why never a movement against the Television Licence ? (READ POST #2 BEFORE POSTING)

snowflaker

I can't be the only one who doesn't see it as an onerous charge? I'm skint but €160 is good value for money- thats about 3 months broadband!

Elmo

snowflaker wrote: »

I can't be the only one who doesn't see it as an onerous charge? I'm skint but €160 is good value for money- thats about 3 months broadband!

It's not an onerous charge the issue is RTÉ, but they blame everyone else.

snowflaker

Elmo wrote: »

It's not an onerous charge the issue is RTÉ, but they blame everyone else.

RTE isn't that bad, were just spoiled by BBC

Victor

Adding the charge to people's broadband might be a problem if people are pretend roaming on foreign phones, although perhaps content licences could take care of that.

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Why not be up front about it and scrap the 'licence' as it surely could not be termed a licence in future.
Call it what it is ..... a technology tax which is used primarily to support PSB.

I would have no objection to such a tax, but why continue with this misnomer of a 'licence'? Because 'tax' is a dirty word to a lot of people?

It's an excise duty, so licence isn't necessarily inappropriate.

Elmo

snowflaker wrote: »

RTE isn't that bad, were just spoiled by BBC

It's become worse. I have been a huge defender of RTE of the last few years but they just have no idea. I am not comparing RTE to the BBC.

RTÉ2 is a mess. No matter what people say the audience share is far too low for the type of programming that it is providing, it would be different if it was providing a modicum of public service broadcasting, but its filled with repeats.

Take RTÉ ONE they produce a successful TV series in DWTS but the following week replace it with a repeat of Room To Improve, surely they could do an hour of a cheap family game show.

Meantime the reduce the budget for Children's TV.

Then they blame Opt-outs, TV Licence Funding and Brexit... things they can't control.

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

It's become worse. I have been a huge defender of RTE of the last few years but they just have no idea. I am not comparing RTE to the BBC.

RTÉ2 is a mess. No matter what people say the audience share is far too low for the type of programming that it is providing, it would be different if it was providing a modicum of public service broadcasting, but its filled with repeats.

Take RTÉ ONE they produce a successful TV series in DWTS but the following week replace it with a repeat of Room To Improve, surely they could do an hour of a cheap family game show.

Meantime the reduce the budget for Children's TV.

Then they blame Opt-outs, TV Licence Funding and Brexit... things they can't control.

While you make many worthy points, RTE are under close political control.

1. RTE pay two thirds of transmission but only run 4 of 9 channels on Saorview.

2. TG4 and TV3 both have HD versions that are not on Saorview.

3. RTE 2 has to run children's programmes despite a children's channel

4. The licence fee has remained the same for many years, and is under political control.

5. RTE are restricted on advertising minutes per hour while TV3 have had their restraints on advertising relaxed considerably.

6. RTE have been forced to outsource a large proportion of the commissions.

7. The farce of Oireachtas TV where the Dail agreed to pay Sky €250 k a year for an encrypted service behind a pay wall, but refused to pay the state broadcaster for un-encrypted carriage on the state owned broadcasting service, but left the rule in place where they could not be carried for free.

These factors have impacted RTE severely financially.

Now they do over pay their stars, but that is small potatoes compared to other factors - for example Saorview costs are €2m per year above the 'fair' level (€8 m vs €6 m per year).

Now, I am not defending RTE's poor performance, but starving them of revenue and preventing them from competing with Virgin and foreign broadcasters is not in the national interest. RTE performs well compared to Virgin who repeat many programmes, and simply rebroadcast foreign programmes - surviving on Corrie and Emmerdale.

I am in favour of a simplified collection system for the TV licence and the Lecky bill appears to be one that is cheap to collect and difficult to evade. [Estimates for evasion are in the region of 15%]

On a different point, charging the payTV for Saorview is a possible idea - people paying €50 to €150 a month for TV but refusing to pay €13 a month for the licence is not right. Sky get a good business from the presence of RTE on their satellites, so they should pay for it. The Irish charges are significantly higher then UK subscriptions, so excess profits are being made.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am in favour of a simplified collection system for the TV licence and the Lecky bill appears to be one that is cheap to collect and difficult to evade. [Estimates for evasion are in the region of 15%]

I believe most people would be in favour of both a simplified and more cost effective collection system.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that each premises with an electricity supply would be charged regardless.
In that case the charge could not possibly be considered a licence to possess receiving apparatus on the premises.
It therefore becomes a tax, IMO ...... presumably one which the premises owner could apply for a tax rebate if they can show they do not possess the specified equipment.

All commercial entities would be subject to this 'tax', even though they forbid such things as streaming content on the work PCs.

On a different point, charging the payTV for Saorview is a possible idea - people paying €50 to €150 a month for TV but refusing to pay €13 a month for the licence is not right. Sky get a good business from the presence of RTE on their satellites, so they should pay for it. The Irish charges are significantly higher then UK subscriptions, so excess profits are being made.

While I agree that those such as Sky & any others who put the channels behind a paywall should be charged to carry the channels; if a better collection system is in place the implication of using this charge to compensate for a bad collection system should be moot.

The alternative would be for Sky to carry the Irish channels Free To Air (not FTV or behind a paywall) for no charge.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I believe most people would be in favour of both a simplified and more cost effective collection system.

The difficulty, as I see it, is that each premises with an electricity supply would be charged regardless.
In that case the charge could not possibly be considered a licence to possess receiving apparatus on the premises.
It therefore becomes a tax, IMO ...... presumably one which the premises owner could apply for a tax rebate if they can show they do not possess the specified equipment.

All commercial entities would be subject to this 'tax', even though they forbid such things as streaming content on the work PCs.

It would be a tax for the benefit of broadcasting. Commercial premises would not notice the charge. The main problem would be farmers who have an electricity bill for a well pump for cattle troughs. This could be overcome by not charging the levy on low bills (say below €20 per month).

While I agree that those such as Sky & any others who put the channels behind a paywall should be charged to carry the channels; if a better collection system is in place the implication of using this charge to compensate for a bad collection system should be moot.

The alternative would be for Sky to carry the Irish channels Free To Air (not FTV or behind a paywall) for no charge.

There is no need for Sky to have the RTE channels FTA as they are already FTA on Saorview. Sky should be required to pass on the subscribers details for TV licence collection purposes, or alternatively collect the fee on behalf of An Post.

Tombo2001

Its gas with all the crap in this country that when people do start talking about a 'movement' its about the tv licence which costs just over a tenner a month.

icdg

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is no need for Sky to have the RTE channels FTA as they are already FTA on Saorview.

But there is a need for RTE to be on the Sky EPG, as ITV will attest from its early (and I grant you we are talking nearly twenty years ago now) attempts to keep their channels exclusive to DTT and the viewing drop they saw in Sky households. You lose the flickers.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would be a tax for the benefit of broadcasting. Commercial premises would not notice the charge. The main problem would be farmers who have an electricity bill for a well pump for cattle troughs. This could be overcome by not charging the levy on low bills (say below €20 per month).

Wouldn't notice?
Maybe if you are referring to multinationals .... but what about all those small and micro businesses run by individuals and maybe family members. They number many more than large enterprises, and can ill afford an extra tax.
They could be allowed to reclaim it when doing tax returns, but really it should not be levied in the first place.

There is no need for Sky to have the RTE channels FTA as they are already FTA on Saorview. Sky should be required to pass on the subscribers details for TV licence collection purposes, or alternatively collect the fee on behalf of An Post.

I did not mention a need ...... but there should be no charge should Sky elect to carry the channels FTA as opposed to paying a charge if they put the channels behind a paywall.
If, as you proposed, the 'licence fee' becomes a tax added to the electricity bill, then there would be no need for access to Sky's Irish customer list, or to collect a fee.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Wouldn't notice?
Maybe if you are referring to multinationals .... but what about all those small and micro businesses run by individuals and maybe family members. They number many more than large enterprises, and can ill afford an extra tax.
They could be allowed to reclaim it when doing tax returns, but really it should not be levied in the first place.

€160 a year is hardly a large amount for any business, and is an allowable expense against taxation. It would need to be a very small business indeed to not be able to afford it. It equates to €13 a month - if that matters greatly to a business, it should give up. How much are commercial rates these days? A postage stamp is going to €1 for a letter.

I did not mention a need ...... but there should be no charge should Sky elect to carry the channels FTA as opposed to paying a charge if they put the channels behind a paywall.
If, as you proposed, the 'licence fee' becomes a tax added to the electricity bill, then there would be no need for access to Sky's Irish customer list, or to collect a fee.

It is not possible for RTE to be FTA on satellite via Sky because of rights issues. Sky get substantial benefits from adding RTE to their packages, and should pay a reasonable fee to RTE for carrying the programmes.

Back to the current arrangement. Clearly, if the licences fee is added to the Lecky bill, then that would be it. If not, Sky should either collect it for An Post or pass information to An Post so they can collect it.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

€160 a year is hardly a large amount for any business, and is an allowable expense against taxation. It would need to be a very small business indeed to not be able to afford it. It equates to €13 a month - if that matters greatly to a business, it should give up. How much are commercial rates these days? A postage stamp is going to €1 for a letter.

On that basis then those farmers you were concerned about should not notice the charge either but you didn't suggest they give up their farming activity.

The main problem would be farmers who have an electricity bill for a well pump for cattle troughs.

It is not possible for RTE to be FTA on satellite via Sky because of rights issues. Sky get substantial benefits from adding RTE to their packages, and should pay a reasonable fee to RTE for carrying the programmes.

Back to the current arrangement. Clearly, if the licences fee is added to the Lecky bill, then that would be it. If not, Sky should either collect it for An Post or pass information to An Post so they can collect it.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

On that basis then those farmers you were concerned about should not notice the charge either but you didn't suggest they give up their farming activity.

No, the point about farmers is they could have a well pump with a small feed of electricity to fill cattle troughs and for no other use. The meter would hardly be worth much - and is ancillary to the main electricity supply to the farm.

Small commercial outfits are using much more electricity and usually have broadband, computers, lights and heat. Quite a different setup.

[I am not a farmer and have no interest in farming - financial or otherwise - the same argument would apply to a radio repeater if it was on the grid].

Capt'n Midnight

Because I use Freesat and Saorview the biggest cost of watching TV is the licence. It's more than the capital costs and electricity combined. I'm subsidising people in mansions who have 60" TV's with SKY and Virgin in every room.

And for all that I still don't get TG4 in HD :mad::mad::mad::mad:


So I've no scruples about getting TV's from the UK even though the VAT goes to a foreign government.

Keep an eye on Bargain Alerts and you'll get a cheap and cheerful 40" TV for less than twice the price of the licence.
Second hand freesat boxes are even cheaper.

Since a lot of stuff on Irish channels is also on the UK ones I mostly watch Freesat. Especially when stuff on the SD channels on Saorview is available in HD on Freesat. For similar reasons I have no interest in Saorview Connect unless it's the only way I can get TG4 in HD without subscription, so I can't see it being worth the investment made in it.



At this stage pretty much 99% of residences have TV or flat screens or interwebs. Most of the rest would include OAP's who don't need to pay for licences.


Just call it a universal charge and be done with it, this saves you the An Post collection fee, and the evasion. Or people could opt out but have to sign a waiver of dire consequences if they don't.


Or just do it out of general taxation.

Here we go

Not a fan of rte they need to cut there cloth accordingly and cut wages €160 I'm not sure if it's worth that. But we need a national broadcaster but no ads during programming like BBC has and they need to slash the wages of there top guys if the BBC or other channels really wanted them they can out pay rte either way so saying they need to pay top dollar to keep them is bs , there not wanted the ones that are will go as rte can never compete so 100k max would be more then anuff

listermint

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Because I use Freesat and Saorview the biggest cost of watching TV is the licence. It's more than the capital costs and electricity combined. I'm subsidising people in mansions who have 60" TV's with SKY and Virgin in every room.

And for all that I still don't get TG4 in HD :mad::mad::mad::mad:




So I've no scruples about getting TV's from the UK even though the VAT goes to a foreign government.

Keep an eye on Bargain Alerts and you'll get a cheap and cheerful 40" TV for less than twice the price of the licence.
Second hand freesat boxes are even cheaper.

Since a lot of stuff on Irish channels is also on the UK ones I mostly watch Freesat. Especially when stuff on the SD channels on Saorview is available in HD on Freesat. For similar reasons I have no interest in Saorview Connect unless it's the only way I can get TG4 in HD without subscription, so I can't see it being worth the investment made in it.



At this stage pretty much 99% of residences have TV or flat screens or interwebs. Most of the rest would include OAP's who don't need to pay for licences.


Just call it a universal charge and be done with it, this saves you the An Post collection fee, and the evasion. Or people could opt out but have to sign a waiver of dire consequences if they don't.


Or just do it out of general taxation.

TG4 on hd...

Sure the feckin content isn't hd what use would the transmission be.

Elmo

Sam Russell wrote: »

While you make many worthy points, RTE are under close political control.

1. RTE pay two thirds of transmission but only run 4 of 9 channels on Saorview.

2. TG4 and TV3 both have HD versions that are not on Saorview.

3. RTE 2 has to run children's programmes despite a children's channel

4. The licence fee has remained the same for many years, and is under political control.

5. RTE are restricted on advertising minutes per hour while TV3 have had their restraints on advertising relaxed considerably.

6. RTE have been forced to outsource a large proportion of the commissions.

7. The farce of Oireachtas TV where the Dail agreed to pay Sky €250 k a year for an encrypted service behind a pay wall, but refused to pay the state broadcaster for un-encrypted carriage on the state owned broadcasting service, but left the rule in place where they could not be carried for free.

These factors have impacted RTE severely financially.

Look I have no problem with the financial issue that RTÉ face nor the licence fee. These are things that can't be fixed by RTÉ. RTÉ have to live with this issues. And you know I am the first to point to all of these aspect that RTÉ have to pay for.

and I could Continue:-

8. The Sound and Vision Fund

9. A portion of the Licence fee to TG4 on top of providing News to TG4.

10. The music groups

11. A portion of the Licence fee to the Oireachtas so that the Oireachtas can be carried on Soarview.

But then I think that most of the RTÉ Management are earning 14grand a month, they know that neither RTÉ ONE or 2 ever needs a repeat in prime time. They insist on cutting the news in August, no news on RTÉ2, pushing their own Arts programmes to after 11pm (The Works, Other Voices and Choice Music Awards).

Indeed the Sunday Business Post stated on Sunday that employees feel no connection to RTÉ2, imagine how the audience feels.

Johnboy1951

Whatever alternative method of collecting the monies needed to fund broadcasting in Ireland, I firmly believe it should in some way be related to the ability to receive such content.

I do not believe the electricity bill is a suitable means, although it might well be the easiest and possibly least costly.

I cannot imagine someone with a house without the ability to watch the broadcast content accepting a €10 or €12 per month rise in their 'meter' charge.

Elmo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Whatever alternative method of collecting the monies needed to fund broadcasting in Ireland, I firmly believe it should in some way be related to the ability to receive such content.

I do not believe the electricity bill is a suitable means, although it might well be the easiest and possibly least costly.

I cannot imagine someone with a house without the ability to watch the broadcast content accepting a €10 or €12 per month rise in their 'meter' charge.

Simplest way is to attach it to telecommunication bills across the board including business as a non-refundable tax.

The addition would be tiny not even 0.02% for the 200m that the licence fee takes.

dublinman1990

The article from the indo did say that if the remit of the TV licence under law was extended to cover tablets, PCs and laptops; it will still say in general terms that one licence will be there to cover all of the devices in the household once a year.

If that rule was still enforced in bold above; will the licencing system for current TV licence holders remain valid until the extended licence comes into force?

One could ask themselves what reasons did the minister think about when making this decision a reality. If there was an probable opportunity to make RTE funded under general taxation; the government may have faced a possibility that it wouldn't have been able to afford that cost in the long term. The government may have found other ways to fund RTÉ to let it have a purpose. I am not against that in any way. I just thought that this new decision from the minister, without exploring possible changes to the broadcasting act, for now does appear to be a little underwhelming.

I thought there could have been more viable potential for RTE to get funded by general taxation in the long term. But then again that option has appeared to been left untouched for a very long time by our government. I would like to know about why that is the case from their point of view. This new proposed law for the extended TV licence has so far not radically changed the perception of it for the better of the public especially to people who constantly evade it every single year. In fact the public may have taken that opinion into the other direction. It does largely keeps a system that was there for the status quo to keep in place since RTÉ was set up in the early 60's.

Also; if a new private company was setup to provide a collection mechanism for the TV licence; What will the new preferences be like for TV licence payers?

gflood

The Parish Priest. wrote: »

Following the very successful campaign against water charges, why not a similar campaign against the tv licence ? which btw costs the exact same amount as the Alan Kelly water charges . Funnily enough the only two parties who ever wanted to abolish the tv licence were the Pds and Renua

Cos the freeloaders dont pay the license anyway. They dont care. The one charge they had to pay, minimal though it was and they were out in droves.

political analyst

dublinman1990 wrote: »

The article from the indo did say that if the remit of the TV licence under law was extended to cover tablets, PCs and laptops; it will still say in general terms that one licence will be there to cover all of the devices in the household once a year.

If that rule was still enforced in bold above; will the licencing system for current TV licence holders remain valid until the extended licence comes into force?

One could ask themselves what reasons did the minister think about when making this decision a reality. If there was an probable opportunity to make RTE funded under general taxation; the government may have faced a possibility that it wouldn't have been able to afford that cost in the long term. The government may have found other ways to fund RTÉ to let it have a purpose. I am not against that in any way. I just thought that this new decision from the minister, without exploring possible changes to the broadcasting act, for now does appear to be a little underwhelming.

I thought there could have been more viable potential for RTE to get funded by general taxation in the long term. But then again that option has appeared to been left untouched for a very long time by our government. I would like to know about why that is the case from their point of view. This new proposed law for the extended TV licence has so far not radically changed the perception of it for the better of the public especially to people who constantly evade it every single year. In fact the public may have taken that opinion into the other direction. It does largely keeps a system that was there for the status quo to keep in place since RTÉ was set up in the early 60's.

Also; if a new private company was setup to provide a collection mechanism for the TV licence; What will the new preferences be like for TV licence payers?

I can think of a reason: Ireland is broke!

Johnboy1951

The present licence is aimed at households which contain equipment falling within the general classification laid out. It does not reflect use of those items.

If those devices were to be levied with a 'licence charge' at point of sale, with the tax returns reflecting the collection and the amounts separated, then would not this overcome the collection issues?

No, I have not thought it through .... but if we move to a more general 'tax' (such as adding a charge to electricity meters or broadband charges) then surely it would be more efficient to tax the devices at point of sale.
No more collection issues or evasion.

Johnboy1951

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

The present licence is aimed at households which contain equipment falling within the general classification laid out. It does not reflect use of those items.

If those devices were to be levied with a 'licence charge' at point of sale, with the tax returns reflecting the collection and the amounts separated, then would not this overcome the collection issues?

No, I have not thought it through .... but if we move to a more general 'tax' (such as adding a charge to electricity meters or broadband charges) then surely it would be more efficient to tax the devices at point of sale.
No more collection issues or evasion.

"tax the devices at point of sale."

I assume you are ignoring the 23% VAT you pay when you buy a TV, a laptop, a computer or lots of other things in Ireland.

The last laptop I bought cost 950 euro, 210 of which was VAT.

Why doesnt Naughten call a spade a spade and say "We can't be trusted to ring fence money from general taxation to pay for RTE and so are coming up with additional ways to fund it, like this proposed broadcast tax".

Sam Russell

Elmo wrote: »

Look I have no problem with the financial issue that RTÉ face nor the licence fee. These are things that can't be fixed by RTÉ. RTÉ have to live with this issues. And you know I am the first to point to all of these aspect that RTÉ have to pay for.

and I could Continue:-

8. The Sound and Vision Fund

9. A portion of the Licence fee to TG4 on top of providing News to TG4.

10. The music groups

11. A portion of the Licence fee to the Oireachtas so that the Oireachtas can be carried on Soarview.

But then I think that most of the RTÉ Management are earning 14grand a month, they know that neither RTÉ ONE or 2 ever needs a repeat in prime time. They insist on cutting the news in August, no news on RTÉ2, pushing their own Arts programmes to after 11pm (The Works, Other Voices and Choice Music Awards).

Indeed the Sunday Business Post stated on Sunday that employees feel no connection to RTÉ2, imagine how the audience feels.

What it comes down to is that RTE needs a large amount to fund its services. While they used to get all of the fee, now they do not. More money might improve their offering. The BBC suffers the same problem on a much larger scale.

An increase in the fee is possible but while there is significant evasion, action has to be taken to cut evasion - hence the suggestion to put it on the Lecky bill as no-one can evade that (well not safely). This would result in an increase of about 20% to 25% if current rates were continued.

Another problem facing RTE is political interference - manifest by the reluctance to increase the fee and the delight in hiving off the fee to other parties. RTE runs four TV channels but only allowed to advertise on two, and controlled content on them all. That needs fixing - which only occurred by the howling of unfair practice by TV3. Now TV3 is no longer a struggling company and is now 'running' three channels, it is now time to remove the shackles from RTE.

As for salaries of RTE staff, that is another matter, and is internal to RTE. I'm not sure how much can be done, but look at the banks and their salaries and pension benefits. This is not just an RTE issue.

Johnboy1951

Deleted User wrote: »

"tax the devices at point of sale."

I assume you are ignoring the 23% VAT you pay when you buy a TV, a laptop, a computer or lots of other things in Ireland.

The last laptop I bought cost 950 euro, 210 of which was VAT.

Why doesnt Naughten call a spade a spade and say "We can't be trusted to ring fence money from general taxation to pay for RTE and so are coming up with additional ways to fund it, like this proposed broadcast tax".

I am not ignoring the VAT.
I suggested a supplementary tax might be added to specified devices and the money collected from that be used in place of the licence fee.

Unfortunately it is likely that the amounts involved might be too large on some devices.
For instance one could say a TV has a useful life of 5 to 10 years, so how much would need to be added to its cost to compensate for the lack of a licence fee?
Probably too much.

I still don't like the idea of adding an amount equal to the licence fee to electricity bills.

Johnboy1951

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am not ignoring the VAT.
I suggested a supplementary tax might be added to specified devices and the money collected from that be used in place of the licence fee.

Unfortunately it is likely that the amounts involved might be too large on some devices.
For instance one could say a TV has a useful life of 5 to 10 years, so how much would need to be added to its cost to compensate for the lack of a licence fee?
Probably too much.

I still don't like the idea of adding an amount equal to the licence fee to electricity bills.

I wasn't badgering you. I was just pointing out over a fifth of the price of a TV or laptop already goes to the government. If RTE is so important why not take the money from the tax take.

When I lived abroad(Central Europe), when I got paid there were a number of taxes and charges taken from my gross amount due to fund various things. Included were the city tax which paid for waste removal. I didn't need to pay extra for bin collection, and I didnt need a TV license, or the host of other things which you need in Ireland. It was taken out of the tax I owed. I'd be all in favour of a similar model here.

A few years ago it was revealed that it cost more to charge for dog licenses than the dog license brought in. It currently costs about 40million to get the TV license. It supposedly brings in 160 million. Minus the 40M it takes to get it, it is a 'profit' of 120 M. Add a tenner to everyones tax deductions and with 1Million workers in Ireland you will make the same amount.

Why is that an unpopular opinion? Well doing so would mean laying off about 200 License inspectors, and another 200 admin staff. It would remove revenue from An Post who are also struggling at the minute. However its a sensible suggestion if you are in the market for a sensible suggestion as a replacement for the license fee.

In reality theres no need for additional licenses, fees, bin tags, etc. Just take it from the regular tax take.

Sorry, didnt mean to write a novel on the subject.

Johnboy1951

Deleted User wrote: »

I wasn't badgering you. I was just pointing out over a fifth of the price of a TV or laptop already goes to the government. If RTE is so important why not take the money from the tax take.

When I lived abroad(Central Europe), when I got paid there were a number of taxes and charges taken from my gross amount due to fund various things. Included were the city tax which paid for waste removal. I didn't need to pay extra for bin collection, and I didnt need a TV license, or the host of other things which you need in Ireland. It was taken out of the tax I owed. I'd be all in favour of a similar model here.

A few years ago it was revealed that it cost more to charge for dog licenses than the dog license brought in. It currently costs about 40million to get the TV license. It supposedly brings in 160 million. Minus the 40M it takes to get it, it is a 'profit' of 120 M. Add a tenner to everyones tax deductions and with 1Million workers in Ireland you will make the same amount.

Why is that an unpopular opinion? Well doing so would mean laying off about 200 License inspectors, and another 200 admin staff. It would remove revenue from An Post who are also struggling at the minute. However its a sensible suggestion if you are in the market for a sensible suggestion as a replacement for the license fee.

In reality theres no need for additional licenses, fees, bin tags, etc. Just take it from the regular tax take.

Sorry, didnt mean to write a novel on the subject.

Sorry if I gave the impression I thought I was being badgered .... no negative feeling here at all.

The major difficulty most people reckon is that if general taxation is raised the true amounts collected (allegedly) for the 'licence' would not necessarily be 'ring fenced' but possibly spent on some immediate unrelated 'problem'.
Going on previous events I am not inclined to disagree.

Just as employers apply different % takes under various headings and make returns specifying those, they could do similar with VAT & x% for Broadcast Levy.

Sam Russell

The main reason for keeping the licence fee (or whatever it might be called) is to remove it from political interference. This is only partially successful as politicians have refused to increase it and have hived off bits to try and control RTE. (Think of Ray Burke for one).

It should be indexed in some way, but RTE should be under some sort of public scrutiny to stop them paying themselves silly amounts, and being judged by the public on their performance.