Nightingale tax

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sprout
Nightingale (1905)
Nightingale Trap (1896)

With the nightingale control in the 19th century in various German states in the housing of nightingales taxed.

basis

Nightingales were classified as "useful birds" by agriculture . But many also enjoyed their singing and keeping the birds in cages was common and common. They were offered by bird traders who caught or had the birds caught. On the part of the state, this was assessed as a potential threat to the population that had to be counteracted. Above all in the first half of the 19th century, this also happened through high taxation and the obligation to provide proof of origin for the birds kept in cages. If the owner of the nightingale did not want to pay, he had the option of releasing the bird. Anyone who did not pay, but kept a nightingale, had to expect a high penalty payment, with 1/3 of this amount usually being paid to the complainant.

The taxable event related to the possession of specimens of Germany's native songbird species nightingale and - in some cases - sprouts . The tax was intended to limit the catching of these bird species: despite the existing bans, songbirds are still caught , lamented the Prince of Sondershausen in 1838. The rulers' expectation was that this would happen less often if captive birds were taxed.

Typing

The nightingale tax is a luxury tax and an incentive tax . The nightingale tax is seen as a case of "strangulation tax": the aim of the tax is not to raise money for the state, but to make the taxed offense so expensive that taxpayers give it up.

history

In Germany there were already police regulations in the late Middle Ages that tried to regulate the unchecked catch of nightingales. In Nuremberg, for example, a fine of 5 guilders was threatened. In 1686 Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg placed the nightingale under protection all year round and threatened the catchers and traders with imprisonment. His successor, Friedrich III. , in 1698 also banned the importation of birds and the keeping of birds in bird farmers in general , the owners should let their birds free. According to the 23rd volume of Zedler's Universal Lexicon , published in 1740, the punishment he was sentenced to was one hundred Polish florins . However, the Zedler article denied that trapping the nightingales caused lasting damage; on the contrary, it discussed in detail the various methods of catching the animals or young animals.

In the 19th century taxes were introduced, which should hit the wallet for lovers, who were usually not satisfied with a bird in the aviary .

National regulations

Overview

Nightingale tax
since Country Amount / year upon introduction annotation !
1802 Landgraviate of Hessen-Kassel , from 1803: Electorate of Hessen 1 ducat (= 3 1/8 thalers )
1807 Grand Duchy of Berg 2 thalers
1809 Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld 5 Rhenish guilders Recipients in the state and war coffers until 1816
1820 Duchy of Saxe-Gotha 6 thalers
1826 Duchy of Saxony-Meiningen 5 Rhenish guilders Continuation of the legal basis from Sachsen-Coburg-Saalfeld
1826 Grand Duchy of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach 6 thalers
1829 Free Hanseatic City of Bremen 5 thalers Recipient: Städtisches Stempel-Comptoir
1834 Principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, subordinate rule 2 thalers Receiver: women's association
1836 Duchy of Saxe-Gotha 2 thalers
1837 Duchy of Saxony-Altenburg 5 thalers from 1841: 2 thalers
1838 Principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen, sovereignty 2 thalers Receiver: women's association
1841 Kingdom of Prussia 5 thalers No state law, but through provincial and local self-government
1845 Duchy of Anhalt-Bernburg 5 thalers
1853 Grand Duchy of Hesse 5 guilders Recipient: State Treasury
1853 Duchy of Nassau 7 guilders
1855 Duchy of Brunswick ? The measure has been announced. It is not known whether it was carried out.
1858 Principality of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt 1 thaler
1864 Kingdom of Saxony 4 thalers

Prussia

The nightingale tax was an optional municipal tax in Prussia . In 1844 the city of Potsdam introduced a nightingale tax instead of a fishing ban under police law. To protect the nightingales in the royal gardens , keeping nightingales was initially taxed at 5, then 2 thalers a year. From 1897 onwards, no nightingales were registered, so the tax no longer generated any revenue, but it was retained for reasons of prevention . In 1849 in Forst, the unwilling, subtle citizens who held Sprosser quarreled with their city administration, which then brought about a decision by District President Karl Otto von Raumer that the Sprosser would also be subject to the nightingale tax, even if it was not mentioned in the ordinance. In the Prussian barmen the tax was 15 marks.

Saxony

The nightingale tax was a mandatory local tax in Saxony . In the 1880s it was 15 marks per bird per year.

Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach

The nightingale tax was introduced in the Grand Duchy of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach on July 25, 1826. In 1886 the annual tax was 18.50 marks per bird. On November 18, 1884, the Petitions Committee of the State Parliament of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach dealt with a petition from various songbird lovers who asked for the nightingale tax to be lifted.

Schwarzburg-Sondershausen

Prince Günther Friedrich Carl I. issued the same ordinance on the "nightingale tax" on October 14, 1838 for the supremacy in the Principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen , which he had already issued on April 11, 1834 for his Schwarzburg special houses subordinate rule .

The ordinance and the simultaneous rescript to the Princely Chamber and Forestry Council regulate:

  • The possession of a nightingale or a sprout is taxed at 2 Thalers Prussian Courant per year.
  • The bird must be registered and the tax amount must be paid in advance for a full year from the time of catch or acquisition. At the end of the annual period, the bird must be registered again and the tax paid. The taxpayer receives a receipt for this.
  • Vogel and owner have a registration-free acclimatization period of 8 days, which is only taxed if the bird stays with the owner.
  • The "case of concealment " (tax fraud) threatens a fine of 10 thalers. The informer receives the third part of this fine .
  • If the bird changes hands, the advance payment is forfeited and the tax must be paid again for a year in advance from the time of purchase.
  • The court chamber provides with financial statements closing the revenue from taxes and fines for traffic in the Schwarzenburg Special Housing counties to the respective women's associations from using the money for their charitable duties.

Execution

The urban bailiffs should watch out for the (untaxed) posting of nightingales in town houses.

The tax was relatively high. However, the tax revenue generated was relatively low. The number of households that nightingales kept was very limited and keeping them was primarily an urban phenomenon in a society that was still predominantly village-like. Usually the income from the tax went to the local poor charity.

Further development

In the few literature has not studied the impact had a change in the mode of caged birds on the sinking tax revenues and increased tenfold from 1860 to 1880 breeding advent of the Harz Roller , and the prices of the cage songbirds. However, keeping nightingales went out of fashion in the second half of the 19th century. They were increasingly being replaced by exotic birds, such as canaries , which were also easy to breed. Interest in keeping nightingales decreased until keeping these birds became completely unusual. The legal basis for the taxation of keeping nightingales became obsolete. The relevant legal provisions were usually not repealed, were only no longer applicable in view of the fact that nightingales were not kept and were forgotten. The protection purpose was replaced by the first corresponding bird protection law of the German Reich of 1888.

reception

The keyword nightingale tax is still used today in the dispute about tax policy measures: For example, in the polemic against the "ecological tax reform" in the specialist journal Der Betrieb in 1999, Klaus Friedrich tried to discredit its proponents with the exotic stimulus word. The attempted distinction between nightingale and sprout is cited as an example of the requirement of clarity in tax law and the associated tax avoidance .

literature

in alphabetical order by authors / editors

Remarks

  1. ↑ The nightingales are also caught with little effort in a little drop box, in which a mirror and a worm is placed on it, and gave advice on keeping the animals that could sing for about eight years in captivity (Lemma Nachtigal , Zedler, vol. 23, 1740, col. 272-279.).
  2. ↑ Unless otherwise noted, the tax was given to a poor fund.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Klüßendorf, p. 228.
  2. ↑ Klüßendorf, p. 229.
  3. ↑ a b c collection of laws for the principality of Schwarzburg-Sondershausen .
  4. ↑ Lemma Nachtigallensteuer , Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon. A reference book of general knowledge. 6th, completely revised and enlarged edition, 1905.
  5. ^ Klaus Tipke : Tax Law . 20th edition 2010, §3, margin no. 10, p. 49f
  6. ↑ a b Rainer Wernsmann : Behavioral control in a rational tax system . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2005, p. 27.
  7. ↑ a b c d e f g Alfred Hilprecht: Nachtigall and Sprosser , 1965, p. 86.
  8. ↑ Lemma Nachtigal , Zedler, Vol. 23, 1740, Col. 272-279.
  9. ↑ Information from Klüßendorf, p. 235ff.
  10. ↑ Lemma Luxussteuer , Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon. A reference book of general knowledge. 6th, completely revised and enlarged edition 1905.
  11. ↑ Lemma Luxussteuer , Meyers Großes Konversations-Lexikon. A reference book of general knowledge. 6th, completely revised and enlarged edition 1905.
  12. ↑ 209. Report of the Petitions Committee: a submission by various lovers of songbirds to Weimar and Apolda regarding the abolition of the nightingale tax , in: Negotiations of the ... Landtag and the regional representation of Saxony-Weimar-Eisenach. Ordinary state parliament , Nov. 14, 1884 at ULB Thuringia.
  13. ↑ Klüßendorf, p. 230.
  14. ↑ Klüßendorf, p. 234.
  15. ↑ RGBl, p. 111.
  16. ^ RA Dr. Klaus Friedrich, Mannheim The "Ecological Tax Reform" , Der Betrieb dated April 2, 1999, pp. 661–666, here: p. 661.
  17. ↑ Early nature protection by the tax authorities: The tax liability on caging nightingales , review, at the University of Marburg, May 5, 2017