In This Day and Age...

Degag

How silly is it to have a licence to own a television, or to own a dog??

These most be some of the vmost ridiculous laws around...


And before any smart fcuker posts saying " You're paying for the service you recieve via RTE..." The television doesn't have to be tuned in, connected to an aerial or turned on once in the space of the year for you to be taxed.

And why should you be charged for keeping a big hairy mutt?

Seriosly, two of the biggest disgraces in this country.

(after the government and the banks that is!)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What RTE does with the license money is more of a disgrace, tbh.

banquo

Both are. Why in the name of god am I subsidizing fair city?! Tv isn't where I get my tv shows!

What a retarded thing to tax. A television set. And it wouldn't be so bad paying the tax if they didn't spend it on crap.

Jesus Wept

To be honest, we should go the other way.
People should need a licence to have kids.

Degag

banquo wrote: »

Both are. Why in the name of god am I subsidizing fair city?! Tv isn't where I get my tv shows!

What a retarded thing to tax. A television set. And it wouldn't be so bad paying the tax if they didn't spend it on crap.

I agree with you but remember you are taxed on whether you own a tv or not, it doesn't matter if it's plugged in or if you watch it - for the purposes of this thread at least:)

bluto63

You're taxed on your tv, because they need funding to pay for the programming, whether you think it's good or not, they still need to pay for it. And basing it on whether it's plugged in or not is the best way, because otherwise it's very easy to abuse it. The only other option is a blanket charge on everyone in the state, which would cause even more problems. If you don't like it, get rid of your tv.

Degag

bluto63 wrote: »

You're taxed on your tv, because they need funding to pay for the programming, whether you think it's good or not, they still need to pay for it. And basing it on whether it's plugged in or not is the best way, because otherwise it's very easy to abuse it. The only other option is a blanket charge on everyone in the state, which would cause even more problems. If you don't like it, get rid of your tv.

I'm aware of all that, yet you do not have to recieve RTE to have to pay the tax.

mikemac

If pays for RTE Symphony Orchestra and a quartet too.
Most people won't care and don't want their money spent on this.

No matter what tax you pay, some of it will be spent on projects you'll never use and never wanted. But concerts (often free tickets) are organized around the country if you wish to attend

Degag

mikemac wrote: »

If pays for RTE Symphony Orchestra and a quartet too.
Most people won't care and don't want their money spent on this.

No matter what tax you pay, some of it will be spent on projects you'll never use and never wanted. But concerts (often free tickets) are organized around the country if you wish to attend

That would be fine if like the BBC, we had no advertisments... fair enough, they get alot more licence revenue, but they also pay their stars alot lot more!

o1s1n

The-Rigger wrote: »

To be honest, we should go the other way.
People should need a licence to have kids.

Lets go one even further.

People should need a license to be alive.

Can't contribute to society? Ooopsy, no license for you.

OutlawPete

I am of a firm belief that a person should only pay tax from their wage packet and no place else.

Everything else is just a stealth tax and is usually only paid by the the good people in society.

Property tax is a prime example.This is going to get as bad as Poll tax did in the UK here if Cowen has his way.

Why should someone pay tax on a house that they saved to buy and struggled to pay off their mortgage on?

When some alco, can get his wages every week and pi** it up against a wall, but the poor sod who knuckled down and provided for his family and got his mortgage paid get's it the neck yet again.

mikemac

And so if you cut VAT and excise duty and replace it with higher income tax, the alco gets cheaper drink and the working person has to pay higher tax to make up the lost tax

DubMedic

You know what,if you wanted to vent this,you should have went to ranting and raving.

Owning a dog that poses a risk to the safety of human beings will need a license,whether you like it or not. This is not a country where people can do as they like,and think they will get away with it. The law is there for a reason. If you don't like it, tough.

More recently, whether you have noticed or not, there has been an increase in the number of attacks on human beings by these 'friendly beasts'. Sadly, some of the victims happen to be innocent children, not knowing that this animal poses a risk to their safety.

If you want to try and tell me that an animal like this does not require a license, you are very narrow minded. If it so much as poses a slight risk and cannot behave itself whilst in the company of human beings, it needs a license and a muzzle.

.

OutlawPete

mikemac wrote: »

And so if you cut VAT and excise duty and replace it with higher income tax, the alco gets cheaper drink and the working person has to pay higher tax to make up the lost tax

I am talking about 'stealth taxes' (using that term very loosely before someone jumps down my neck) being unfair not VAT.

Taxes that are in effect double taxation.

I understand that certain taxes have to be paid but when they call it a licence it is a joke.

It is things like:

Credit Card levies.
TV Licence.
Refuge tags.
Property Tax
NCT Fee (Now doubled this year)
Etc ..

OutlawPete

DubMedic wrote: »

You know what,if you wanted to vent this,you should have went to ranting and raving..

Politics maybe but Ranting and Raving wouldn't suit as he asked questions and you are not allowed to discuss issues there, just agree or gtfo.

syklops

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am of a firm belief that a person should only pay tax from their wage packet and no place else.

Everything else is just a stealth tax and is usually only paid by the the good people in society.

Property tax is a prime example.This is going to get as bad as Poll tax did in the UK here if Cowen has his way.

Why should someone pay tax on a house that they saved to buy and struggled to pay off their mortgage on?

When some alco, can get his wages every week and pi** it up against a wall, but the poor sod who knuckled down and provided for his family and got his mortgage paid get's it the neck yet again.

I have to agree with you here. Everything except the alco part anyway.

Your income is taxed. Everything you buy is taxed. What little money you have left over you save, and if you decide to buy a Television with the money, you need to get a license. If you decide to buy a car with it, you have to pay VRT, and if you buy a House you have to pay property tax/stamp duty.

Would it not cost the tax payer less in administration to just tax at source?

For example, the revenue received from the Dog license is about 4 million euro. The administration however costs 8 million euro.

syklops

This:

When some alco, can get his wages every week and pi** it up against a wall, but the poor sod who knuckled down and provided for his family and got his mortgage paid get's it the neck yet again.

I dont understand at all!

Alcoholics are people too. To get his wage he had to knuckle down too. Its not easy getting up for work hungover!

CreepingDeath

OutlawPete wrote: »

NCT Fee (Now doubled this year)

Feck sake... that's not even state run, it's tendered out to a private company.

KevArno

DubMedic wrote: »

More recently, whether you have noticed or not, there has been an increase in the number of attacks on human beings by these 'friendly beasts'. Sadly, some of the victims happen to be innocent children, not knowing that this animal poses a risk to their safety.
.

Where did you get this information? As far as I can remember there have always been unfortunate incidents surrounding animals.
I am also aware of a local family, who reproduce like fooking rabbits (with an avarage of 9-10 children per mother) and their spawn terrorise the area. They are thieves, vandals, and worse. And they have not had any requirement for a licence. In fact they are paid, child benefits and other welfare support. So where is the logic in this?

I abhor having to pay a TV licence. I would feel far happier to see the national broadcaster go down the tubes, and let the commercial broadcasters fight it out based on quality of output.

OutlawPete

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Feck sake... that's not even state run, it's tendered out to a private company.

The radio said double anyway. Here's a quote from the site:

The car test fee is 50.00 Euro and a re-test costs 28.00 Euro (both fees are inclusive of VAT and maybe subject to change). Re-tests, which do not require the use of test equipment, will be free. Free re-tests cover minor items, for example, a visual inspection to check that faulty windscreen wipers have been replaced.

Also, if you car is ten years old now and passed the NCT, you will then have to get it tested every year and not every two as it used to be.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

The-Rigger wrote: »

To be honest, we should go the other way.
People should need a licence to have kids.

Opinions like that are the reason this world is fcuked up as it is...

And who is going to regulate and monitor this? The government? Fcuking lol....

lugha

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am of a firm belief that a person should only pay tax from their wage packet and no place else.

I wouldn't agree at all. Why not pay for something like refuse collection, water usage etc. in accordance with the amount you use or consume it? It's how things work with everything else, gas, oil, food, petrol etc. I suppose it takes time for people to adjust to having to pay for such things individually but it seems to me to be a perfectly logical way to go.

Granted the TV licence is a bit different because you can't (legally) not have a licence if you have a TV set (though I vaguely recall someone once saying that it is the aerial than you actually require a licence for). In this analog age, if you have a TV set then you can receive RTE, sometimes with just a coat hanger. Perhaps when RTE go digital they may come under pressure to implement technology which will allow them shut of their signal to those who insist they don't want it (or don't want to pay €150 a year for it)

CrazyRabbit

o1s1n wrote: »

Lets go one even further.

People should need a license to be alive.

Can't contribute to society? Ooopsy, no license for you.

But I'd miss you too much

Jesus Wept

Dexter Lively Topping wrote: »

Opinions like that are the reason this world is fcuked up as it is...

And who is going to regulate and monitor this? The government? Fcuking lol....

Coast guard

Mal-Adjusted

it's a work-around for the Irish government to keep perpetuating the lie that we're a "low-tax economy". On paper, most of these charges are licences, dog licence, tv licence, water charges, septic tank licence. these are all taxes, but on paper, they're not...and that sounds better when looking for votes

Gerty

Degag wrote: »

That would be fine if like the BBC, we had no advertisments... fair enough, they get alot more licence revenue, but they also pay their stars alot lot more!

In my opinion its ridiculous to compare.

stovelid

I've never really got the reason to have a dog licence myself. Is there even an official justification? It also seems dumb to have a TV licence if the state broadcaster has paid adverts.

Mike 1972

bluto63 wrote: »

And basing it on whether it's plugged in or not is the best way, because otherwise it's very easy to abuse it. .

The UK seem to be able to manage this ok.

One doesnt need a TV licence in the UK if one can prove the TV is only used for DVD's/Games

Agricola

stovelid wrote: »

I've never really got the reason to have a dog licence myself. Is there even an official justification? It also seems dumb to have a TV licence if the state broadcaster has paid adverts.

Yeah RTE really have the best of both worlds there. They're only marginally better than TV3 when it comes to advert frequency aswell.

The dog licence is just a way to make money, nothing else. I have the quietest most harmless jack russell in the world, a problem to nobody, yet I have to pay the same tax on him that a rothweiler or Alsatian owner pays on their dog. And if anyone thinks it goes someway to controling dog populations or quality of life for animals...............does it really. AFAIK the pounds are full to the brim with dogs and Ireland is, per capita, the biggest euthaniser of unwanted dogs in the world.

me-skywalker

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am of a firm belief that a person should only pay tax from their wage packet and no place else..

Very similar to the German tax structure. I lved there for 3months and was astounded at the system my Aunt literally gets paid and everything else is looked after. Taxes/Pensions/Insurance...

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why should someone pay tax on a house that they saved to buy and struggled to pay off their mortgage on?

When some alco, can get his wages every week and pi** it up against a wall, but the poor sod who knuckled down and provided for his family and got his mortgage paid get's it the neck yet again.

I dont get the whole mortgage thing. You dont really own the house anyway like seriously who wants to live in the same house for 35/50 years! ouch!

I love the freedom over being able to not be tied down to a mortgage and rent a place anywhere I want. Of course ill have kids and want to settle down with them but im sure once they get to the moving out age I might move on out myself so therefore only for them years where I am providing a safe comfortable house for my kids I would need to live in a house for a prolonged period. Mortgages and the idea of owning a house is ridiculous. Owning a house does not make it a home and owning a house does not mean you a independent and free(quite the opposite).

I dont have a TV licence... Ive 1 tv for my xbox/dvds. Im barely here in Ireland to watch TV so if any inspector wants to come around and add me to their numbers they're more than welcome.

DubMedic wrote: »

More recently, whether you have noticed or not, there has been an increase in the number of attacks on human beings by these 'friendly beasts'. Sadly,

DubMedic wrote: »

B]'friendly beasts'.[/B]

Just LOL.. I see your not an animal person.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Does anyone actually have a dog license?

left_behind

When i was working in the USA. random chit chat and talking about tv licence and they were in shock and 1 jokingly asked do you drive your tv.

Bigdeadlydave

I heard (Urban Legend coming up) that you have to attempt to avoid running a dog down or you can get sued, but you can squish a cat no problem, because a dog is a licensed animal.

Anyway the vast majority of dogs are harmless and classing dogs like Golden Retrievers and Pit Bulls/fighting dogs together is a joke. You should need a licence for dangerous breeds.

OutlawPete

left_behind wrote: »

When i was working in the USA. random chit chat and talking about tv licence and they were in shock and 1 jokingly asked do you drive your tv.

You should have said ..

"Yes, I do drive my TV, crazy isn't it? We're mad us Irish, we should be sensible like you americans and drive only Guns".

Then slap them round the lugs with a big wet fish.

anniehoo

DubMedic wrote: »

Y
If you want to try and tell me that an animal like this does not require a license, you are very narrow minded. If it so much as poses a slight risk and cannot behave itself whilst in the company of human beings, it needs a license and a muzzle.

Well then im narrow minded so. Ive said this before over in Animal & Pet issues but i fail to see a valid reason to get a dog licence whatsoever. Owning a licence doesnt make the owner a better one or the dog a better dog. If you have a vicious dog paying €12/yr (yes its that low) wont miraculously make it a well behaved animal.

As a previous poster said the money is not used for the purposes it should be (better funded dog pounds and animal rescue centres; pooper scoopers and litter bins in public areas etc).

Nash Creamy Tentacle wrote: »

Does anyone actually have a dog license?

No and i dont intend to get one ever until they bring in a Pet Ownership Exam (like for a driving licence) so that you can prove you are a responsible and caring pet owner.

Dudess

tl;dr

Has anyone said "You need a licence for a dog/TV but any idiot can have a kid" yet?

The Pontiac

Most countries have a TV licence fee and the countries that don't receive funding from the government anyway. If the licence fee was abolished, then the government would just increase some other form of taxation eg. Income tax. The money has to come from somewhere. The cost of a TV licence in Switzerland and Denmark is almost €300 per annum. The TV licence fee in Germany is over €200 and a radio licence is €66.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What RTE does with the license money is more of a disgrace, tbh.

I don't agree. I think RTE produces some fine programmes. The Late Late Show is very good, except for the obvious lack of funding to get more A-list type celebrities. The current affairs programmes are all top notch - The Frontline, Prime Time and Prime Time Investigates are all excellent. You've also got Nationwide and The Afternoon Show that will appeal to an older audience. The RTE news wipes the floor with the tabloid coverage from TV3. The Sports coverage and commentary leaves every other station for dead, including Sky Sports. Jamie Redknapp anyone?

We're never going to be able to compete with big budget shows like Top Gear or Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, unless they dramatically increase the licence fee. Even the great dramas they made in the past like Pure Mule, Bachelors Walk and Love is the Drug didn't make it feasible to turn them into long running shows (they were all mini-dramas) as the cost of production was so high. Fair City is a load of crap alright, but it's obviously getting the viewing figures or they wouldn't keep running the damn thing. Every station has its crap programmes anyway..

donmeister

Pswh sure I mean you need a licence for a dog/TV but any idiot can have a kid ffs!

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

tl;dr

Has anyone said "You need a licence for a dog/TV but any idiot can have a kid" yet?

Yes

Highest 'thanked' post of the thread too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63777860&postcount=4

Capt'n Midnight

Mike 1972 wrote: »

One doesnt need a TV licence in the UK if one can prove the TV is only used for DVD's/Games

NO NO NO

you need a TV license for a device capable of receiving a TV signal. Even disabling the device is not good enough if can be shown it's an easy repair to get it working again.

Monitors don't need licenses
TV tuner cards / VCR's need licenses

Capt'n Midnight

Degag wrote: »

That would be fine if like the BBC, we had no advertisments... fair enough, they get alot more licence revenue, but they also pay their stars alot lot more!

RTE have the misfortune of being up against one of the best broadcasters on the planet. Almost every other decent public broadcaster on the planet have ads, and those that don't aren't all that great.

BBC are one of the BIG boys, they have huge economies of scale, sell worldwide , and make technical standards.

Then again TG4 do offer great value for money.

Agent Smith

Degag wrote: »

How silly is it to have a licence to own a television, or to own a dog??

These most be some of the vmost ridiculous laws around...


And before any smart fcuker posts saying " You're paying for the service you recieve via RTE..." The television doesn't have to be tuned in, connected to an aerial or turned on once in the space of the year for you to be taxed.

And why should you be charged for keeping a big hairy mutt?

Seriosly, two of the biggest disgraces in this country.

(after the government and the banks that is!)

Look

Dont bust a nut.... Bust a grooove!

Mike 1972

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

NO NO NO

you need a TV license for a device capable of receiving a TV signal. Even disabling the device is not good enough if can be shown it's an easy repair to get it working again.

YES YES YES

The law in the UK (you did actually read my post didnt you ?) DOES allow you to possess a TV without having a licence if you can prove its not used for recieving TV signals.

tvlicensing.co.uk wrote: »

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs