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

Gotham · 23-07-2013 10:13am

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.

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:23am

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.

Gotham · 23-07-2013 10:27am

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.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 23-07-2013 10:28am

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

listermint · 23-07-2013 10:28am

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.

nesf · 23-07-2013 10:28am

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?

Gotham · 23-07-2013 10:29am

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.

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:32am

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.

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:35am

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.

nesf · 23-07-2013 10:37am

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.

listermint · 23-07-2013 10:38am

alastair wrote: »

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

give give.

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:38am

Gotham wrote: »

I realize that yes, it will still makes a difference to my wallet.

Yep - it'll cost you more in the UK.

Gotham · 23-07-2013 10:40am

alastair wrote: »

Yep - it'll cost you more in the UK.

The UK was just an example.
Actually I was planning on emigrating to Nigeria, better standards there at least and they wont tax you on all the money you "earn".

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:47am

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

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

Of course you don't. Unless you own anything with a tv tuner in it.

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 10:51am

I also love RTE text gouging.

We're giving away 1k in cash. ....

text the word cash followed by your name to 57111

Texts cost one euro or one pound sterling...... Must be a tidy little sum almost every day.

On top of license fee and advertising revenue etc.

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 10:54am

alastair wrote: »

Of course you don't. Unless you own anything with a tv tuner in it.

Irish homeowners won't even get that option.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 23-07-2013 10:54am

alastair wrote: »

Of course you don't. Unless you own anything with a tv tuner in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/jun/18/do-you-need-tv-licence

nope

so long as you dont watch live tv, you dont have to pay

alastair · 23-07-2013 10:54am

SamHall wrote: »

I also love RTE text gouging.

We're giving away 1k in cash. ....

text the word cash followed by your name to 57111

Texts cost one euro or one pound sterling...... Must be a tidy little sum almost every day.

On top of license fee and advertising revenue etc.

Why should it bother you? Do you feel obliged to enter?

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 10:58am

alastair wrote: »

Why should it bother you? Do you feel obliged to enter?

No.

But if the govt get their way I will be obliged to fund them.

Regardless if I even have the equipment needed to recrve their services.

Texting requires an opt in. That being my point.

alastair · 23-07-2013 11:05am

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/jun/18/do-you-need-tv-licence

nope

so long as you dont watch live tv, you dont have to pay

The licence is for having a tv tuner on your property - not just using it. If it's got the capability to view/record live tv then you need to pay the licence - whether you watch anything on it or not. The law covers both installation and use.

Licence required for use of TV receiver

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.

alastair · 23-07-2013 11:06am

SamHall wrote: »

No.

But if the govt get their way I will be obliged to fund them.

Regardless if I even have the equipment needed to recrve their services.

Texting requires an opt in. That being my point.

You're already obliged to fund them - you've said so already.

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 11:19am

alastair wrote: »

You're already obliged to fund them - you've said so already.

Wrong.

currently I'm obliged to pay a tv license upon owning a tv.
I own a tv.

The govt are going to take my choice of paying for a service via owning a tv away from me.

alastair · 23-07-2013 11:25am

SamHall wrote: »

Wrong.

currently I'm obliged to pay a tv license upon owning a tv.
I own a tv.

The govt are going to take my choice of paying for a service via owning a tv away from me.

Were you going to give up your telly any time soon? As I say - you're already obliged to pay.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 11:30am

alastair wrote: »

Were you going to give up your telly any time soon? As I say - you're already obliged to pay.

What if you dont own a telly, watch nothing from RTE online and dont ever access their website? How is this blanket tax fair in that case?

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 11:43am

alastair wrote: »

Were you going to give up your telly any time soon? As I say - you're already obliged to pay.

Why do you keep repeating that?

I'm not obliged to pay a tv license anymore than I'm obliged to have a license for a gun or a dog.

Maybe I was thinking of getting rid of the TV.

Maybe I was intent on buying a projector. Maybe a pc monitor.

Should I be forced to subscribe to the rte guide now regardless if I want it?
Sky?

Rte is broadcast in digital nowadays. Let them encrypt it and make it subscription only.

Problem solved.

alastair · 23-07-2013 11:49am

SamHall wrote: »

Why do you keep repeating that?

I'm not obliged to pay a tv license anymore than I'm obliged to have a license for a gun or a dog.

Yes - you're just as obligated.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 23-07-2013 11:50am

are you seriously saying I oughta buy a gun license even though I don't own a gun?

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 11:51am

alastair wrote: »

Yes - you're just as obligated.

Explain?

I don't have a dog, no gun either.

listermint · 23-07-2013 11:52am

alastair wrote: »

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

listermint wrote: »

give give.

So no stats then ? you just decided to say Eurostat figures ???

alastair · 23-07-2013 11:59am

SamHall wrote: »

Explain?

I don't have a dog, no gun either.

You do have a telly though - so you're just as obligated as if you had a gun or a dog.

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:00pm

listermint wrote: »

So no stats then ? you just decided to say Eurostat figures ???

Oh sorry - you didn't actually ask for anything. Maybe be a little less cryptic next time?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tax_revenue_statistics

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:01pm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

are you seriously saying I oughta buy a gun license even though I don't own a gun?

Eh, no - you're obligated if you have a gun - as stated.

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 12:04pm

alastair wrote: »

You do have a telly though - so you're just as obligated as if you had a gun or a dog.

So. .....

I'm not obliged to fund rte as it stands unless I own a tv.

The govt want to make me be obliged to fund rte now regardless if I own a tv/radio/anything at all necessary to receive their services.

I think we're getting somewhere now.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:05pm

I dont Use RTE at all for anything and never intend to, own a telly but no saorwiew box or UPC/sky box so cant receive RTE on it and now im being asked to pay tax for a LUXURY service i never intend to or want to use explain that to me?

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:07pm

SamHall wrote: »

So. .....

I'm not obliged to fund rte as it stands unless I own a tv.

The govt want to make me be obliged to fund rte now regardless if I own a tv/radio/anything at all necessary to receive their services.

I think we're getting somewhere now.

Yes - once you grasp that you're already obligated, we will have got somewhere. The change from tv licence to broadcast tax will make no difference to your pocket.

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:09pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont Use RTE at all for anything and never intend to, i dont own a telly and now im being asked to pay tax for a LUXURY service i never intend to or want to use explain that to me?

I wouldn't see public broadcasting as any luxury - pretty much every state - even impoverished ones see the social merit in it. I also doubt you make absolutely no use of RTE services. But you could be an extraordinary individual.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:12pm

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't see public broadcasting as any luxury - pretty much every state - even impoverished ones see the social merit in it. I also doubt you make absolutely no use of RTE services. But you could be an extraordinary individual.

It is a luxury, there is no necessity of having a publicly funded broadcaster especially one as bloated and piss poor at their job as RTE.

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:17pm

VinLieger wrote: »

It is a luxury, there is no necessity of having a publicly funded broadcaster especially one as bloated and piss poor at their job as RTE.

That's your opinion. Given the widespread adoption of public broadcasting around the world, it's a bit at odds with other's.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:25pm

alastair wrote: »

That's your opinion. Given the widespread adoption of public broadcasting around the world, it's a bit at odds with other's.

And given the widespread adoption os this little thing called the internet dont you think its time we started trying to look at other methods of media distribution?
The ONLY reason this tax is getting introduced is because RTE are loosing money to Netflix, free streaming sites etc and rather than sit down and actually think about a way to compete they are just gonna force us to pay them to do a job that as time goes on will become less and less relevant in a modern media culture

newbie2 · 23-07-2013 12:25pm

VinLieger wrote: »

It is a luxury, there is no necessity of having a publicly funded broadcaster especially one as bloated and piss poor at their job as RTE.

How do you know it does a piss poor job if you never watch it?

wingnut · 23-07-2013 12:31pm

I wonder how much RTE pay for all the UK based programming that can be had for free with a freeview satellite. We pay the licence - RTE uses it by programmes you can access for free on other channels. Now THAT is a waste of money.

In fact if we had an RTE that focused on home produced content they could have launched it on Freesat and had not need for the expensive Saorview rollout.

I think we need some kind of national broadcaster but not the bloat that is RTE. I would rather minimal funding for RTE for news and current affairs programming and competitive tendering with the commerical stations for everything else.

I was really hoping that a broadcasting charge would reduce the cost by 1/5 (amount of dodgers) instead it just extra money to be poured into a black hole somewhere at RTE HQ.

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:33pm

newbie2 wrote: »

How do you know it does a piss poor job if you never watch it?

Cus i stopped watching it cus it was so awful? Also i pay close attention to the salaries of its top earners wich are paid ridiculous amounts for the amount of work they actually do, marian finucane for instance who works maybe 8-10 hours a week was paid 492,000 in 2011

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:34pm

VinLieger wrote: »

And given the widespread adoption os this little thing called the internet dont you think its time we started trying to look at other methods of media distribution?
The ONLY reason this tax is getting introduced is because RTE are loosing money to Netflix, free streaming sites etc and rather than sit down and actually think about a way to compete they are just gonna force us to pay them to do a job that as time goes on will become less and less relevant in a modern media culture

RTE utilise the Internet too. They're not losing anything in particular to Netflix - they've hundreds of competing TV channels, and advertisers care rather more about them - Netflix is a minnow in the larger scheme of things. Media fragmentation poses problems for all public broadcasters - it's not a RTE-specific issue.

Banjo String · 23-07-2013 12:34pm

newbie2 wrote: »

How do you know it does a piss poor job if you never watch it?

Maybe he's read about it in ab Internet forum

friends/family?

I don't have eircom land line or bb. Don't intend to either.
. Their service is crap compared to others.

(So I hear)

newbie2 · 23-07-2013 12:37pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Cus i stopped watching it cus it was so awful? Also i pay close attention to the salaries of its top earners wich are paid ridiculous amounts for the amount of work they actually do, marian finucane for instance who works maybe 8-10 hours a week was paid 492,000 in 2011

That's like saying Wayne Rooney earns £250,000 per week for only working 90 minutes.

there's been many threads before examining MF's working hours per week. It's safe to say that she does not just work 8-10 hours per week.

(BTW I'm not justifying her enormous salary - just rubbishing your arguement)

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:38pm

alastair wrote: »

RTE utilise the Internet too. They're not losing anything in particular to Netflix - they've hundreds of competing TV channels, and advertisers care rather more about them - Netflix is a minnow in the larger scheme of things. Media fragmentation poses problems for all public broadcasters - it's not a RTE-specific issue.

No but its more of a concern to small timers like RTE who produce very little of their own exclusive content that people would regularly sit down to watch in comparison to whats made in England or the States which RTE buy in specifically to get people watching, but chances are if anyone was interested watching those shows to begin with they have already watched them online weeks or months before when they were relased on their own channels

Jimmy Garlic · 23-07-2013 12:38pm

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't see public broadcasting as any luxury - pretty much every state - even impoverished ones see the social merit in it. I also doubt you make absolutely no use of RTE services. But you could be an extraordinary individual.

RTE has about as much social merit as syphilis or gonorrhea. It is a nepotistic and self congratulatory organisation that lacks any real talent within its ranks as a result. Its "stars" are on salaries that they don't deserve a fraction of. It receives ridiculous amounts of public money AND advertises. Its newsroom is basically the government of the days press office. I refuse to pay for Charlie Birds exotic holidays and the pretentious D4 lifestyles of the rest of the RTE "stars". I have never paid a cent to RTE (the so called service that I never use) and I never will.

newbie2 · 23-07-2013 12:40pm

Bird retired from RTÉ on 26 August 2012

VinLieger · 23-07-2013 12:41pm

newbie2 wrote: »

That's like saying Wayne Rooney earns £250,000 per week for only working 90 minutes.

there's been many threads before examining MF's working hours per week. It's safe to say that she does not just work 8-10 hours per week.

(BTW I'm not justifying her enormous salary - just rubbishing your arguement)

Yes but the market has valued Wayne Rooneys time at that amount and many other clubs would be capable of paying him that amount, if marian finucane was to go to any other radio station in the country do you think she could receive anywhere near that salary? No of course she couldnt, because her salary is bloated up with the tax payers money unlike every other station operating on advertising revenue alone and whos presenters are paid what they are actually worth

alastair · 23-07-2013 12:44pm

VinLieger wrote: »

No but its more of a concern to small timers like RTE who produce very little of their own exclusive content that people would regularly sit down to watch in comparison to whats made in England or the States which RTE buy in specifically to get people watching, but chances are if anyone was interested watching those shows to begin with they have already watched them online weeks or months before when they were relased on their own channels

RTE's biggest draws aren't actually the bought-in stuff - it's the homegrown content - including the less glamorous talk radio, news and current affairs content. Problem is that it's expensive to produce when compared to the bought in material - and budgets are falling all the time. Netflix makes sod all difference to any of the above.

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

Comments