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

Sam Kade

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Do you think travellers pay for all the stuff we pay for???? Think again..

And im thinking they have a point..

I know exactly what they do and don't pay for. There are a lot of young couples setting up home on their parents property with mobile homes or mobile log cabins that don't require property tax these are not registered for lpt that's what I'm referring to.

Phoebas

hotbabe1992 wrote: »

Should we cram as many people as we can into ireland,and force them to pay the tv tax so we can try to satisfy the insatiable apetitie of the nepotistic fat bloated greedy tv quango such as RTE..

People might complain if we brought more people in. :mad:

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

That's irrelevant.

I'd wager that there's a hell of a bigger workforce in BBC too that need paid.
How many different regional BBCs are there to operate?

Besides, this is getting away from the question I asked.

How does the BBC manage it with only tv license and no advertising revenue?

Take your time.

The BBC have some higher overheads (some pretty much the same - see orchestra costs), but not to the degree of their higher funding base (25 million licence payers). When you have 25 times the licence base, you have that much more leeway (€4325 million vs €160 million). RTE employ about 2000 staff, the BBC, 23000 (not 25 times the RTE figure). With the higher revenues that the BBC have, they can afford to create the big budget productions that sell internationally, and therefore have an additional revenue stream from the international market.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Which brings us back to square one phoebe.

Make it opt in. Subscription service. They will have no problem after all. Gospel according to you :

I'm still waiting to hear how the subscription model will work for radio. And the cost overhead of migrating the entire TV audience to subscription boxes rather than a licence model.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting to hear how the subscription model will work for radio. And the cost overhead of migrating the entire TV audience to subscription boxes rather than a licence model.

Radio could be funded via ad Revenue. And receive additional funding through the subscription to Tv services.

It had been pointed out to you already that they already pushed the public to get saorview boxes, or sky etc.

The Govt seemingly had no problem ' investing ' in fancy water meters, the cost of which will be burdened eventually by water, 'subscribers'.

Why can't the same process be applied to those that wish to avail of their public broadcasting

All about choice. People have little choice but to have water. Public broadcasting, not such a necessity.

harryr711

I'll pay it if Rabbitte and Gilmore sort me out with a few superdollars or dodgy fivers. Unfortunately, I'm one of the "cavemen" who doesn't personally own a tv.

dlouth15

Did anyone submit anything to the public consultation?

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Radio could be funded via ad Revenue.

The current level of Public broadcast radio couldn't be. The level of fully commercial radio broadcast viable in Ireland is evident in the existing independent stations. They offer a much more limited service.

Banjo String wrote: »

And receive additional funding through the subscription to Tv services.

This is true. It still leaves you in a position where some tax payers are subsidising the listening choices of others. Which is your problem to begin with, no?

Banjo String wrote: »

It had been pointed out to you already that they already pushed the public to get saorview boxes, or sky etc.

Neither of which have anything to do with the new subscription boxes which would be required. Sky/UPC could potentially add the channels to a new package and charge a mark-up, but the majority of viewers would have to invest in new boxes for each telly, and the phone connection for those set-ups.

Banjo String wrote: »

The Govt seemingly had no problem ' investing ' in fancy water meters, the cost of which will be burdened eventually by water, 'subscribers'.

Why can't the same process be applied to those that wish to avail of their public broadcasting

All about choice. People have little choice but to have water. Public broadcasting, not such a necessity.

I've no quarrel that we'll have to pay for water meters. You're suggesting however that it's a better scenario to require people to have to also pay the overhead of multiple subscription boxes plus subscriptions for a service that's cheaper and radically more accessible on a flat-fee basis?

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

I'll pay it if Rabbitte and Gilmore sort me out with a few superdollars or dodgy fivers. Unfortunately, I'm one of the "cavemen" who doesn't personally own a tv.

Personally? That sounds like some strategic framing there. Given your posting history, it's clear that you (at least sometimes) watch telly. TV3 get a cut of the licence fee too.

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

Personally? That sounds like some strategic framing there. Given your posting history, it's clear that you (at least sometimes) watch telly. TV3 get a cut of the licence fee too.

Hahaha I can't believe you went to the effort of looking up my recent posts. If I watch a program on someone else's television, I'm not going to pay the tax myself. I have never owned a tv, I wouldn't have watched more than a few hours (on other people's televisions) in the past 3 years. Will I have to pay if I see a tv that's switched on in a shop or the gym?

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

Hahaha I can't believe you went to the effort of looking up my recent posts. If I watch a program on someone else's television, I'm not going to pay the tax myself. I have never owned a tv, I wouldn't have watched more than a few hours (on other people's televisions) in the past 3 years. Will I have to pay if I see a tv that's switched on in a shop or the gym?

The point is that you watch TV - and presumably listen to the radio. You're not being asked to pay for someone else's telly - you're being asked to pay for your viewing/listening to public broadcasting. You are, by your own admission, not one of those 'cavemen':

I don’t believe that we have cave men in the country… I don’t believe that there are people who don’t watch television

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

The point is that you watch TV - and presumably listen to the radio. You're not being asked to pay for someone else's telly - you're being asked to pay for your viewing/listening to public broadcasting. You are, by your own admission, not one of those 'cavemen':

Come off it. If I go to a gym with a television showing RTE I'm liable for tax? Complete and utter bollocks. The show I watched was on TV3 btw, who won't benefit from the broadcasting charge.

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

Come off it. If I go to a gym with a television showing RTE I'm liable for tax? Complete and utter bollocks. The show I watched was on TV3 btw, who won't benefit from the broadcasting charge.

They would/do through the Broadcasting Funding Scheme. Whether you watch at the gym or not doesn't really matter - you're not that 'caveman' that Rabbitte referred to.

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

They would/do through the Broadcasting Funding Scheme. Whether you watch at the gym or not doesn't really matter - you're not that 'caveman' that Rabbitte referred to.

For the best part of the previous 3 years (prior to watching TV3 on Monday) I was that caveman. TV3 bosses are complaining about the introduction of the broadcasting charge, they've said RTE need to get their house in order and stop whinging. This is the government on the take and Rabbitte propping up his "comrades" in RTE. If they can't compete in the commercial market, they should look at how they're run instead of looking at how they can dip into the public's pockets.

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

For the best part of the previous 3 years (prior to watching TV3 on Monday) I was that caveman. TV3 bosses are complaining about the introduction of the broadcasting charge, they've said RTE need to get their house in order and stop whinging. This is the government on the take and Rabbitte propping up his "comrades" in RTE. If they can't compete in the commercial market, they should look at how they're run instead of looking at how they can dip into the public's pockets.

RTE don't stand to get anything more on the back of a change in the licence arrangement - and I'm not sure where you believe that's any stickie element in RTE - it's been a while since those days. RTE could never compete in the commercial market - given that they were never intended to.

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

RTE don't stand to get anything more on the back of a change in the licence arrangement - and I'm not sure where you believe that's any stickie element in RTE - it's been a while since those days. RTE could never compete in the commercial market - given that they were never intended to.

If RTE didn't stand to gain anything from changing the licence fee to the broadcasting tax, we wouldn't be talking about the change! It will increase and stabilise RTE's income because their commercial revenues have declined and they believe more people are evading the licence fee. They've stated as much. If they can't compete in the commercial market, then they should exit the commercial market.

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

If RTE didn't stand to gain anything from changing the licence fee to the broadcasting tax, we wouldn't be talking about the change!

Why not? It's a newsworthy change in taxation measures.

harryr711 wrote: »

It will increase and stabilise RTE's income because their commercial revenues have declined and they believe more people are evading the licence fee.

It won't impact on their funding at all - the decision on what RTE's budget should be is independent of how broadcasting is taxed, or what that income is. They've had their budget reduced by government over the past few years - unrelated to the licence revenue, and there's been a shift toward directing more licence fee funding directly towards independent productions.

harryr711 wrote: »

They've stated as much.

They have? Where was that?

harryr711 wrote: »

If they can't compete in the commercial market, then they should exit the commercial market.

They're not funded sufficiently to continue without advertising income. It's suggested however that they might have some of their advertising time taken from them, in exchange for an increased subvention.

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

Why not? It's a newsworthy change in taxation measures.

You missed the point - if RTE weren't affected by falling revenues, it's unlikely there would be a change in the taxation measure.

alastair wrote: »

It won't impact on their funding at all - the decision on what RTE's budget should be is independent of how broadcasting is taxed, or what that income is. They've had their budget reduced by government over the past few years - unrelated to the licence revenue, and there's been a shift toward directing more licence fee funding directly towards independent productions.

Don't be silly. Of course it will impact on their budget. If the tv licence fee take is down then their budget will have to follow suit. This is why RTE are in favour of the broadcasting tax because it will increase and stabilise their income as stated in the link below in response to your next point.

alastair wrote: »

They have? Where was that?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tv3-boss-lashes-out-at-broadcasting-charge-plans-241184.html

alastair wrote: »

They're not funded sufficiently to continue without advertising income. It's suggested however that they might have some of their advertising time taken from them, in exchange for an increased subvention.

I find it very hard to believe that RTE couldn't be run without subsidy if they were run properly. How do TV3 manage to operate at a profit without 50% of their revenue coming from the taxpayer while RTE have something like 2.75 times TV3's market share?

dlouth15

Ideally RTE should be split into commercial and non-commercial arms. The commercial arm would receive no subsidy and would compete on the same basis as TV3 and other channels and would be placed in private ownership. The non-commercial arm would be publically owned. It would do no broadcasting but would be responsible for commissioning programming and would attempt to recoup some of the subsidy (but not all) by selling to tv channels (not just RTE) in Ireland (and where possible internationally).

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

You missed the point - if RTE weren't affected by falling revenues, it's unlikely there would be a change in the taxation measure.

That's a fair point - but it's a government initiative - not an RTE one.

harryr711 wrote: »

Don't be silly. Of course it will impact on their budget. If the tv licence fee take is down then their budget will have to follow suit. This is why RTE are in favour of the broadcasting tax because it will increase and stabilise their income as stated in the link below in response to your next point.

There's nothing to suggest it'll bump up the RTE budget at all. It would certainly keep the government licencing revenues secure.

harryr711 wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/tv3-boss-lashes-out-at-broadcasting-charge-plans-241184.html

I'm not seeing anything from RTE about the proposed new arrangement in that article - just a broad support for anything that might ensure subvention security.

harryr711 wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe that RTE couldn't be run without subsidy if they were run properly. How do TV3 manage to operate at a profit without 50% of their revenue coming from the taxpayer while RTE have something like 2.75 times TV3's market share?

Maybe you should approach them with your special recipe for commercial success. The norm for public broadcasters is that they require subvention - RTE are no exception. TV3 operate at a profit (some years) on the basis of a very limited range of offerings - avoiding the public service requirements imposed on the public broadcast channels.

Mr.Micro

dlouth15 wrote: »

Ideally RTE should be split into commercial and non-commercial arms. The commercial arm would receive no subsidy and would compete on the same basis as TV3 and other channels and would be placed in private ownership. The non-commercial arm would be publically owned. It would do no broadcasting but would be responsible for commissioning programming and would attempt to recoup some of the subsidy (but not all) by selling to tv channels (not just RTE) in Ireland (and where possible internationally).

Just cannot see that happening, it would mean that competent people would have to be hired and targets set with no never ending supply of money to fall back on. Imagine the horror at RTE if such were adapted.

harryr711

alastair wrote: »

That's a fair point - but it's a government initiative - not an RTE one.

It's a government initiative that will benefit the public broadcaster. I agree with you that RTE do not set the state taxation policies.

alastair wrote: »

There's nothing to suggest it'll bump up the RTE budget at all. It would certainly keep the government licencing revenues secure.


I'm not seeing anything from RTE about the proposed new arrangement in that article - just a broad support for anything that might ensure subvention security.

If revenues decline then budgets need to be cut, so if the tax take declines then so must RTE's income/budget, I don't see how anyone can argue against that. The article has quotes from an RTE spokesperson saying talking about the "decline in commercial revenue along with reduced levels of income from license fee due to evasion" and welcoming any initiative (like the broadcast tax) that will protect them.

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you should approach them with your special recipe for commercial success. The norm for public broadcasters is that they require subvention - RTE are no exception. TV3 operate at a profit (some years) on the basis of a very limited range of offerings - avoiding the public service requirements imposed on the public broadcast channels.

Maybe they should hire one of TV3's bosses to run the station, or a manager from another profitable independent broadcaster, and get their house in order. If they insist on operating in the commercial market then they should do so with the intention of reducing the burden on the taxpayer, or else forget about it, or as suggested above - split it into two separate arms.

For Reals

alastair wrote: »

I'm still waiting to hear how the subscription model will work for radio. And the cost overhead of migrating the entire TV audience to subscription boxes rather than a licence model.

Surely that's RTE's problem? I for one don't give a flying f***

For Reals

I honestly believe having a national broadcaster is a good thing. However government of the day biased, (depending on the carrot being dangled at the time) they may be perceived to be, however nepotistic they are, (and they are, I've seen it, (on set and in production) and been told by trusted sources) I would still say some form of national broadcaster should exist. Do we need multiple channels? No. Multiple platforms I can understand.
I would suggest one channel showing only Irish or Irish related programming. Then no advertising would be needed. That's it. I would happily fund that the same way I would support heritage sites, museums and the like. I will not support a commercial entity such as TV3 even if called RTE.
But again, the basis and criteria for the broadcast tax is just plain wrong as Enda use to say the Housing tax was.
Its like being held to ransom for just being. And Rabbite's 'Caveman' crack is just insulting and even the term of reference is bull**** as the trend now is to move away from television.
Basically they saw viewers moving to the net and the argument of having no TV becoming more and more common place. That's why you have the broadcast tax. Pure greed in my view. And I mean greed. Will you or I see any marked benefit from the state regarding our quality of life with this tax in? I think not. My naïve days of thinking what is good for the tax coffers is good for us all are long behind me.

alastair

harryr711 wrote: »

Maybe they should hire one of TV3's bosses to run the station, or a manager from another profitable independent broadcaster, and get their house in order. If they insist on operating in the commercial market then they should do so with the intention of reducing the burden on the taxpayer, or else forget about it, or as suggested above - split it into two separate arms.

I shudder to think what another TV3 would be like. The Irish TV licence is actually pretty competitive, compared to most public broadcaster costs. I don't see it much of a burden tbh.

alastair

For Reals wrote: »

...And Rabbite's 'Caveman' crack is just insulting and even the term of reference is bull**** as the trend now is to move away from television.

Did you actually read his full quote?

I don’t believe that we have cave men in the country. I don’t believe that there are people who don’t watch television and don’t access content on their iPhone or iPad or whatever

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

The current level of Public broadcast radio couldn't be. The level of fully commercial radio broadcast viable in Ireland is evident in the existing independent stations. They offer a much more limited service.

Such as?

News talk, Today FM, Nova (pretty much all I listen to) all offer Music, News and weather/sport/traffic updates.

Whats making RTE unique in their game?

alastair wrote: »

This is true. It still leaves you in a position where some tax payers are subsidising the listening choices of others. Which is your problem to begin with, no?

Wrong.

My issue, and I say this as a tv license holder, is the Govt plan to take the freedom of choice from the tax payer, and criminalise its own citizens who don't tow the line when being told to pay for a service that is pretty much obsolete in todays techical environment.

alastair wrote: »

Neither of which have anything to do with the new subscription boxes which would be required. Sky/UPC could potentially add the channels to a new package and charge a mark-up, but the majority of viewers would have to invest in new boxes for each telly, and the phone connection for those set-ups.

RTE could 'provide' whatever equipment is needed at a subsidised price (or free) and recoup the price of their investment over the lifetime of the subscription.

You know the way mobile companies offer 'free' SGS4s with monthly tarrifs?

C'mon Al, you know well how these things work tbh.

alastair wrote: »

I've no quarrel that we'll have to pay for water meters. You're suggesting however that it's a better scenario to require people to have to also pay the overhead of multiple subscription boxes plus subscriptions for a service that's cheaper and radically more accessible on a flat-fee basis?

Nope, I'm not.

I'm suggesting its a better alternative for those die hard RTE fans that wish to keep viewing it (given a choice)

To force the rest of the population to prop up RTE without choice is where my problem lies.

I know you're an intelligent individual Al. Stop trying to come across like you aint.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Such as?


News talk, Today FM, Nova (pretty much all I listen to) all offer Music, News and weather/sport/traffic updates.

Whats making RTE unique in their game?

I've already outlined some unique services they provide - refer back in the thread.

Banjo String wrote: »

Wrong.

My issue, and I say this as a tv license holder, is the Govt plan to take the freedom of choice from the tax payer, and criminalise its own citizens who don't tow the line when being told to pay for a service that is pretty much obsolete in todays techical environment.

You don't have a choice if you want to view public broadcasting at the moment. No change there. And how is public broadcasting technically obsolete? It's not a TV licence - it's a public broadcasting charge.

Banjo String wrote: »

RTE could 'provide' whatever equipment is needed at a subsidised price (or free) and recoup the price of their investment over the lifetime of the subscription.

I'm not seeing how the cost wouldn't be passed on to the viewer.

Banjo String wrote: »

You know the way mobile companies offer 'free' SGS4s with monthly tarrifs?

Passing on the cost to the consumer.

Banjo String wrote: »

C'mon Al, you know well how these things work tbh.

It's not particularly compelling for the consumer, is it?

Banjo String wrote: »

Nope, I'm not.

I'm suggesting its a better alternative for those die hard RTE fans that wish to keep viewing it (given a choice)

To force the rest of the population to prop up RTE without choice is where my problem lies.

I know you're an intelligent individual Al. Stop trying to come across like you aint.

Most of the population watch RTE programming to some degree. Many more use the rest of the publicly-funded media sources. It's not a minority interest - it's pretty near universal. There's no sense to painting those services into a unnecessarily expensive and complicated technical corner, when an inexpensive and technology-free alternative exists. For anyone with a TV it doesn't impact on them financially whatsoever. There's simply no case for a subscription model.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

I've already outlined some unique services they provide - refer back in the thread.

Nothing unique so.

alastair wrote: »

You don't have a choice if you want to view public broadcasting at the moment.

Don't I???

"No tv in this house mr tv inspector. Yeah there's a projector and a monitor, but they aren't tvs, and neither can receive RTE on them regardless.

alastair wrote: »

No change there.

The change is removing the choice of actually owning a telly to be liable for a charge.

alastair wrote: »

And how is public broadcasting technically obsolete? It's not a TV licence - it's a public broadcasting charge.

You've heard of the internet, right?

We already pay 3 x times the average price for internet services in this country, which all (conveniently) have vodka and tonic attached btw.

alastair wrote: »

I'm not seeing how the cost wouldn't be passed on to the viewer.

I'm not seeing how I didnt say it would. in fact I basically said it in my post.

RTE could 'provide' whatever equipment is needed at a subsidised price (or free) and recoup the price of their investment over the lifetime of the subscription.

Passing on the cost to the consumer.

alastair wrote: »

It's not particularly compelling for the consumer, is it?

if they reckon RTE is the biz, they'll happily pay it.

alastair wrote: »

Most of the population watch RTE programming to some degree. Many more use the rest of the publicly-funded media sources. It's not a minority interest - it's pretty near universal. There's no sense to painting those services into a unnecessarily expensive and complicated technical corner, when an inexpensive and technology-free alternative exists. For anyone with a TV it doesn't impact on them financially whatsoever. There's simply no case for a subscription model.

sub.....script......ion so.

alastair

Banjo String wrote: »

Nothing unique so.

Not interested in an answer to your question, so?

Banjo String wrote: »

Don't I???

"No tv in this house mr tv inspector. Yeah there's a projector and a monitor, but they aren't tvs, and neither can receive RTE on them regardless.

Grand until you choose to watch public broadcasting - which was the point I was making.

Banjo String wrote: »

You've heard of the internet, right?

That medium which also carries public broadcasting? yep.

Banjo String wrote: »

We already pay 3 x times the average price for internet services in this country, which all (conveniently) have vodka and tonic attached btw.

Not really anything to do with this issue, is it?

Banjo String wrote: »

if they reckon RTE is the biz, they'll happily pay it.

I suspect no-one wants to pay extra if they don't have to. You're asking them to pay extra.

Banjo String wrote: »

sub.....script......ion so.

See above.