German public media is not state sponsored. It’s an independent entity which is paid for by public fees (not taxes, the money never goes through the governments coffers). There are some levers that could be used to exert some level of control, for example the height of the fee is set by a commission that is partly under government control and many ex-politicians get elected into high positions, but all in all, public media is fairly well removed from the governments control here. The constitutional court watches over this pretty well, too. The system has been set up in such a fashion exactly due to the experiences under the nazi rule.
I’m currently more concerned about private media having an agenda that promotes the right.
While there is a law (to be precise: one in each state) mandating to pay this fee it is levied by the broadcasters themselves and the money is at no point touching accounts controlled by the government.
(As a sidenote because it's confusing for people from both sides: In Germany we differentiate between taxes which end up in the general budget and can be used for everything and fees which are purpose-bound from the moment of collection, e.g. in this case the levied money must be used for broadcasting. This differentiation is not common elsewhere.)
in german law a tax is general purpose, government can use the money to pay for any of their "services". whereas a fee has a specific purpose and cannot be used for anything else.
That's not the same, though, because it is not mandatory to obtain a passport (at least not for everyone—you may need one if you want to travel abroad, but this is viewed by the government as a non-essential privilege and not a right). Broadly speaking, in the US, a "fee" is something you pay in order to receive some form of optional service, such as the issuing of a passport, and a "fine" is something you are ordered to pay as a penalty for breaking the law. Everything else—any payment required of a law-abiding citizen either for simply existing or as a condition for carrying out law-abiding actions (e.g. owning property, earning income)—is a tax.
Of course, sometimes fees and fines can be seen as "stealth taxes" when they intrude too far into everyday life, particularly when state monopolies are involved. For example, the cost of First Class postage with USPS is technically a fee for an optional service, but the USPS monopoly on First Class letter delivery makes it at least partly a tax, to the extent that another carrier might have provided the same service for a lower price in the absence of the monopoly.
I was going to say driver's license. But I guess that's optional too. There are garbage fees or charges. Sometimes you must pay them, even if you contract with a private hauler. But you need that to get an occupancy permit. Also water/sewer fees. Unless you have a well and septic system.
Right, the line does get rather blurry when a service provider has the power to compel people to purchase their "service" whether they want to or not. Local governments like to position such payments as "fees"—it makes for better PR—but if there are penalties for opting out (such as not being permitted to occupy your own property) then I would consider it a tax. In the cases you mentioned, for example, there really isn't any significant difference between those mandatory utility "fees" and property taxes.
There is a substantial difference between fees and taxes. Fees are tied to something specific. This has two implications: First, they cannot be used for something else. Second: The height of the fee must not exceed the cost of the service and thus is at least in principle something that can be checked. For example, some public health insurance providers in germany had excess money and they had to refund that to their customers. Taxes are under no such regime. It may seem like one is like the other, but it’s really an important distinction.
> Fees are tied to something specific. ... they cannot be used for something else. ... The height of the fee must not exceed the cost of the service....
In Germany that may be true, but I was speaking of the US, where the terms are used differently. There is no expectation here that "fees" can only be used to defray the cost of providing specific services.
What protections are in place to prevent an internal takeover of the organization by a political party? Let's say the Roger Ailes of Germany finds his way to the top of German public media and uses that position to tilt coverage to be more favorable to his own party, what happens?
If all your eggs are in one basket what happens when something goes wrong with that basket?
We have 12 public broadcasters that are independent of each other each with their own board (and on top working under the laws of different states ensuring that no one political institution has power over all them, the federal government is strictly barred of interfering by the constitution). 10 of those cooperate closely, share some resources, and produce a common TV station in addition to their own radio and TV stations. One is a radio broadcaster using resources of the others. The last one is a TV broadcaster that works separately. It's pretty inefficient but ensures that there is no single entity controlling everything.
I’m currently more concerned about private media having an agenda that promotes the right.