Attitudes toward household charge vs. TV licence

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

one is new and the other isn't
watch this space when the broadcasting charge is brought in

matthew8

RTE. If there was a campaign to stop paying the tv license, RTE would give it no coverage.

Sudsy86

TV Licence: Ths has been arround for quite a long time, ppl watch their TV and know exactly where their money is going towards...Payment options are available across all payment methods(except DD if i'm not mistaken)...Goes towards a method to unwind after a hard days work...

Household charge: New tax(no1 likes new taxes). badly implemented in a time of recession, no visable transparancy as to where the money is going...Payment methods out of reach to most(elderly with no need for internet etc etc.)...Cannot be used as a method to wind down after a hard day of work...

Just my opinion!!!!!!

usernamegoes

TV licence is also seen as being more linked to a service, also you don't need a licence. I didn't have one when I had no TV.

Inspector called and didn't believe me, I told him that was his problem.

KyussBishop

You can ditch your TV's quite easily now and watch stuff online or satellite I think (the license is only for the tuner inside the TV); can't ditch your house though.

Personally, I think people should ditch their TV's + licenses (a matter of time now with the way things are going on the internet); what value does RTE provide these days?

Tin Foil Hat

We had a once off opportunity to stand up to the household charge in unison. Everyone was required to register by the same day.
The TV license is a completely different story. You get a renewal once a year with your name on it. If you choose not to pay you stand alone and will eventually see the inside of a courtroom if you ignore the repeated reminders.
It took them ten years to find me and put me on the TV licence database, but now that they have me, there is no mass protest I can join.
But it would be a mistake to think that there isn't huge resentment of the TV tax.

usernamegoes

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

We had a once off opportunity to stand up to the household charge in unison. Everyone was required to register by the same day.
The TV license is a completely different story. You get a renewal once a year with your name on it. If you choose not to pay you stand alone and will eventually see the inside of a courtroom if you ignore the repeated reminders.
It took them ten years to find me and put me on the TV licence database, but now that they have me, there is no mass protest I can join.
But it would be a mistake to think that there isn't huge resentment of the TV tax.

Then sent me a bill for it and I sent it back and said I had no TV, which I didn't.

I hate the TV licence, if they really think it is for public service broadcasts then let it be and get rid of RTE 2 and use RTE 1 for non commercial public service so I don't have to pay for US tv show to be on RTE 2 a week before C4 shows them for free!

Tin Foil Hat

usernamegoes wrote: »

Then sent me a bill for it and I sent it back and said I had no TV, which I didn't.

I hate the TV licence, if they really think it is for public service broadcasts then let it be and get rid of RTE 2 and use RTE 1 for non commercial public service so I don't have to pay for US tv show to be on RTE 2 a week before C4 shows them for free!

I'm not a fan myself. It makes me puke to have €160 extorted from me for a crappy, biased service that I naver asked for.

Sudsy86

Also once they have your name you get an invoice, no invoice was sent for the household charge...

mikom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Speak for yourself.

charlemont

I'v never paid for a TV license and I have no intention of either, Got a warning to say I was going to court for non payment several years ago so I throw it in the bin and never saw a summons.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think one obvious reason is that the tv license is unlikely to increase to level of previously observed rates. If one were as satisfied that rates would not increase significantly over time, there would likely be less resistance. My parents would be reasonably ok with paying a €100 or €200 charge, but certainly not go back to the levels of rates charged in the 1980s, or even up as far as 1997 for some domestic rural dwellers.

Maybe you could answer yourself; presumably you did not pay the household charge, but you pay the television license?

RichieC

People already paid stamp duty buying their homes and see this as double taxing.

BlaasForRafa

Lots of different opinions on this one, a lot of them valid.

One I'd like to add is that it was seen as a sort of referendum on the governments performance so far. I was pretty ok with ponying up originally as a property tax is a logical idea but when it came out that the government had not even asked for a debt write-down from the Troika that really changed my mind. One might expect Europe to play hardball over a write down but to not even ask then about it is almost an act of betrayal to the nation.

And this whole deferring of payment of 3.1 billion till 2024 and converting the promissory note to sovereign debt is kicking the can down the road and piling up more debt for the future on the country. If the government is going to do things like this then paying them even more money seems a bit pointless.

beeftotheheels

RichieC wrote: »

People already paid stamp duty buying their homes and see this as double taxing.

Double taxation is all around us and this is not, strictly speaking, double taxation.

Stamp Duty is actually not a tax on your house, it is a tax on the instrument transferring your house to you.

It is perfectly possible to have a house without having paid SD on the acquisition, through inheritance, through falling below the thresholds which previously existed etc etc.

This has nothing to do with double taxation. If the charge were forever levied by reference to the consideration which was stampable on the acquisition of the property then arguments that it is a double tax might hold water, But it is not. So they don't.

murphaph

RichieC wrote: »

People already paid stamp duty buying their homes and see this as double taxing.

People already paid VAT on their TV set so should see the TV licence as double taxation too!

The household charge is at least going for services we all use, regardless of how inneficiently they are provided (a serious matter of course). The TV licence however goes to a useless state broadcaster that few people actually watch.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The TV Licence is an institutionalised tax at this stage, people are used to paying it.

Opposition to the Household tax comes in every shape and form, I don't think logic enter that much into it tbh, generally vague rants or ideology or populism, though to me it stems from the attachment to the ould plot.

The TV licence is probably a bit dated here though, whatever about the BBC, TV3 and radio has shown that you can have commercially viable independents.

Cookie_Monster

RichieC wrote: »

People already paid stamp duty buying their homes and see this as double taxing.

no, it's not. Stamp duty is a transaction tax. The household charge is due on ownership, totally different.

MadsL

Sudsy86 wrote: »

TV Licence: Ths has been arround for quite a long time, ppl watch their TV and know exactly where their money is going towards...Payment options are available across all payment methods(except DD if i'm not mistaken)...

I'm afraid you are.

http://www.rte.ie/about/licence.html#question11

A TV licence can be purchased online at www.tvlicence.ie
- By phoning Lo-Call 1890 228 528 (24 hr service) and giving your Laser, MasterCard or Visa Card details.
- By direct debit from your bank current account. With direct debit you have the option of making an annual payment, bi-annual, quarterly or monthly payments.
- From any post office by cash, cheque or TV Savings Stamps or by Laser card at 1,000 post offices across the country. - By Post, cheques to:

Zombrex

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think logic has much to do with the opposition to the house hold charge.

antoobrien

K-9 wrote: »

The TV Licence

Pays for coverage of the All-Ireland Hurling. I'll pay it for that alone.

gizmo555

RTE could afford to write off €1.5m in legal costs owed to it by class act Beverley Flynn - proof enough for me that they don't need my money . . .

Sideshow Mark

usernamegoes wrote: »

if they really think it is for public service broadcasts then let it be and get rid of RTE 2 and use RTE 1 for non commercial public service so I don't have to pay for US tv show to be on RTE 2 a week before C4 shows them for free!

Totally agree with this, made sense when there was no commercial sector in this country but now rte is bloated. Really needs to slim down to one tv station and 2fm also needs to be sold off.

Zombrex

gizmo555 wrote: »

RTE could afford to write off €1.5m in legal costs owed to it by class act Beverley Flynn - proof enough for me that they don't need my money . . .

I don't know why people always go on about that, just because you get awared €1.5 million in costs doesn't mean you will actually ever get it. The costs involved in trying to extracting that money out of Flynn (who didn't have it) would probably cost more than the money itself. Solicitors aren't free you know :P

Zombrex

Sideshow Mark wrote: »

Totally agree with this, made sense when there was no commercial sector in this country but now rte is bloated. Really needs to slim down to one tv station and 2fm also needs to be sold off.

Why? Extra stations do not cost that much to have and it allows them to show a broader range of programmings to cater to different demographics. Some people want to watch the Ireland game, others want to watch a gardening program. Some want to watch The Late Late Show, others Grey's Anatomy (for the life of me I don't know why). "Slimming down" the stations just means you provide programming for a narrower demographic at any particular time, which goes against the idea that it is a public broadcaster provide to the public in general.

K-9

Zombrex wrote: »

Why? Extra stations do not cost that much to have and it allows them to show a broader range of programmings to cater to different demographics. Some people want to watch the Ireland game, others want to watch a gardening program. Some want to watch The Late Late Show, others Grey's Anatomy (for the life of me I don't know why). "Slimming down" the stations just means you provide programming for a narrower demographic at any particular time, which goes against the idea that it is a public broadcaster provide to the public in general.

I suppose they have to meet a balance between commercially successful shows that bring in ad revenue and serving minor interests, or else you end up with TV3 and endless talk shows or sensational crime shows!

Having said that TG4 can put them to shame sometimes for the quality of their output. RTE Sports output is generally very good.

As for slimming down stations, looking at the BBC, it generally is the lesser interest shows or times that get cut. Dumbing down makes money.

later12

Sideshow Mark wrote: »

Totally agree with this, made sense when there was no commercial sector in this country but now rte is bloated. Really needs to slim down to one tv station and 2fm also needs to be sold off.

2FM has traditionally helped lower the cost to the taxpayer of funding RTE. Apart from a blip arising from the financial crash, it turns a profit. I'm not sure why it would make sense to get rid of it, you're just going to increase the cost to the exchequer, all else being equal.

gizmo555

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't know why people always go on about that, just because you get awared €1.5 million in costs doesn't mean you will actually ever get it. The costs involved in trying to extracting that money out of Flynn (who didn't have it) would probably cost more than the money itself. Solicitors aren't free you know :P

RTE presumably would have known this at the time of the initial libel action and the subsequent appeal, but so far as I'm aware they never at any time exercised their right to apply to have Flynn lodge a security for costs, before they were actually incurred.

I know very well solicitors aren't for free - that's the whole point!

c_man

antoobrien wrote: »

Pays for coverage of the All-Ireland Hurling. I'll pay it for that alone.

Do you really think that nobody would pick up one of the biggest guaranteed annual viewerships in the country if we didn't fork over to RTE to show it to us?

antoobrien

c_man wrote: »

Do you really think that nobody would pick up one of the biggest guaranteed annual viewerships in the country if we didn't fork over to RTE to show it to us?

Do you really want watch tv3's piss poor coverage of last years minor match or pay for sky instead?

2x4

It really is time to reconsider the television tax. Times have changed and there is really no justification to tax people in order to fund a state owned media outlet.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm sure if the TV license fee was only due to be introduced in the next few months we would have the same level, if not a greater amount of protest than we are already seeing for the household levy. People wouldn't be happy about seeing their money go towards the salaries of some of the clowns we have in RTE. It's not as if people don't it pay it "without question", more bullied by the annoying ads on the TV and radio threatening us with fines and court appearances if we don't cough up. I think a lot of people have the attitude that if they are not taxed with the household levy or TV license the government will only find a different way of raising more revenue.

usernamegoes

antoobrien wrote: »

Do you really want watch tv3's piss poor coverage of last years minor match or pay for sky instead?

I don't want to watch GAA sports, so I don't want to pay for them.

MadsL

2x4 wrote: »

It really is time to reconsider the television tax. Times have changed and there is really no justification to tax people in order to fund a state owned media outlet.

It is not a television tax, it funds more than that.

Radio
RTÉ Radio 1 , RTÉ 2fm, RTÉ RnaG, and RTÉ Lyric FM

Now one might argue that Radio should be self funding - if so, what about the DAB services coming on stream that cannot profitably source advertising and provided niche interest broadcasting; RTÉ Choice, RTÉ Gold, RTÉ 2XM, RTÉ Junior, RTÉ Chill, and RTÉ Pulse. Or would you argue that Ireland should not have DAB as that is what will happen without direct funding?

The licence fee also funds live music;

RTÉ National Symphony Orchestra - highly regarded professional orchestra. The licence fee means that cheap seats can be had for approximately €18 and concessions at €16. Fantastic value - and Ireland is lucky in that the population can support a full Symphony Orchestra and attract top soloists.

RTÉ Concert Orchestra is more mainstream and caters for a cross-over and largely commercially viable mix of backing big name singers like included Luciano Pavarotti, Plácido Domingo, José Carreras and Kiri Te Kanawa. Plus providing Jazz or rock backings - here's some upcoming gigs..
http://www.rte.ie/performinggroups/rteconcertorchestra/eventsearch.html?xsl=event_listing&typeid=1014

RTÉ Philharmonic Choir and RTÉ Cór na nÓg are vocal choirs I believe mostly made up of unpaid volunteers - the Director is the only paid staff.

The RTÉ Vanbrugh Quartet is very well regarded having a long tradition of excellence - they won the London International String Quartet Competition in 1988.

The licence fee also used to provide support for the RTÉ Living Music Festival, a world-class event celebrating living composers, with world-renowned composers such as Steve Riech, John Adams and Arvo Pärt, visiting Dublin. Sadly RTÉ don't seem to have built on the sellout success of the 2008 festival and it has not been seen since. IMRO co-sponsored it, but perhaps have diverted funds into anti-piracy court cases since?

Surely you would argue that there is a place for subsidy of fine arts and music to make these art forms available at a reasonable rate for as wide a cross-section as possible? Some form of levy I'd suggest would be appropriate.

Many Symphony Orchestras across the world struggle for funding and are forced to aggressively price subscriptions (The Los Angeles Philharmonic's cheapest ticket is over $50) - the TV licence makes these RTE sponsored events affordable for modest sums.


That's not to say I don't think RTE are paying silly money for X-factor and Salaries...:D

Zombrex

gizmo555 wrote: »

RTE presumably would have known this at the time of the initial libel action and the subsequent appeal, but so far as I'm aware they never at any time exercised their right to apply to have Flynn lodge a security for costs, before they were actually incurred.

Would you have known if they had?

Zombrex

2x4 wrote: »

It really is time to reconsider the television tax. Times have changed and there is really no justification to tax people in order to fund a state owned media outlet.

How else do you fund a state owned media outlet?

Or do you mean you don't want any more state owned media outlets?

gizmo555

Zombrex wrote: »

Would you have known if they had?

I'm certain it would have been mentioned in the extensive media coverage.

2x4

My issue with the €160 tax is that it is compulsory. If some people want to pay for government owned media outlets and minority interest orchestras and choirs thats fine. I just want to have the choice to pay or not to pay.

MadsL

2x4 wrote: »

My issue with the €160 tax is that it is compulsory. If some people want to pay for government owned media outlets and minority interest orchestras and choirs thats fine. I just want to have the choice to pay or not to pay.

You have a choice. You can not have a TV set or receiving device. Ironically you can still then avail of radio and other services - even view RTE online.

Most people choose to have a TV. In that respect it is a TV tax; the proposals to broaden that are trying to address that anomoly.

Let me ask you; if we funded RTE's activities through a cinema tax (say €1.60 a ticket) would you stop attending the cinema?

2x4

RTE is one of the sacred cows of Irish society. It's role and relevancy needs to be examined. If, and it's a very big if, the country needs government owned media outlets then maybe a single tv channel based around TG4 with Irish produced content is all that's needed.

Zombrex

2x4 wrote: »

My issue with the €160 tax is that it is compulsory. If some people want to pay for government owned media outlets and minority interest orchestras and choirs thats fine. I just want to have the choice to pay or not to pay.

You could say that about any tax. I don't want to pay for my local Breast Check clinic, I'm never going to use it personally myself, I want my money back. I don't want to pay for the park down the road, I don't ever going walking it in it. I want my money back.

That of course is not how tax works. You pay for the services so the public can avail of them. That includes yourself but you are equally free not to avail of them. You still pay for them. Taxes support public services, not just the ones you personally use.

2x4

I take the point about taxes but €160 is an awful lot of money for what we get. Seems like very bad value for money to me.

K-9

MadsL wrote: »

You have a choice. You can not have a TV set or receiving device. Ironically you can still then avail of radio and other services - even view RTE online.

Most people choose to have a TV. In that respect it is a TV tax; the proposals to broaden that are trying to address that anomoly.

Let me ask you; if we funded RTE's activities through a cinema tax (say €1.60 a ticket) would you stop attending the cinema?

Aren't their plans to widen it to include Laptops with tuners and the like?

I'd a notion the tv licence covered the ould "wireless" radio as well.

BarackPyjama

Zombrex wrote: »

How else do you fund a state owned media outlet?

Wouldn't mind paying TV licence if they'd get rid of advertising like the BBC. You're either a tax-funded public service broadcaster or you're a revenue generating media outlet. You can't be both.

PickledLime

Idiot question time; i own two tvs, neither are Saorview compatable, nor do i have any satellite signal/cable/rabbit's lugs coming into my home - basically i don't have access to a television signal in my house and have no desire for one (only one tv is used, and that's for playing games and extending the display on my laptop).

I have a licence valid until September or so, but given my situation, should i be paying it anyway?

BarackPyjama

PickledLime wrote: »

I have a licence valid until September or so, but given my situation, should i be paying it anyway?

I think you're supposed to, yes.

If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.

On principal though, I still wouldn't pay in your situation. You're being asked to pay for public service broadcasting, even though you don't avail of it, just because you have the equipment to do so. It's like being jailed for rape just because you have a schlong. Well... maybe not that severe.

MadsL

BarackPyjama wrote: »

I think you're supposed to, yes.



On principal though, I still wouldn't pay in your situation. You're being asked to pay for public service broadcasting, even though you don't avail of it, just because you have the equipment to do so. It's like being jailed for rape just because you have a schlong. Well... maybe not that severe.

Actually it is like not paying a gun tax because you don't have any ammo in the house at the moment. Even if you can go to the gun shop tomorrow and buy some.

The rules say 'capable of receiving' - sell your TV and buy a monitor.

BarackPyjama

MadsL wrote: »

Actually it is like not paying a gun tax because you don't have any ammo in the house at the moment.

I'm not so sure. On one hand you're right - the TV licence is a tax on the actual ownership of one or more television sets. However, we're told that the whole idea behind it is to fund public service broadcasting. Surely if you don't avail of public service broadcasting, you shouldn't have to pay for it?

MadsL

Surely if you don't avail of public service broadcasting, you shouldn't have to pay for it

Then it would cease to be a public service. Either we fund public service broadcasting through the state, or like NPR in the US through fundraising.

Given the additional arts that the TV licence supports I'm in favour of keeping it, but cutting over-inflated salaries and wasteful X-factor type licencing fees paid to Cowell etc. RTE simply has to stop buying in huge franchised ideas and paying through the nose for it.

Surely if you don't avail of public service broadcasting

Are you saying you never listen to RTE or watch RTE news/sport. Ever?

antoobrien

MadsL wrote: »

Given the additional arts that the TV licence supports I'm in favour of keeping it, but cutting over-inflated salaries and wasteful X-factor type licencing fees paid to Cowell etc. RTE simply has to stop buying in huge franchised ideas and paying through the nose for it.

They also have to be stopped from uncompetitive business practices. They bought the rights to Mad Men so TV3 wouldn't get them and put it on at midnight