a city are not maintained for decades, then those paying vehicle tax and other annual fees, must have a right to refuse payment, just like they can do with their landlord. After all, taxes are payments to your national landlord, nothing else.