iTax - Broadcasting charge 'whether you have a TV or not'


#1

news.eircom.net/breakingnews/202 … w=Standard

Why not

Minister considering property tax even if you do not own a property or are homeless

Minister considering water charges even though you are dead

Minister considering broadcasting charge even if you are deaf and blind

instead of

Minister considering telling RTE to sort out their own finances and create a viable economic model without relying on the crutch of external financial support that introduces a moral hazard into RTE’s money management


#2

Being a law abiding citizen, I’ll pay the charge if necessary, but it still won’t persuade me to clutter my home with a TV.


#3

Because if the bill is passed, RTE will do their utmost to make the government look competant and (re-)electable.


#4

In all fairness, this business of only those owning a Physical TV set paying is ridiculous in the age we live in, technology has moved on.

RTE do certain things well, and I would hate to see them gone altogether. However, they have a ring-fenced income from TV licences. Let them be funded out of the Department of Arts and scrap it out with all the other worthy causes every budget and see what they get. Suddenly they will discover they can get value for money and nobody else is willing to pay Pat Kenny, Joe Duffy and Ryan Tubridy the kind of money they are on.


#5

If RTE want to charge for putting services on the web, let them lock down their domain.
If you want to watch RTE on the web, the person should be able to register their TV licence and simply enter the details when logging on.

I object to this tax for several reasons:

  1. The services RTE TV and radio provides are available on commercial channels.
  2. With the current TV property ownership tax if you don’t want RTEs service get rid of the TV. I did and don’t pay any licence and I’m better off.
  3. Putting this on a household charge means the money doled out to RTE goes into a slush fund meaning there is no accountability for how it is allocated or spent. It is entirely a political decision.
  4. It will increase the cost to householders in rapid order and is probably being used as filler to to justify the rapid increase in this within a few years to between €1000 & €2000+ depending on where you live in the country. In other words it will be another progressive income tax.
  5. I object to RTE using the TV tax to subsidise wages above market rates of their commercial competitors in this country.
  6. If RTE want to charge for putting their services on the internet, then they can lock their content behind a paywall and have users register their TV licence and service provider. They then enter the licence number when they want to access content on the RTE internet domains. They can do this today and no one can object since RTE.IE is their domain and they can restrict access as they see fit.

#6

I like these ideas especially 6

I’d get rid of the TV tomorrow as well if the wife would let me :smiley:

No TV licence, no cable bill for a million channels showing piles of crap I never watch etc etc


#7

I’m sure the well paid folks in Montrose have done the numbers… x% watching online etc.
Just put RTE.ie behind a paywall and take subscriptions for all those willing to watch the shite.

One thing we just can’t have… people watching RTE for free!!!


#8

This certainly is a ridiculous proposition. I have no TV and rarely log on to RTE.ie either. Could comfortably do without it. Cannot even remember the last time I watched an RTE produced show because I seemed to lose all but a passing interest in following “de economy” about six months ago. What is “watching TV on your laptop”? Does it include YouTube et al. or just the content TV stations make freely accessible on their website?

If this is tacked onto the Household Charge will it be my landlord’s problem also?


#9

I got rid of my TV as well and I don’t miss it at all. I object to the salaries paid to the likes of Duffy,Tubridy,Kenny etc. and not having to pay a TV licence made me feel a bit better about that.
I don’t see what the difficulty is in charging people who want to watch RTE and not charging those that don’t.RTE is run for the benefit of its employees and their cronies and I really really have a problem with this.


#10

If RTE did not have a presence online then I reckon it would be an abuse of the TV licence legislation to charge a tax on computers just because people could watch “television” on them.

In any case, i think it is makes sense to just tax everybody and release the TV licence inspectors into more productive employment. Of course (sic?) the licence fee should be reduced to factor in the increased catchment numbers and the administration savings.


#11

The whole concept of a licence fee is so completely outdated.
Sometimes an outlandish proposal such as this sounds it’s deathknell .

We can only hope.


#12

Ireland is a bankrupt country and RTE is a luxury we cannot afford to keep subsidising. It is a light entertainment company that can operate on fully commercial basis, it’s cost structure is for it to sort out. Offloading it’s deficit costs on taxpayers backs whether they use its services or not must be rejected, it’s time for that company to sink or swim.


#13

At the end of the day, just how much of the fee goes towards running the process that actually collects, enforces and administers the the “tax” collection. Abolishing & merging it into another tax makes sense if you want to save money, the same could be said for many other aspects of government.


#14

wikipedia on TV licenses.
Same population, so they can’t use that as an excuse.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0011/S00040.htm


#15

The Governments proposal for an iTAX was predictable and predicted and maybe they’ll end up in court with Apple of some infringement but right now I have to take a deep breath and count.


#16

I’m really not sure what that means and I do not feel you have assessed the value of your position.

Clearly the Government are not “law” abiding in the way you are and your small donation to the church of conformity will do little to balance the ethical deficit, moral books or spiritual spreadsheet.

How many more abides can you offer until its you and everyone around you have been dehumanised?

Clearly I wish you and no one harm but do not self-immolate thinking such bulimia will cure the disease. What next leeches for a spot of national blood letting and offering at the feet of Lord TROIKA.


#17

:smiley: Excellent


#18

I’m not really sure what that means. :laughing:

My meaning is simple. I live in Ireland of my own free will and I recognise that in doing so, I sign up to a set of rules, which include accepting that a government is installed as a consequence of regular elections, which can vote and impose taxes and that if I want sto stay here, I am expected to pay those taxes, or take certain consequences. If I don’t like the deal, I can vote with my feet. The government is “law” abiding. Law consists of what is written in the constitution and the staute book. No more, no less. As long as the government’s behaviour is within the bounds set by those documents, it is “law” abiding. There is no such thing as “natural law”, unless one refers to the laws of physics.

I’m still not going to take up useful space in my home with a TV set.


#19

Surely being a citizen of a democratic country involves more than blind kowtowing to every arbitary tax that is brought in.


#20

I signed up to a set of rules. If I vote, it is knowing that I might not like the government I get. Of course I can refuse to pay the tax, but I predict that there will be consequences for doing so. I judge that the tax is less oppressive than the consequences. If I judge otherwise, I can either take those consequences or leave. If you prefer to pay the fine than the tax, then that is your privilege.