Revenue to collect TV licence fee?

Tin Foil Hat

This isn't what The Revenue is for. It's not going to fly.

_Dara_

I can’t believe they are considering raising the price again. It already represents poor value for money. I reckon everyone should just refuse to pay it. It shouldn’t be a thing in the first place.

Also, surely the onus is on them to prove that people have a broadcasting device? Docking the fee from people’s pay is making an assumption.

somesoldiers

Anyone care to hazard a guess at how many days holidays Joe Duffy has had in 217 from his 75 minute daily RTE radio show?

Dear Arthur,
Imagine the cheek of our elected representatives expecting the electorate to pay their way. Outraged, I am. Who’s head should we clamor for?
Outraged listener, Clonmel.

mikeysmith

will it be metered or fixed charge?

Captain Obvious

Don't really have an issue with paying a licence fee. Have an issue with the amount of it that's wasted.

JP Liz V1

c_man wrote: »

They should let Revenue determine RTE salaries.

They are not even worth minmium wage

RTE has gone as bad as TV3 for repeats

K.Flyer

Grayson wrote: »

...
If they firewalled the website and only let licence fee holders through with a password I'll be happy with that.

If they went down the road of subscription only, (licence holders only) I believe that Montrose would be gone in a year, two at the most, such would be the true level of interest from people that would voluntarily pay for content access.

lmimmfn

Does this mean the tv license take will be shared equally between TV3 and RTE and to a lesser extent all the radio stations?

Ulysses Gaze

I have no TV and will not pay a license fee so that Tubridy and Duffy can enjoy Six Figure Salaries.

dan1895

I heard recently that RTE want to charge the likes of Sky and Virgin for use of their content who will then pass that expence onto their customers so everyone gets to pay for RTE twice!!

Ulysses Gaze

K.Flyer wrote: »

If they went down the road of subscription only, (licence holders only) I believe that Montrose would be gone in a year, two at the most, such would be the true level of interest from people that would voluntarily pay for content access.

Hence why it will never happen.

salmocab

As I said in the other thread about RTE I have no real issue with paying for public service broadcasting but it should represent value for money, RTE does not. 2FM is a waste it just serves the same market as today FM and other smaller local outfits. The amount of programming original content on the TV is small and could easily be kept on one station. It doesnt need 2 TV stations and numerous radio stations to meet its public service obligations. We dont need it as much anymore because of the availability of other mediums.

K.Flyer

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Hence why it will never happen.

More's the pity

The idea of imposing a licence fee on every household, based on the Notion that you may have a device that may receive a tv broadcast, just sounds unconstitutional to me.

Tin Foil Hat

dan1895 wrote: »

I heard recently that RTE want to charge the likes of Sky and Virgin for use of their content who will then pass that expence onto their customers so everyone gets to pay for RTE twice!!

Sky and Virgin will tell them to fukk off.

elperello

This guy wants to double it.



"Are we in Ireland serious about being Irish? If so, we need to double the television licence fee. Yes: double it. Much has been written and debated around television licence fees over many years, but very few have called for what is actually needed."


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/double-the-tv-licence-fee-or-say-goodbye-to-irish-programming-1.3305879

joejobrien

I find it rather strange the views on both sides of the debate. However I think only 1 person eluded to it and it is my held belief too. RTE or any other broadcasting entity should be run on a COMMERICAL basis only . We have examples currently. Majority of business run on a commerical basis and are never afforded the luxury of state funding, WHY SHOULD RTE RECIEVE...........oh I forgot semi state!!!!

the_pen_turner

I wouldn't mind a tax that is ring-fenced for national interest broadcasting and cultural stuff. use that money to fund the programming on all channels evenly and fairly. leave the other stuff to the commercial side of their businesses.

I don't want to fund a RTE tax. let it fail. nobody would care.

elperello

Absolutely ludicrous idea.

Effectively they are saying -

"We have a problem with people accessing TV content on mobile devices ie. phones, tablets, laptops so we are introducing a property based tax.

the_pen_turner

how many people don't pay. what is the total 'lost' income.
how does that relate to the salaries of the top 'talent'. who could we loose to not have to pay

NinetyTwoTeam

There needs to be some way of opting out of this, if you don't want TV. And how can they start taxing phones and tablets that were bought before the tax was brought in.

Somehow I cant see them trying to force another charge down people's throats after how badly the water charge went for them. And for some of us who have got rid of their Telly's this would be new charge.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

There needs to be some way of opting out of this, if you don't want TV. And how can they start taxing phones and tablets that were bought before the tax was brought in.

Somehow I cant see them trying to force another charge down people's throats after how badly the water charge went for them. And for some of us who have got rid of their Telly's this would be new charge.

It can be done. Germany, Denmark and others did so.

end of the road

c_man wrote: »

They should let Revenue determine RTE salaries.

revenue would double them or more as it would mean more tax. be careful what you wish for.

Doltanian wrote: »

I believe the Revenue commissioners should be abolished and the vast majority of public services abolished and the vast majority of taxes scrapped also. Fire at least 250,000k public and civil servants out of the system.

you might want to re-think that plan. the country would be bankrupt within a minute of it being implemented.

lmimmfn wrote: »

Does this mean the tv license take will be shared equally between TV3 and RTE and to a lesser extent all the radio stations?

i wouldn't think so. there is already funding availible for the commercial sector to make minority and other programing of interest.

end of the road

dan1895 wrote: »

I heard recently that RTE want to charge the likes of Sky and Virgin for use of their content who will then pass that expence onto their customers so everyone gets to pay for RTE twice!!

to be fair, rte are absolutely entitled to charge other broadcasters for the use of their content. i'm surprised they weren't already doing it.

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Sky and Virgin will tell them to fukk off.

they may do, all though it will depend on how much they wish to use their content. if they want to use it they will have to pay up to RTE.
private companies are not entitled to expect to use RTE's content for free.

joejobrien wrote: »

I find it rather strange the views on both sides of the debate. However I think only 1 person eluded to it and it is my held belief too. RTE or any other broadcasting entity should be run on a COMMERICAL basis only . We have examples currently. Majority of business run on a commerical basis and are never afforded the luxury of state funding, WHY SHOULD RTE RECIEVE...........oh I forgot semi state!!!!

no it's because it provides minority programing that would not be of interest to commercial broadcasters. there is no doubt what soever that some of what rte provides is absolute cack but at the same time if it can be turned to focusing on good programing that wouldn't necessarily be commercially viable then it can have a place and would likely be on to a winner.
leaving it to run on a commercial basis = another tv 3, no thanks.

SPDUB

the_pen_turner wrote: »

how many people don't pay. what is the total 'lost' income.
how does that relate to the salaries of the top 'talent'. who could we loose to not have to pay

According to the figures they gave today it is about €40m to €50m

I believe Tubridy's pay is the highest at approx €500,000 so 80 to 100 Turbidy's

the_pen_turner

SPDUB wrote: »

According to the figures they gave today it is about €40m to €50m

I believe Tubridy's pay is the highest at approx €500,000 so 80 to 100 Turbidy's

so they are saying that 250,000homes are not paying. wow. it cant be that high can it.

Samsgirl

If Revenue are to collect the fee, what about people who don't work, don't pay tax? Will it be deducted from social welfare payments at source??

Why not just make RTE a subscription service? Those who watch it, pay for it? We pay a subscription to Sky as we enjoy watching what they provide. Same with Netflix.

We watch very few rte programs but woud subscribe to the ones are interested in. No interest in watching Mrs Brown repeats every week.

Cee-Jay-Cee

I have no problem paying the TV licence or broadcast licence or whatever and I have no problem with Revenue collecting it. What I will have a problem with is those on welfare being given an exemption from it. If they can afford tvs, sky, iPads, phones etc (and there are very very very very few that don’t have most of those) then they can afford a broadcast fee too.

uck51js9zml2yt

Doltanian wrote: »

I believe the Revenue commissioners should be abolished and the vast majority of public services abolished and the vast majority of taxes scrapped also. Fire at least 250,000k public and civil servants out of the system.

Absolutely...get rid of all those nurses, fire officers, prison officers, Police, customs personell....o wait, maybe that's a bad idea to get rid of them!

TallGlass

Added to the fact that there online streaming on a good broadband connection is fúcking piss poor too.

And in typical RTE fashion I wouldn't be surprised for one seconded if they started powering down transmitters and going 'online only' in some areas to save even more money. Then eventually moving RTE2 to an online station only along with a few radio stations.

Like I know we complain that Tubbs is paid big money, but what in the name of god are they doing with the rest of the money. In 2016 total revenue was €337.3 Million. If even €100 Million went on staffing that leaves €237.3 million euro to spend. What are they doing with the rest? It's not like they are operating on a shoe string budget here. Do we just continue to hand over cash? What if it reaches 1 Billion and they are still losing money, do we just keep on going.

No sorry, €337.3 Million is well enoght, if it can't be run on that, then sorry it need to be shut down end of story.