Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

Options
24567…31

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    mistermouse wrote: »
    Would that have been due to RTE's dropping of Scrap Saturday, which was often deemed to political interference.

    RTE are not ground breaking despite their notions of the Late Late

    My Original point was to show that Mrs Browns Boys and Fr Ted were not RTE productions etc, but the point remains.

    They cannot even do Primetime Investigates professionally.

    They are not a PBS and they actually make VB's show on TV3 look good which is a sad indictment on Broadcasting in Ireland

    Indeed, if I recall correctly it was the BBC who had the story about the IMF/EU bailout and where was RTE?

    When this new tax is brought in I do not think that broadcasting will improve in Ireland and RTE will continue as before with even bigger salaries and little else.


  • Options
    #33
    spank_inferno
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Why are RTE refered to as a 'public service broadcaster'?

    the correct designation should be 'state broadcaster'.
    They are just the media wing of whoever is in charge on any given day.

    The US model is the way to do it.


  • Options
    #34
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Going Forward wrote: »
    We'd all like to get paid for our hobbies.

    Yeah, all we have to do is put in many thousands of hours of serious training to get to expert level in them and we're good to go. Oh wait, most people wouldn't even manage the first hundred. They ain't martyrs but to denigrate the profession by calling it a hobby is the same kind of nonsense as people saying we shouldn't have publicly funded Arts degrees.


  • Options
    #35
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    nesf wrote: »
    Yeah, all we have to do is put in many thousands of hours of serious training to get to expert level in them and we're good to go. Oh wait, most people wouldn't even manage the first hundred. They ain't martyrs but to denigrate the profession by calling it a hobby is the same kind of nonsense as people saying we shouldn't have publicly funded Arts degrees.

    We're not talking about a reality TV show where people are randomly selected and set a task of becoming quality musicians.

    Members of an orchestra will invariably have always displayed a natural talent and ability to play music well above the average standard.

    In other words- It comes pretty easy for them.
    And I would wager that they have a love of playing.

    Why is it so unacceptable and offensive to suggest that their employment is a result of the pursuit of their hobby?

    Would it be similarly offensive to suggest the same about professional footballers or golfers??


  • Options
    #36
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Going Forward wrote: »
    We're not talking about a reality TV show where people are randomly selected and set a task of becoming quality musicians.

    Members of an orchestra will invariably have always displayed a natural talent and ability to play music well above the average standard.

    In other words- It comes pretty easy for them.
    And I would wager that they have a love of playing.

    Why is it so unacceptable and offensive to suggest that their employment is a result of the pursuit of their hobby?

    Would it be similarly offensive to suggest the same about professional footballers or golfers??

    Easy? Dear Lord, do you the difference between easier and easy? It's hard, and while playing is fun, the kind of repetitive training needed to gain expert proficiency rarely is because you don't just get to do the aspects of the profession you might find appealing (which you can do if it's your hobby) but all of them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Going Forward wrote: »
    We're not talking about a reality TV show where people are randomly selected and set a task of becoming quality musicians.

    Members of an orchestra will invariably have always displayed a natural talent and ability to play music well above the average standard.

    In other words- It comes pretty easy for them.
    And I would wager that they have a love of playing.

    Why is it so unacceptable and offensive to suggest that their employment is a result of the pursuit of their hobby?

    Would it be similarly offensive to suggest the same about professional footballers or golfers??


    Natural talent or not, there is nothing easy about playing to the level of an orchestral musician. Some people may have a natural talent in some measure but they will still need to devote years of work to mastering the art.

    As to the question at the end, it is semi-offensive to suggest that professional footballers or golfers are making money from a hobby. To play on a major soccer team, a guy needs to train for hours a day from childhood and once he's at the professional level, he needs to work his ass off to maintain and refine his skills.

    Serious musicians, athletes, writers, artists or whatever all do what they do because it is something they love. Playing concert piano is not someone someone does in his garage to pass they time and therefore, it is not a hobby.


  • Options
    #38
    Going Forward
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Going Forward


    RichardAnd wrote: »
    Natural talent or not, there is nothing easy about playing to the level of an orchestral musician. Some people may have a natural talent in some measure but they will still need to devote years of work to mastering the art.

    They is no such thing as "some measure" of natural talent for "some members" of an orchestra, they will ALL be naturally talented from the outset.
    You cannot realistically expect someone without natural talent to be part of any orchestra.

    Yes of course they will spend years playing and perfecting their technique etc., thats what professional musicians do.
    RichardAnd wrote: »
    As to the question at the end, it is semi-offensive to suggest that professional footballers or golfers are making money from a hobby.

    I'd say they must thank their lucky stars each day for transforming their childhood hobby into their profession. Yes again it does take hard work, but they will also generally have had a natural ability from an early age, or discovered upon taking up golf as a hobby: "Hey I' pretty good at this!"

    How is it even semi-offensive?
    RichardAnd wrote: »
    Playing concert piano is not someone someone does in his garage to pass they time and therefore, it is not a hobby.
    But it could be if they played it in the living room?


  • Options
    #39
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SamHall wrote: »
    You're finished politically regardless, this will just give the disllusioned further reason to oust your dictating coalition come the G.E.

    Since when has paying tax meant you were living in a dictatorship?

    You do know during the boom times when we weren't paying all that much tax the government spending was been boosted by a unsustainable house boom, right?

    The nostalgia people have for those times is really quite frightening. It is like someone saying "Remember that time when instead of paying my mortgage and my credit card I just borrowed more money and was able to spend it on what I liked ... man those were the days"


  • Options
    #40
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Since when has paying tax meant you were living in a dictatorship?

    You're totally missing the point.

    This 'tax' isn't being collected to fund a hospital for sick children.
    Nor is it to be used on Police stations, infrastructure, improving services or provisions. (enter endless other good causes a tax could be used for here)

    It is being handed directly to RTE.

    The dictatorship part comes into it when the govt decide everyone must pay to fund this white elephant regardless if you watch/listen/use a single service they provide or broadcast, and regardless If you even own equipment needed to receive them.

    live in a cottage up a mountain with no electric or running water?
    Tough shįt paddy, you're still liable to fund Tubs and Co.

    If the govt became major share holders in sky and suddenly produced a new law that required us to subscribe to sky, even if you didn't have a sky box, would you be ok about that?


  • Options
    #41
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    SamHall wrote: »
    You're totally missing the point.

    This 'tax' isn't being collected to fund a hospital for sick children.
    Nor is it to be used on Police stations, infrastructure, improving services or provisions. (enter endless other good causes a tax could be used for here)

    It is being handed directly to RTE.

    So you personally don't think RTE is a "good cause", therefore don't want to pay taxes to it?
    SamHall wrote: »
    The dictatorship part comes into it when the govt decide everyone must pay to fund this white elephant regardless if you watch/listen/use a single service they provide or broadcast, and regardless If you even own equipment needed to receive them.

    Er, that is called taxes. You pay for the ambulance service too, even if you go your whole life never needing an ambulance.

    How is this a dictatorship. Again your primary objection is that you personally don't think this is a good cause. Talk to your TD about it, complaining that this makes Ireland into some sort of dictatorship simply for collecting taxes is nuts.
    SamHall wrote: »
    If the govt became major share holders in sky and suddenly produced a new law that required us to subscribe to sky, even if you didn't have a sky box, would you be ok about that?

    What, you mean like the way I fund roads in Kerry even though I never drive on the roads in Kerry. Outraged I would be, outraged! Let the people in Kerry pay for their roads! :rolleyes:

    The only issue here seems to be your lack of understanding of the principle behind the tax system. You will pay tax for things that you don't use (and possibly don't see the value of) because lots of other people do use them and do see the value in them.

    That does not make us a dictatorship


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    He's just confusing a dictatorship with a Government pushing through a decision you disagree with. Really and honestly, this forum really makes me wish some people spent an extended stay in certain countries sometimes just so they may have some kind of grasp of just how good they have it here. Some perspective to the ire and outrage is always nice.


  • Options
    #43
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    You cannot compare RTE to the ambulance service or paying a tv license tax with paying tax to keep the roads in good condition. RTE is a LUXURY ambulance services and roads are not that is the difference. I have no problem paying for things i dont use like ambulance services, roads ill never drive on, disability payments etc but they are all a necessity for somebody else to go about their day while RTE is not


  • Options
    #44
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    nesf wrote: »
    Yeah, all we have to do is put in many thousands of hours of serious training to get to expert level in them and we're good to go. Oh wait, most people wouldn't even manage the first hundred. They ain't martyrs but to denigrate the profession by calling it a hobby is the same kind of nonsense as people saying we shouldn't have publicly funded Arts degrees.

    It is art. Art can be useful to society but its merits are, by their nature, subjective. That's why we generally allow people to choose which art they wish to purchase or view.

    Here, here's a copy of 50 Shades of Grey. Paid for by taxpayers because somebody deemed it art. Go on take a copy, you've already paid your contribution.

    No? That's why we have book shops, and err.. books are sold.. like most art really. Want to buy a painting? Go ahead.

    Some painting is done as a hobby, some are professional. The market sorts them out.

    Comparing the funding of arts degrees and arts professions is a bit silly tbh. For one thing Arts students (unless subject to the dwindling means tended grant) have to contribute non-insignificant amounts towards the cost of these degrees. Their continuation in these degrees is dependent upon their grades. Their stay is relatively brief. It's not a profession, certainly not a living.


    While art should be fostered, there's no particular reason to put it any aspect of it on life support. It defeats the purpose.

    <><><>

    Edit: incidentally the same can be said of RTE. If the public don't watch a particular station, Get Rid Of It


  • Options
    #45
    Maudi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    Thinly veiled ive" travelled" a bit so i am more "worldly"than you comment.as he said.extorting money out of people for a service they dont use or recieve is not democratic its a protection racket.plain and simple..pray tell..where was your "extended"stay?


  • Options
    #46
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    RandomName2 wrote: »
    It is art. Art can be useful to society but its merits are, by their nature, subjective. That's why we generally allow people to choose which art they wish to purchase or view.

    Here, here's a copy of 50 Shades of Grey. Paid for by taxpayers because somebody deemed it art. Go on take a copy, you've already paid your contribution.

    No? That's why we have book shops, and err.. books are sold.. like most art really. Want to buy a painting? Go ahead.

    Some painting is done as a hobby, some are professional. The market sorts them out.

    Comparing the funding of arts degrees and arts professions is a bit silly tbh. For one thing Arts students (unless subject to the dwindling means tended grant) have to contribute non-insignificant amounts towards the cost of these degrees. Their continuation in these degrees is dependent upon their grades. Their stay is relatively brief. It's not a profession, certainly not a living.


    While art should be fostered, there's no particular reason to put it any aspect of it on life support. It defeats the purpose.

    <><><>

    Edit: incidentally the same can be said of RTE. If the public don't watch a particular station, Get Rid Of It

    I fundamentally disagree since this essentially is tyranny by the majority. Just because a relatively small number of people are interested in certain cultural activities does not mean they are undeserving of funding. I generally see your argument from two types of people, those who generally oppose public funding unless there is no other option and those who are griping about taxation and this is a soft target since the orchestra is viewed as an elite interest (versus say funding for disabled kids). I've a lot more respect for the former but I do think it is still wrong. Funding cultural activities is a perfectly acceptable activity for the State be it through direct funding or tax breaks for certain activities. Just as the roads are a public good and are therefore acceptable to the vast, vast majority of people as being an acceptable spending of tax money, cultural activities are also a public good.

    Should we have a public broadcaster that develops a lot of homegrown material? Yes, we're too small a market for such to be viable on a large scale. This doesn't, however, justify any of the salaries given out by RTE, merely its existence.


  • Options
    #47
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    nesf wrote: »
    Should we have a public broadcaster that develops a lot of homegrown material? Yes, we're too small a market for such to be viable on a large scale. This doesn't, however, justify any of the salaries given out by RTE, merely its existence.

    This is the key problem, the constant justification of these high salaries by RTE is that the talent would leave. To where i ask? Tubridy failed massively at trying to get on the BBC and every other TV and radio station in the country pays substantially less. RTE effectively operate in a false economy and that is one of the main problems i have with them. Reduce salaries to normal irish media industry levels and i would bet they would easily get by on advertising funding alone after that i would have no problem with a certain amount of tax payer money being used to fund homegrown material only.


  • Options
    #48
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    VinLieger wrote: »
    This is the key problem, the constant justification of these high salaries by RTE is that the talent would leave. To where i ask? Tubridy failed massively at trying to get on the BBC and every other TV and radio station in the country pays substantially less. RTE effectively operate in a false economy and that is one of the main problems i have with them. Reduce salaries to normal irish media industry levels and i would bet they would easily get by on advertising funding alone after that i would have no problem with a certain amount of tax payer money being used to fund homegrown material only.

    I broadly agree, the salaries are idiotic.


  • Options
    #49
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    VinLieger wrote: »
    This is the key problem, the constant justification of these high salaries by RTE is that the talent would leave. To where i ask? Tubridy failed massively at trying to get on the BBC and every other TV and radio station in the country pays substantially less.

    Tubridy's "massive failure" to get on the BBC is somewhat at odds with his ongoing success with getting on the, eh, BBC.

    http://www.superannrte.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=969:bbc-announce-details-of-ryan-tubridys-summer-show-969&catid=10&Itemid=115

    http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/ryan-tubridy-gets-ready-to-sit-in-for-chris-evans-as-nicky-byrne-takes-his-seat-29302281.html


  • Options
    #50
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    alastair wrote: »
    Tubridy's "massive failure" to get on the BBC is somewhat at odds with his ongoing success with getting on the, eh, BBC.

    http://www.superannrte.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=969:bbc-announce-details-of-ryan-tubridys-summer-show-969&catid=10&Itemid=115

    Getting on the BBC in a 'substitute teacher' kind of way.


  • Options
    #51
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SamHall wrote: »
    Getting on the rte in a 'substitute teacher' kind of way.

    They (the beeb) keep asking him back. Like it/him or not, it's far from a massive failure. Salaries for some at RTE are too high, but overall it's a decent enough public broadcaster - particularly on radio. There's far worse elsewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    I'm leaving this country. Last f*cking straw for me. I dont have a TV, I dont watch TV, and I avoid RTE because it's sub par at everything.
    No way can I deal with forced water charges, USC and the countless other new taxes.


  • Options
    #53
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Gotham wrote: »
    I'm leaving this country. Last f*cking straw for me. I dont have a TV, I dont watch TV, and I avoid RTE because it's sub par at everything.
    No way can I deal with forced water charges, USC and the countless other new taxes.

    You're off to Monaco then? Because there's 'countless taxes' most places. Even with the latest taxes here, we're still in the nondescript rankings regarding taxation.


  • Options
    #54
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    alastair wrote: »
    You're off to Monaco then? Because there's 'countless taxes' most places. Even with the latest taxes here, we're still in the nondescript rankings regarding taxation.

    At least in the UK the BBC don't have adverts on their stations because the people pay for it. The broadcasting is also a lot higher quality. It's not just about the taxes, it's about how they're used and general mismanagement.


  • Options
    #55
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    afaik in the uk if you genuinely don't watch the bbc.. you dont have to pay for it


  • Options
    #56
    listermint
    Registered Users Posts: 33,645 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    alastair wrote: »
    You're off to Monaco then? Because there's 'countless taxes' most places. Even with the latest taxes here, we're still in the nondescript rankings regarding taxation.

    Untrue, We have many many taxes here, all under the guise of 'charges' or vat on pretty much anything including non luxury essentials. And we see very little return for this.

    So i dont agree with you.


  • Options
    #57
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Gotham wrote: »
    At least in the UK the BBC don't have adverts on their stations because the people pay for it. The broadcasting is also a lot higher quality. It's not just about the taxes, it's about how they're used and general mismanagement.

    You do realise that if the BBC only had as many licence holders as RTE does that no ads would have bankrupted it back in the 60s, yeah?


  • Options
    #58
    Gotham
    Registered Users Posts: 406 ✭✭Gotham


    nesf wrote: »
    You do realise that if the BBC only had as many licence holders as RTE does that no ads would have bankrupted it back in the 60s, yeah?
    I realize that yes, it will still makes a difference to my wallet.


  • Options
    #59
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    listermint wrote: »
    Untrue, We have many many taxes here, all under the guise of 'charges' or vat on pretty much anything including non luxury essentials. And we see very little return for this.

    So i dont agree with you.

    The Eurostat figures (including indirect taxation like Vat) beg to differ.


  • Options
    #60
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Gotham wrote: »
    At least in the UK the BBC don't have adverts on their stations because the people pay for it. The broadcasting is also a lot higher quality. It's not just about the taxes, it's about how they're used and general mismanagement.

    The BBC is a world-beating quality broadcaster. It puts pretty much everyone in the shade. Try sampling any other public service broadcaster and see how we compare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Gotham wrote: »
    I realize that yes, it will still makes a difference to my wallet.

    Indeed, you'll just have to deal with an overall higher tax level, lower wages in terms of buying power etc.


Advertisement