Formally Defected from the Roman Catholic Church?

[GordonP]

If one truly doesn’t believe in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church why would one need to undergo a “debaptism” for “closure?”

For legal purposes. It was a big issue in Germany, where the state collects a Church tax on you income if you are Catholic or Lutheran. And the tax is hefty.

The law was written in such a way that it was extremely difficult to opt out without formally leaving the Church. This was a big issue for Poles working in Germany, who got hit with the tax even though they were not Catholic because the German government checked their baptismal records in Poland, and considered them Catholic if they were on record as being baptized.

A few other countries have church taxes like this: Austria, Sweden and maybe a couple of others.

 

[Crocus]

For legal purposes. It was a big issue in Germany, where the state collects a Church tax on you income if you are Catholic or Lutheran. And the tax is hefty.

Works out to around .8-3% of actual income. Is that hefty?

Opposition to the tax may be exaggerated in news reports. From survey linked below:

one school of thought contends that many Europeans feel a culturally ingrained obligation to support the common good with taxes – and tend to see religious institutions as “public utilities” that help those in need.

A Look at Church Taxes in Western Europe | Pew Research Center

 

[GordonP]

Is that hefty?

Yes. For an average Pole working in Germany, that comes out to about $1000 bucks US. Not exactly peanuts. Especially for some who thinks they should be paying zero.

Sorry, but I’m an American that has studied and lived in Germany, and the church tax is a concept I could never accept. Perhaps if it were purely opt-in, but not when you have to jump through hoops to opt out.

 

[Crocus]

Is that an actual tax account assessment?
What is the income related to that $1000?

 

[QwertyGirl]

If that’s how they counted, it might account for my ancestors alone.

Well how do they know who has died? Unless a Catholic funeral is provided, and assuming those are even tracked, then they have no idea how many of the baptized are still living.

 

[GordonP]

What is the income related to that $1000?

About $30,000 US, give or take. The average salary of a Polish worker in Germany.

 

[GordonP]

then they have no idea how many of the baptized are still living.

That’s correct. There is no methodology for determining that. It would be prohibitively expensive to determine that.

 

[Crocus]

hat is the income related to that $1000?

Are you referencing actual statements of an actual worker?

According to online calculator (not knowing all variables) for 30,000€ shows church tax at 73€, not 1000€. The total tax is more like €1000.

For this example, take home pay is 22,986€.
Church tax on his 30,000€ gross pay is 73.44€.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[GordonP]

The total tax is more like €1000.

You entered something wrong. That would give a tax rate of only 3.3 percent.

 

[Crocus]

My only (name removed by moderator)ut was the gross salary. Variables are tax categories and geographical areas but I don’t expect that would much alter the results.

Try it yourself and let me know if you get something different. :woman_shrugging:t2:

Maybe this helps: straight tax about 1000€. Add the other deductions (social charges), brings total to 23% of gross salary. What most of us used to, I think.

https://www.brutto-netto-rechner.info/gehalt/gross_net_calculator_germany.php

 

[GordonP]

but I don’t expect that would much alter the results.

It did, because an income tax rate of 3.3 percent on 30,000 Euro is patently absurd.

Income tax for a single foreigner making 30,000 is 20.13%, or 6040 Euro. If the church tax is 9 percent of that, that would be about 500 Euro.

 

[Pattylt]

I agree. The only reason I can see is to make a public statement or for some perceived closure. I’m an agnostic and also feel it’s a pointless demonstration!

 

[Crocus]

The 20.13% you refer to, has to be rather tax+social deductions. See my note above.

So the church tax is calculated on the 1000 actual tax only (not the other deductions which amount on the example to about 6000).

In our example the worker has 23% deductions of which 1000 is tax and 73.44 is church tax. He is in a low tax bracket.

I replaced the screenshot with one showing the bottom line.

 

[GordonP]

The 20.13% you refer to, has to be rather tax+social deductions. See my note above.

No, that’s just the income tax. Social security is paid on top of that.

This calculator gives the church tax on 30000 at 475 Euro: https://www.expattax.de/german-income-tax-calculator/

 

[Crocus]

No, that’s just the income tax. Social security is paid on top of that.

This calculator gives the church tax on 30000 at 475 Euro

So what is it? 1000, 500, 450?
Why are you changing the amounts?

Is there a good reason why your calculator shows a different amount than mine? Outlier variable? MUCH higher tax rate for foreigners?

 

[GordonP]

Why are you changing the amounts?

It’s about 500, plus or minus.

Is there a good reason why your calculator shows a different amount than mine?

Yes, there is. There is an obvious glitch in your website that prevents it from calculating the income tax correctly. I put in my income data, which is much higher, and got an even more absurd result.

Bottom line, and last word on the matter on my part: If you should be paying zero, then any amount over that is way too much.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yet, the statistics you cite speak only of “baptized Catholics”. Not “currently active Catholics”, which would be a different measure. (And one which the Church does report!)

Whee does it report that? I have to warn you this will require you to cite a source.

No, I just pointed out that you’re railing against statistic Z because it’s not statistic W, but ignoring the fact that statistic W does exist and is reported – and is what you’re looking for all along!

Perhaps if I rephrase things it might help. We’re talking about two ways to count Catholics:

1. Catholics-By-Choice (which I will call CBC)
2. Catholics-By-Baptism (which I will call CBB)

The articles that I’ve linked to, and I can link to many more if needed, list CBB. I contend that because of the language used and the fact that all other groups list their membership by choice (a la CBC) that it’s making it look like CBC, when it’s really CBB. Because CBB is larger than CBC the reporting is deceptive. You are saying that CBC is also being listed, but I don’t see that in the links I gave. Please tell me specifically where you see that.

They mention both: not only “number of baptisms in this date range” but also “total baptisms.” Now, if you’re saying what I think you’re saying – that the Church is inflating its numbers by only looking at numbers of people baptized –

It’s not inflating its number simply by referencing CBB, but by making it look as though they are referencing CBC when it’s actually CBB. Get it?

then I think you’re missing an important point: do you really think that they’re counting people who are baptized who are also dead? After all, that’s what you’re complaining about, right? That they’re only taking into account baptism? But that’s simply ludicrous!

The dead people issue is a portion of the problem. That’s what happens when a group is rigorous in counting the number of people entering the church and not rigorous when counting the people who leave via death. The rest of the problem is making it seem like the people who left by choice are still there hanging around the rectory passing around old VHS copies of Insight.

I think that the Church is pretty upfront about the numbers of folks who practice the faith, and the fact that this number is well smaller than the number of baptized Catholics! That, however, is a different survey altogether!

I disagree. I’ve shown several times now that just by adding a few words there is no chance of misconstruing CBB for CBC.

And yet, they are saying this: not “currently self-identified” or “currently active”, but merely “baptized.”

So as not to repeat myself (again), please check out my reply to @whatistrue below.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

All of those links you provided use the term “baptized Catholics”. Where exactly is the issue with this? It is quite evident to the so-called “reasonable man” that the number is based only on baptisms, so whether someone stays or not is not relevant.

Two things on this:

One, the “baptized” of “baptized Catholic” means that the person has passed an initiation. It’s like saying drafted basketball player, certified public accountant, card-carrying member of the Bob Newhart fan club. With any of these groups the fact that they passed this threshold doesn’t matter if they no longer a member of that group. The Catholic Church is seemingly unique in this regard. They’re not just saying that these people were baptized, but because of they were baptized they are forever and ever Catholic depsite protestations. Because of this uniqueness it is imperative of any truth-loving organization to take the initiative and be clear as to what it means and not play coy when people read using language as they would for any other group.

Two,the link I gave from the Vatican does refer to Catholics in a numerical fashion (whether as a straight count, as a percentage change, or as a comparison to number of different vocations). It does so 30 times. Yes, it uses the term “baptized Catholics”. Guess how many times. 6. 24 other times it just uses the term “Catholics”. So it uses the terms interchangeably and only 1 out of every 5 times does it use the term that you believe is the linchpin to cause people to think it includes people who want no part of the Church.

Now I don’t know what your opinion of Catechism is now and over the last 40 years, but I feel safe saying that even if you are fine with it a great many Catholics are not. They feel that too many Catholics have not been given the training needed for some of the most basic tenets of the faith. There was a report recently about the low percentage of Catholics who believe or understand the real presence. Surely if one of the key points that separates Catholics from non-Catholic Christians is being misunderstood then something more relatively obscure like Once Catholic Always Catholic is too. It’s just not reasonable to make far-flung assumptions about how language works to say people would understand that one can be called Catholic but not consider themselves Catholic.

 

[whatistrue]

This is simply a repetition of your own issue rather than a thoughtful response. You kept saying that the Church should make it clear that they were referring to baptized Catholics only, yet when it was shown that they already did, you didn’t really seem to care. I try to only debate with people who do so in good faith. Muting now.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course they are.

OK. Let’s see your reasoning for that claim. I mean, if they’re saying “there are X Catholics”, this would be a hole in that claim that you could drive a truck through. So… let’s see your truck!