Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…34689…31

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    listermint wrote: »
    The simple facts are we shouldnt be guaranteeing exchequer funds to these schemes that are in turmoil. And we are doing that. Its a two tier system making me pay for the mismanagement of your scheme. So yes i feel entirely second class.

    It's not my scheme. And clearly it's not the scheme you suggest it is either.


  • Options
    #153
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    This,

    Sack them all and bring in new talent or let them renegotiate their contracts to a much lower paying one.

    It was pretty well publicised that all the celeb broadcaster private contractors took substantial cuts when their contracts came up for renewal/negotiation.


  • Options
    #154
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    alastair wrote: »
    It was pretty well publicised that all the celeb broadcaster private contractors took substantial cuts when their contracts came up for renewal/negotiation.

    The poor dears.


  • Options
    #155
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    It was pretty well publicised that all the celeb broadcaster private contractors took substantial cuts when their contracts came up for renewal/negotiation.

    Yet RTE are still bleeding money so now it's time for something new. Other businesses do this every day of the week it's called trimming the fat so i don't see why RTE shouldn't be doing the same.


  • Options
    #156
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    SamHall wrote: »
    Yeah and as such their enormous salaries are paid to the 'companies' they are 'employees' of.

    Which technically means pat and Co pay relatively little into the revenue coffers compared to average Joe the paye worker.

    and the govt want to criminalise tax payers who don't want to fund their lifestyles?

    You're actually defending this?

    Exactly the same is true for any company. There's not much to defend there - unless you believe Pat's guilty of some sort of tax evasion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Yet RTE are still bleeding money so now it's time for something new. Other businesses do this every day of the week it's called trimming the fat so i don't see why RTE shouldn't be doing the same.

    You believe they're not doing exactly that?


  • Options
    #158
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    SamHall wrote: »
    I never mentioned Pat Kenny.

    My levy suggestion applied to all the rte staff on exorbitant salaries aand pensions.

    interesting that pat is hired as a contractor though.

    They'd avail of corporation tax I presume?

    Avail of corporation tax? Eh, yeah, but to get the money out of the company you have to pay income tax the same as everyone else. The best you can do is, pay yourself whatever you need to live on, declare the leftover as company profit, pay the corporation tax on that, and invest it somewhere (you'll still pay some tax on all earnings from investment), then later on, say after retirement you can pay yourself a wage again but you'll end up paying income tax. There's a small benefit as you'll get to charge a small number of things to the company, perhaps a PC, a phone if you can justify that etc. But normally you can't charge most of your living expenses to the company (unless you work to live and are always away from home working short term contracts perhaps), so it's not a huge gain.

    It doesn't make sense unless you're earning substantially over 100k a year though. The accountant fees etc will eat too much into any tax saving otherwise. You're also gambling on the lower rate of tax not increasing much over the medium term.


  • Options
    #159
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    You believe they're not doing exactly that?

    Not to the extent where they have stopped hemorrhaging the tax payers money.


  • Options
    #160
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Not to the extent where they have stopped hemorrhaging the tax payers money.

    They've taken exactly the same amount of tax payers money for years. When did it become a 'haemorrhage' rather than just an annual overhead?


  • Options
    #161
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    They've taken exactly the same amount of tax payers money for years. When did it become a 'haemorrhage' rather than just an annual overhead?

    In case you haven't heard we are in recession and there is 400k on the dole so there's a bit less tax money coming in and a few extra billion going out on dole money so we can't really afford to paid to pay these "DJ's" what they used to get.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    In case you haven't heard we are in recession and there is 400k on the dole so there's a bit less tax money coming in and a few extra billion going out on dole money so we can't really afford to paid to pay these "DJ's" what they used to get.

    So... no 'haemorrhage' then?

    Shutting up shop at RTE completely (and assuming no-one became unemployed as a consequence, or required their pension paid) would cover a bit more than forthnight's worth of dole - at best.


  • Options
    #163
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    So... no 'haemorrhage' then?


    You tell me. What is the magic number where it stops being an operating loss and becomes a bottomless pit?

    http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/just-how-bad-are-rtes-finances/

    For every €160 in licence fee we received from you in 2011, not only did we spend all that but we ran up an extra €61 in losses which we are funding with bank loans” The RTE promotional advertisement that you’re unlikely to hear, but with total losses of €69.7m in 2011 after receiving €183.6m in licence fee income, RTE spent ALL the licence fee and ran up losses equivalent to €61 for each of the 1,148,000 homes that paid €160

    http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/star-salaries-at-rt%C3%A9-were-financially-unsustainable-and-offensive-to-many-1.1341003

    For a public service broadcaster that was on track to record an estimated deficit of almost €60 million last year, the “star” salaries at RTÉ were not only financially unsustainable, they were (and remain) offensive to many licence-fee payers


  • Options
    #164
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    You tell me. What is the magic number where it stops being an operating loss and becomes a bottomless pit?

    Again - the taxpayer hasn't been asked anything more to support RTE - the principle of public broadcasting is that the taxpayer supports it - to that extent every public broadcaster is a 'bottomless pit'. Bottom line however is that RTE aren't 'hemorrhaging the tax payers money' - they're taking and using the same amount as they have in previous years. How they choose to spend that money is a different matter.


  • Options
    #165
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    Again - the taxpayer hasn't been asked anything more to support RTE - the principle of public broadcasting is that the taxpayer supports it - to that extent every public broadcaster is a 'bottomless pit'. Bottom line however is that RTE aren't 'hemorrhaging the tax payers money' - they're taking and using the same amount as they have in previous years. How they choose to spend that money is a different matter.

    They choose to spend it on overpaid overrated "stars" they also get money from advertisements and government funding. yet they STILL make a loss


  • Options
    #166
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    They choose to spend it on overpaid overrated "stars" they also get money from advertisements and government funding. yet they STILL make a loss

    Their 'overrated stars' have taken a 40% cut in pay. And show me the advertising dependent media that isn't currently making a loss?


  • Options
    #167
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    Their 'overrated stars' have taken a 40% cut in pay. And show me the advertising dependent media that isn't currently making a loss?

    And 400,000 people in this country have taken a 100% cut yet they are still expected to hand over the equivalent of a weeks dole money so Tubridy, Kenny et al can still live the high life for.....:confused:


  • Options
    #168
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    And 400,000 people in this country have taken a 100% cut yet they are still expected to hand over the equivalent of a weeks dole money so Tubridy, Kenny et al can still live the high life for.....:confused:

    RTE could fire Pat and Tubridy, and the TV licence would remain exactly the same - admit it - you're simply not going to be happy with anything RTE do, are you?


  • Options
    #169
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    RTE could fire Pat and Tubridy, and the TV licence would remain exactly the same - admit it - you're simply not going to be happy with anything RTE do, are you?

    They could also do a lot more to save money and then the government wouldn't have to prop them up.


  • Options
    #170
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    They could also do a lot more to save money and then the government wouldn't have to prop them up.

    It's public service broadcasting - the government will always have to 'prop them up'. It's the same story everywhere.


  • Options
    #171
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    alastair wrote: »
    It's public service broadcasting - the government will always have to 'prop them up'. It's the same story everywhere.

    Really? You say no public broadcasting company makes a profit?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Paying for caviar and getting mackerel.
    Bulldoze RTE and improve the mood of the people once their eyes, ears and pockets are no longer afflicted.


  • Options
    #173
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Really? You say no public broadcasting company makes a profit?

    Show me a public service broadcaster that isn't 'propped up' by a tax - local or national.


  • Options
    #174
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    mikom wrote: »
    Paying for caviar and getting mackerel.
    Bulldoze RTE and improve the mood of the people once their eyes, ears and pockets are no longer afflicted.

    It must be loon season. Still bitter about having to pay your property tax?


  • Options
    #175
    renegademaster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭renegademaster


    mikom wrote: »
    Paying for caviar and getting mackerel.
    Bulldoze RTE and improve the mood of the people once their eyes, ears and pockets are no longer afflicted.

    keep rte but tell us the flipping truth or at the very least tell us what's happening if it effects us!! i'll never pay for censorship!!


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mikom wrote: »
    Paying for caviar and getting mackerel.
    Bulldoze RTE and improve the mood of the people once their eyes, ears and pockets are no longer afflicted.

    I thought ye didn't watch or listen to all that rubbish anyway?


  • Options
    #177
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    alastair wrote: »
    Show me a public service broadcaster that isn't 'propped up' by a tax - local or national.

    Theres a difference between simply being propped up while operating within budget and being propped up and having a deficit of 60 million, every other tv, radio station or website in the country operates with the intention to at least break even if not make a profit therefore staying within budget is a neccessity, RTE will always have the government to fall back on so they dont feel the need to stay in budget thats the problem


  • Options
    #178
    bgrizzley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭bgrizzley


    I sometimes think that if the government came out with a tax on babies tears the same few names would be gleefully posting advice on the Grabbing Sweeties thread...


  • Options
    #179
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,307 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Theres a difference between simply being propped up while operating within budget and being propped up and having a deficit of 60 million, every other tv, radio station or website in the country operates with the intention to at least break even if not make a profit therefore staying within budget is a neccessity, RTE will always have the government to fall back on so they dont feel the need to stay in budget thats the problem

    Rubbish. RTE is run on a break-even basis. TV3 has a clear for-profit basis - and is also running a deficit despite operating on threadbare budget. RTE costs a lot to run - regardless of whether they make fantastic decisions on what they pay, and where they spend their money, or not - and that requires two components - their TV licence funded subvention - which has been at a constant level for years, and advertising revenue, which is under huge pressure for all broadcasters - and that's where the shortfall exists. Does that deficit have any impact on state expenditure? No it hasn't to date, and there's nothing to suggest that it will require any state bail-out.


  • Options
    #180
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,654 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    alastair wrote: »
    Rubbish. RTE is run on a break-even basis. TV3 has a clear for-profit basis - and is also running a deficit despite operating on threadbare budget. RTE costs a lot to run - regardless of whether they make fantastic decisions on what they pay, and where they spend their money, or not - and that requires two components - their TV licence funded subvention - which has been at a constant level for years, and advertising revenue, which is under huge pressure for all broadcasters - and that's where the shortfall exists. Does that deficit have any impact on state expenditure? No it hasn't to date, and there's nothing to suggest that it will require any state bail-out.

    RTE is run on a break even basis? Are you kidding me? That may be the "official" stance but its no where near the truth. Also the fact that this new licensing system will provide them with more money effectively amounts to a bailout.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    bgrizzley wrote: »
    I sometimes think that if the government came out with a tax on babies tears the same few names would be gleefully posting advice on the Grabbing Sweeties thread...

    poll taxes on the other hand. .......;)

    Some make a stand


Advertisement