Lederhosen Subsidies Axed as Germany Tightens Belt
Germany can no longer afford state aid to help its yodellers buy Lederhosen, the Bavarian government said Tuesday in a sign of how drastically public finances have deteriorated in Europe's largest economy.
And it gets worse: a "Lederhosen boycott for the Oktoberfest looms...
Schroeder's SPD will plunge below 20 per cent in the polls, if that materializes.
(Hat tip Gregory Schreiber)
Yes, it's for business and tax-deductible, like boob jobs and everything else hollyweird deducts.
Posted by: Sandy P. | March 24, 2004 at 09:17 PM
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?
Posted by: FNANB | March 24, 2004 at 09:18 PM
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...
Posted by: FNANB | March 24, 2004 at 09:25 PM
> 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.
Posted by: Scott | March 24, 2004 at 09:27 PM
@Scott
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)
Posted by: FKANB | March 24, 2004 at 09:34 PM
@FKANB I see, is Stoiber saying too many clothing subsidies are going to the Sandmännchen caps in the East?
Posted by: Scott | March 24, 2004 at 09:53 PM
Are these items that expensive? Will it hurt those who have to purchase these items themselves?
Posted by: Chris Josephson | March 25, 2004 at 07:03 AM
@FNAMB
>>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?
Posted by: Aidan | March 25, 2004 at 08:10 AM
@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.
Posted by: scum of the univ | March 25, 2004 at 05:24 PM
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. :)
cheers,
jens f. laurson
Posted by: Jens F. Laurson | March 25, 2004 at 10:29 PM