« The NYT: Malaise in Germany | Main | Wenn Iraker Wale wären... »


Yes, it's for business and tax-deductible, like boob jobs and everything else hollyweird deducts.

Oh, good, was about time! Why do tax-payers finance Lederhosen?

Do country-singers in Nashville get their cowboy-hats and boots partially paid for the Government?

Oh, I am sure the Zillertaler Schürtzenjäger may still tax-deduct their "business-outfits". This is direct cash-flow as subsidization - outrageous.

PS: Blog acts funny - mine was the first reply, then came Sandy. But order is reversed now...

> Schroeder's SPD will plunge

Surely you mean Stoiber's CSU... it's his state government in Munich that has been subsidizing Lederhosen, not the federal government in Berlin.

And thank goodness for that! Here in the north they would _never_ accept a Lederhosen subsidy, at least not without equal time for Prinz Heinrich caps.


Stoiber is quite smart to blame the SPD via the Länderfinanzausgleich. (the stereotype in short: all these hard-working and productive Bavarians have to subsidize broke towns full of unemployed people in East-Germany)

@FKANB I see, is Stoiber saying too many clothing subsidies are going to the Sandmännchen caps in the East?

Are these items that expensive? Will it hurt those who have to purchase these items themselves?

>>Oh, good, was about time! Why do tax-payers finance Lederhosen?<<

Let's not forget that the
Dirndl will be hit too.

Normally one should oppose excessive public subsidies but any country which offers a tax break to its female citizens to wean them off the Timberland all weather clothing and kuffiyah may of the greener types seem to prefer, has its priorities right I would say.

Would you rather they spent the Ökosteuer on another Autobahn frog bridge or a compulsory recycling scheme for yogurt tubs?

@chris j.

One of the articles stated that a good pair of goat suede lederhosen will set you back 150 euros.

The real question is how much of the subsidy went to lederhosen as opposed to the dirndl, and whether that would constitute some form of gender-based preference.

Scott: These Items _are_ expensive. Kruzifixnochamal... and to think that I purchased both my pairs without the subsidy has me steaming mad. Clearly another sign that culture's going to hell in a handbasket. (Or Maszkrug, je nach dem)

I am thinking about quitting my CSU membership. :)


jens f. laurson

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29