All Homes To Be Hit With New Broadcasting Charge

Lightbulb Sun

Every household in the country will be hit with a new Public Service Broadcasting Charge to replace the television licence fee next year.

Nobody will be able to refuse to pay the charge because it will apply regardless of whether you have a television, computer or any other device that can pick up public information.
The new universal charge will be collected in a way that tackles the current very high evasion rates of the TV licence fee - suggesting the payment mechanism could be modelled on the new property tax.
Currently nearly one in five households does not pay the TV licence fee and this is costing the government €30m a year in lost revenue.
Announcing major changes to the way public service broadcasting is funded Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte today gave a commitment the new charge will not exceed the current €160 a year licence fee.
A public consultation into how the charge will operate will be launched shortly and Mr Rabbitte said ideally he would like to see it introduced by late 2014.
There would be no excuse for not paying the charge, and the only exceptions would be for those currently exempt from the TV licence fee such as households in receipt of the household benefits package.
Mr Rabbitte said that he simply did not believe there were any households who could claim to have no access to public service broadcasting whether via television, radio or the RTE website on phones and computers.
“It’s not some of us should pay for, all of us should pay for it, we should not have freeloaders,” he said.
He also revealed that RTE will have to cut its advertising time if it wants to get any extra public funding in future.
Mr Rabbitte said he will introduce a new funding mechanism where both advertising revenue and public funding is considered in working out how much money RTE and TG4 should get.
Consultants will also be sent in to RTE to see if further cost efficiencies can be achieved prior to any increase in funding.
Mr Rabbitte said that could include presenters’ salaries as though the terms of reference of the review of costs had not yet been set, nothing was off the table.
However he acknowledged that RTE had already made substantial savings, having cut staff numbers by 500 in recent years and been one of the first public bodies to cut wages, achieving total savings of €104m since the recession hit.
The changes were approved by the Cabinet yesterday after it considered the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland’s five-year review of how public service broadcasting is funded.
The BAI said that RTE would need more money if it’s to deliver on its public service broadcasting remit.
RTE saw commercial income drop by €84m or 35pc between 2008 and 2012 which Mr Rabbitte said was a “mindboggling” fall.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

I think this may have been known about for a while now, anyway it's official now.
The government continue their devious crafty tax ways then...

My name is URL

lol... they can go and shite

super_furry

My name is URL wrote: »

lol... they can go and shite

People said the same about the universal social charge, the property tax, the water meters and yet the government still gets their way.

richymcdermott

Dont pay the tv licence , you could face prison time

Bankrupt the country , you get a nice bonus and no prosecution


Good old ireland

bumper234

Never had a tv licence and will never pay this.

Phoebas

:mad: I'm going on hunger strike over this





















.... after Fair City.

c_man

They should save a bit of money from firing all those unnecessary tv licence inspectors and ads and billboards etc etc! Right....?

Phoebas

bumper234 wrote: »

Never had a tv licence and will never pay this.

Do you have a TV?

bumper234

Phoebas wrote: »

:mad: I'm going on hunger strike over this





















.... after Fair City.

Fairly chitty......if ever there was a reason NOT to give rte any money.

bumper234

Phoebas wrote: »

Do you have a TV?

Nope

Petey89

another load of crap, shouldn't have to pay if you don't use public services I cant remember the last time I watched anything on RTE. I pay my sky bill and my broadband that's enough.

gifted

what about the untouchables...sorry the unemployed?

Phoebas

Petey89 wrote: »

another load of crap, shouldn't have to pay if you don't use public services.

I never use the health or education services.
Can I opt out of paying income tax?

Elmer Blooker

Pat Rabbitte gave a commitment the new charge will not exceed the current €160 a year licence fee.

right then - that means the new broadcasting charge will be around €320 a year.

OU812

I still say they should make RTE subscription based to see how many people want to watch it.

The J Stands for Jay

Why should we have to pay for rte radio that most people don't listen to and for pointless rte websites that do nothing but harm other Irish website's potential to get any advertising revenue?

What if you live in a cottage with no electricity, will.they still claim you have a computer which is being used to look ay rte.ie?

And I'm sure every household with no tv and just a laptop uses it just to watch fair city. My brother doesn't have a tv in his apartment. He uses his laptop to play minecraft and watch funny videos on YouTube. He probably isn't even aware of any of rte's output. Now he's going to have to start paying money to Pat Kenny?

Phoebas

gifted wrote: »

what about the untouchables...sorry the unemployed?

They are liable.

There would be no excuse for not paying the charge, and the only exceptions would be for those currently exempt from the TV licence fee such as households in receipt of the household benefits package.

The J Stands for Jay

OU812 wrote: »

I still say they should make RTE subscription based to see how many people want to watch it.

This is the answer.

Judgement Day

c_man wrote: »

They should save a bit of money from firing all those unnecessary tv licence inspectors and ads and billboards etc etc! Right....?

Not to mention decommissioning all those empty hi-tech detector vans.

kneemos

About time the spongers were made to pay up.

VinLieger

kneemos wrote: »

About time the spongers were made to pay up.

What spongers? Your mean the people that use absolutely none of RTEs services so they dont feel they should pay for them?

kneemos

VinLieger wrote: »

What spongers? Your mean the people that use absolutely none of RTEs services so they dont feel they should pay for them?

The vast majority that don't pay have RTE services.

Sinfonia

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

[...T]his is costing the government €30m a year in lost revenue.

Well, here's a fantastic sentence.

usernamegoes

If this is for public service then make it a public service. Sell RTE 2 and all the Fair City and such non-sense on RTE 1. If I wan't to watch Friends repeats I can do so elsewhere.

Also Pat Rabbitte said that this would increase the amount that RTE gets from the tax payer so he is going to reduce the amount that RTE can get from ads! :-D WHAT! He should reduce the amount of the payment and let the ads fund that! Like what an arseways way to do it!

VinLieger

kneemos wrote: »

The vast majority that don't pay have RTE services.

Just cus they have access to them doesnt mean they use them

Lightbulb Sun

Sinfonia wrote: »

Well, here's a fantastic sentence.

The Independents words not mine.

kneemos

VinLieger wrote: »

Just cus they have access to them doesnt mean they use them

Doesn't matter anyway it's a public service like the health service you should pay for it if you use it or not and I doubt very much if there's more than a handfull of people that don't use one of RTE's services through the year even if to watch a match or check a score on Aertel or listen to a news bullitin or special event.

VinLieger

kneemos wrote: »

Doesn't matter anyway it's a public service like the health service you should pay for it if you use it or not and I doubt very much if there's more than a handfull of people that don't use one of RTE's services through the year even if to watch a match or check a score on Aertel or listen to a news bullitin or special event.

Thats a load of ****e, the health service is a neccessity, equating RTE to the health service which is required so people stay alive is ridiculous.
Yeah people might do that but they also could do the same if RTE didnt exist on several thousand other websites out there.
RTE is a bloated luxury especially considering it gets tax payer money and ad revenue when its competitors have to make do with advertising revenue only and they get on fine.
Its time RTE was kicked out of the kiddie pool and told to go swim with the grown ups

donegal_road

you could buy the Saorview box over the border for £25, they are a different brand mind you... but they can pick up all the same channels as the southern Saorview box.... yet another way the Irish public were conned.









.

Sir Osis of Liver.

I"ll be getting the Black and White broadcasting charge licence.

Karate Chop

In all fairness we need an impartial national broadcaster, and the reality is that it has to be subsidised by the citizens.

VinLieger

Karate Chop wrote: »

In all fairness we need an impartial national broadcaster, and the reality is that it has to be subsidised by the citizens.

How is a national broadcaster impartial if its wages are paid by the government through taxes?

bumper234

In the UK you pay a tv licence fee and that money goes to the BBC they need this money as they have no advertisment income. As far as i am aware ITV Channel 4 etc get nothing from the licencing fee. RTE not only gets licence money and advert money but also government cash! **** em they come to my door i have no tv and its a ****in hell of a lot easier to hide a Laptop or tablet than some 52 inch monster thats bolted to the wall.

Sinfonia

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

The Independents words not mine.

Oh I know; it's a really horrible and deceptive use of language intended to cause the reader to mistake a lack of income for expenditure.

In fact, the full sentence goes further and implies theft rather than expenditure.

Sinfonia

Karate Chop wrote: »

In all fairness we need an impartial national broadcaster, and the reality is that it has to be subsidised by the citizens.

Why exactly do we need it? Honest question.

Knasher

When we switched over to digital, there is absolutely no technical reason that RTE couldn’t have encrypted the signal and required the use of smart cards, like what Sky and UPC use, which would plug into the CAM slots on digital TVs. Then people who are interesting in receiving RTE would have to pay to do so, and only those people would be able to watch it. The problem of people dodging the license fee would end instantly, and people wouldn’t be charged for a service they don’t, or can’t use.

The reason they didn’t do that is because nobody, including RTE themselves, believes that RTE is of sufficient quality to compete in an open market, without being propped up by the government. It’s a pay tv provider that isn’t good enough to survive without the government forcing us to be their customers.

Phoebas

donegal_road wrote: »

speaking of which.... in his very own words, Pat Rabbitte admits he lied to the public with pre-election promises in a bid to win votes for the Labour Party

Pat Rabbitte doesn't admit to lying in that video. He 'admits' to keeping things simple.

Interviewer: "You didn't go into all that detail before the election. You kept it really simpler. Protect Child Benefit- Vote Labour"
Rabbitte: "Yeah. Isn't that what you tend to do during an election."

You must be referring to something else (or pulling stuff out of the sky).

irritablebaz

gifted wrote: »

what about the untouchables...sorry the unemployed?

they are not exempt from paying tv licence fees so i cant see how they wont have to pay this new improved charge.

My name is URL

Karate Chop wrote: »

In all fairness we need an impartial national broadcaster

And hopefully some day we'll get it!

rn

I already pay a TV license and if this charge is the same, it means no difference to me... and allegedly 80% of home owners are in the same boat.

zenno

Jesus, will this sh!te ever end. They can't get blood out of a stone, and I am a stone, how much more of this garbage do we have to put up with ?. Never-ending story. RTE should be subscription only, that poster has it right.

I don't have a tv, i dumped it in a skip many years ago, i just use the pc, and why the heck would i want to watch the absolute garbage shown on RTE, and all the adverts that make your brain dead. dire stuff indeed.

kneemos

zenno wrote: »

Jesus, will this sh!te ever end. They can't get blood out of a stone, and I am a stone, how much more of this garbage do we have to put up with ?. Never-ending story. RTE should be subscription only, that poster has it right.

I don't have a tv, i dumped it in a skip many years ago, i just use the pc, and why the heck would i want to watch the absolute garbage shown on RTE, and all the adverts that make your brain dead. dire stuff indeed.

Radio in the house?

Karate Chop

VinLieger wrote: »

How is a national broadcaster impartial if its wages are paid by the government through taxes?

The News and programs it creates are impartial.

Karate Chop

Sinfonia wrote: »

Why exactly do we need it? Honest question.

As a service to the all the citizens.

rubadub

Karate Chop wrote: »

In all fairness we need an impartial national broadcaster, and the reality is that it has to be subsidised by the citizens.

Loads of countries have no TV licence in place. If there had traditionally been none and it was suggested today it would be laughed at. Make it subscription as said.

The fact people DO watch it is not a good point, they twist this to make it appear like its popular. My analogy was a cooker licence, if you have a cooker or microwave you must pay a licence. The cooker department would employ formerly little known chefs, then increase their salaries over the years to ridiculous proportions, simply since these chefs got famous by being forced into peoples homes, there would be no poaching of these chefs to BBC etc, they are brutal -but famous here. The cooker licence people would deliver food to your door each day & recipes, or food to be heated up, you can let it go to waste and buy your own. Many would not be able to afford an alternative so put up with the tasteless muck these talentless chefs serve up. Then the government body would twist the figures and say "look, loads of people eat the food, they MUST like it". Even if people could afford an alternative they might put up with the muck since they do not want to see it go to waste.

While I despise the idea of the licence and least you can no longer hide behind curtains to avoid paying what is essentially a tax. Many people do not use wheelchair ramps, or other services, but still pay their way. If insisting that we pay without a choice then a better move would have been to have it in general taxation, rather than have more money squandered on the reams of administration required for yet another tax. But this probably allows some smug cunt to yet again claim they technically broke no promises.

zenno

kneemos wrote: »

Radio in the house?

Yes, but it is an internet radio, i don't listen to Irish add radio stations.

zenno

rubadub wrote: »

Loads of countries have no TV licence in place. If there had traditionally been none and it was suggested today it would be laughed at. Make it subscription as said.

The fact people DO watch it is not a good point, they twist this to make it appear like its popular. My analogy was a cooker licence, if you have a cooker or microwave you must pay a licence. The cooker department would employ formerly little known chefs, then increase their salaries over the years to ridiculous proportions, simply since these chefs got famous by being forced into peoples homes, there would be no poaching of these chefs to BBC etc, they are brutal -but famous here. The cooker licence people would deliver food to your door each day & recipes, or food to be heated up, you can let it go to waste and buy your own. Many would not be able to afford an alternative so put up with the tasteless muck these talentless chefs serve up. Then the government body would twist the figures and say "look, loads of people eat the food, they MUST like it". Even if people could afford an alternative they might put up with the muck since they do not want to see it go to waste.

While I despise the idea of the licence and least you can no longer hide behind curtains to avoid paying what is essentially a tax. Many people do not use wheelchair ramps, or other services, but still pay their way. If insisting that we pay without a choice then a better move would have been to have it in general taxation, rather than have more money squandered on the reams of administration required for yet another tax. But this probably allows some smug cunt to yet again claim they technically broke no promises.

Very good analogy of the situation.

VinLieger

Karate Chop wrote: »

The News and programs it creates are impartial.

Completely impartial reporting is a myth especially considering it all depends on the viewers point of view, what some people consider impartial others may consider to have a bias

kneemos

zenno wrote: »

Yes, but it is an internet radio, i don't listen to Irish add radio stations.

What about the car?if a match was on in the pub I'm sure you look the other way?

zenno

kneemos wrote: »

What about the car?if a match was on in the pub I'm sure you look the other way?

The car ? believe it or not, i never had a radio of any kind in my car.

I'm also not into sports or pubs so that rules that out.

hmmm

If there's one thing Labour does well it's come up with imaginative new taxes. The highly paid "stars" of RTE will be celebrating tonight.