Revenue to collect TV licence fee?

elperello

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.

There are only about 300,000 to start with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

A - The elected representatives serve us, the electorate.. NOT the other way around but something they need occasional reminding of (ie: Irish Water)

B - There's no issue with asking people to pay for it IF THEY USE THE SERVICE. If not however, they shouldn't have to. Easiest way to accomplish this is make RTE a subscription service

C - FG are unlikely to be around long enough in Government to try and push this one after the last few days. Any attempts to do so anyway will likely result in more protests given the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this idea.

irishguitarlad

No tv license here in Spain. It may be shagged but at least it doesn't have that.

end of the road

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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.

being able to afford 1 thing doesn't corelate to being able to afford something else unfortunately.

the_pen_turner

end of the road wrote: »

being able to afford 1 thing doesn't corelate to being able to afford something else unfortunately.

no it doesn't but having sky plus hd with the full sky sports and movie package with multi room on several 40" flat screen TV's along with ps3/4s and Xboxes etc
and them left on all day using power does imply that there is some extra disposable money available

carveone

_Dara_ wrote: »

I can’t believe they are considering raising the price again.

They were saying something about "raising licence fee in line with inflation".

Right. We've been told for years now about how this money printing business in the EU and US is to fight "the spectre of deflation". The current official rate of inflation is 0.6%. So the licence fee should go up by 1 euro. There you go.

Also: "The current system is not effective, 15% of people aren't paying.". Yeah, that means 85% of people are paying. How is 85% "not effective"? In addition, how many of those don't own TVs. The Journal says 5% which is probably on the low side, remember a lot of people have laptops now and aren't bothered with TVs. So about 90% of people are paying.

I think RTE don't charge Sky and UPC (or Virgin or whatever they are now) because they know a) how many people get RTE through them and b) how many of those don't watch RTE that much. It's one thing to bluster and whinge about making them pay, quite another to gamble your entire advertising income on the probability that Sky/Virgin won't simply drop your feed in response. Hell, if I was Sky or Virgin I'd do it just to see what happened - next thing you know RTE would be paying them to carry their feed

carveone

irishguitarlad wrote: »

No tv license here in Spain. It may be shagged but at least it doesn't have that.

I may be getting confused with Portugal but isn't there an electricity levy to pay for that?

NinetyTwoTeam

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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.

Why should anyone be forced to pay 160 Euro for something they don't want or use. My phone wasn't even 160 euro, and I've used it every day for the past year and a half. And being on welfare doesn't exempt anyone from the fee anyway. I got rid of my TV to avoid the fee why should I be forced to pay just because my phone can access rte, I didn't purchase the phone for the purpose of accessing rte.

elperello

carveone wrote: »

I may be getting confused with Portugal but isn't there an electricity levy to pay for that?

That is Portugal.

satguy

If Revenue are to collect the TV licence fee, does that mean people like Dinny, and others with homes in Ballsbridge that refuse to pay tax will never be asked to pay for RTE ?

TallGlass

Break Down of 2016 Licence Fee

RTÉ One 46.23
RTÉ2 29.52
RTÉ Television 75.75

RTÉ Radio 1 12.83
RTÉ 2fm 3.74
RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta (RnaG) 8.55
RTÉ lyric fm 4.46
RTÉ Radio 29.58

RTÉ Orchestras 9.41
Governance and financing charges 4.54
DTT related 0.48
Online services 3.47
Other channels 3.14
RTÉ Activities 126.37

RTÉ support for TG4 5.65
BAI levy 1.10
TG4 deduction 6.87
BAI Sound & Vision fund 10.53
An Post collection costs and related charges 9.48
Non-RTÉ Activities 33.63


Top Spends 2016

RTÉ One 46.23
RTÉ2 29.52
RTÉ Radio 1 12.83
BAI Sound & Vision fund 10.53
An Post collection costs and related charges 9.48
RTÉ Orchestras 9.41
RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta (RnaG) 8.55
TG4 deduction 6.87
RTÉ support for TG4 5.65
Governance and financing charges 4.54
RTÉ lyric fm 4.46
RTÉ 2fm 3.74
Online services 3.47
Other channels 3.14
BAI levy 1.10
DTT related 0.48


Somethings to note.

BAI seems to be dipping in twice to the licence fee, once for the sound vision fund but also for 'BAI Levy', I am not sure how you can have a levy on a licence fee but there you go, €1.10. Not to sure what the 'other channels' are either. Online services gets a miserable €3.47 as per my comment above, shockingly bad quaility on the stream. 2FM suprisingly near the bottom of the list, no wonder it's piss poor on JNLRs, the Orchestras (who statistically are the 4th biggest employee base in RTE!) get more funding. TG4 seem to dip in twice again. An post collection fee is actually a top 5 spend at €10.53. Some of these spends seem a bit of whack with what you would expect them to be spent on, no wonder certain aspects of RTE are under performing in ratings and JNLRs, the money is going all over the place.

I think RTE needs to get it's house in order, before it even considers coming looking for money from the tax payer.

As an example, that An Post Fee could easily be put out to tender to reduce that as a cost. Other Channels/Online Services could be merged to improve Online Services or roll out premium content online. BAI Levy, the BAI should be told to go and fúck.

Anyway, not my job on how to run RTÉ. But there are savings to be made outside from what I can see, if they merged charges for things or just outright outsourced them like NTA and Luas etc.. for the likes of TG4 support services/deduction. I'll hide this away here, but the RTÉ Orchestras needs to be downsized/dropped altogether or giving to another state organisation to be run, it's too me very odd it's even appearing on these reports.

RTE Radio 1 / 2FM there budgets need to 50/50, 2FM needs more money to run, it's the commercial arm of the radio, good investment in there and you should see returns on JNLRs.

Id be perfectly happy for the 13 odd euro to come out of my taxable income. Its a regular source of annoyance to me that after paying my taxes I then have other taxes I have to pay for.

Put it like this. Lets say there are 25 license inspectors and between salary and expenses each one costs 40,000 a year, then license collection costs 1 million a year. Thats before they bring anyone to court for non payment. That means they need to collect 5900 licenses to pay for the license inspectors. Madness!

Id love if waste collection was next. Instead of tags, stickers and tokens, just pay for it from regular taxation and then we can start complaining about the shocking levels of litter in our towns and cities.

NinetyTwoTeam

the_pen_turner wrote: »

no it doesn't but having sky plus hd with the full sky sports and movie package with multi room on several 40" flat screen TV's along with ps3/4s and Xboxes etc
and them left on all day using power does imply that there is some extra disposable money available

You forgot the Dutch gold and Adidas tracksuits and whatever else is included in the boilerplate fantasy depiction of a welfare recipient that lives in the minds of frothing at the mouth right winger. I'd go to jail before I pay 160 Euro just because the phone and laptop I bought years ago can go onto the poxy rte player. I didn't buy them to access rte. Netflix doesn't even cost 160 per year and they have about a million more things id watch before anything rte produces.

I don't have Skype and most people I know who are unemployed don't either. I just have broadband that's it.

I'd say any attempt to broaden the charge to devices will meet with a lot of resistance.

end of the road

TallGlass wrote: »

As an example, that An Post Fee could easily be put out to tender to reduce that as a cost.

it could but long term it wouldn't be financially viable and there would be no gain. you would have the collection in the hands of a private company and the cost would eventually go up. the licence fee collection must be done by an arm of the state anyway as rte is a state service.

the_pen_turner

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

You forgot the Dutch gold and Adidas tracksuits and whatever else is included in the boilerplate fantasy depiction of a welfare recipient that lives in the minds of frothing at the mouth right winger. I'd go to jail before I pay 160 Euro just because the phone and laptop I bought years ago can go onto the poxy rte player. I didn't buy them to access rte. Netflix doesn't even cost 160 per year and they have about a million more things id watch before anything rte produces.

I don't have Skype and most people I know who are unemployed don't either. I just have broadband that's it.

I'd say any attempt to broaden the charge to devices will meet with a lot of resistance.

its not my imagination. I used to work for a builder that did a lot of council house work. we were in houses with unemployed people most days. the majority of houses we were in had very good entertainment systems set up. my previous post is fairly accurate from what I saw.

TallGlass

end of the road wrote: »

it could but long term it wouldn't be financially viable and there would be no gain. you would have the collection in the hands of a private company and the cost would eventually go up. the licence fee collection must be done by an arm of the state anyway as rte is a state service.

But it can be tendered out again if it becomes too pricey.

One more table below from 2016, RTE1 needs to get it's house in order, no way it can cost €142 Million to run that, sorry but for what it's outputting, that's just purely shocking. Also RnaG actually, costing more to run than 2FM.

Platform Total Programming Overseas
RTE 1 142.6 111.7 12.3
RTE 2 72.5 47.6 10.3
Radio 1 36.7 32.9
2FM 12.3 10.7
Lyric 6.5 5.1
RnaG 11.5 10.1


No I am sticking with what I said, RTE needs to get it's house in order. It doesn't matter if the licence system is outdated or not, the situation of what they are spending at the moment it's out of control on certain aspects. Get that sorted first before coming out with the begging bowl/forcing charges on people.

end of the road

TallGlass wrote: »

But it can be tendered out again if it becomes too pricey.

no point, it wouldn't make a difference. ultimately the contract has to become pricey so whoever is operating it can make a profit. private companies are not charities, if you want them to operate parts of public services they have to be paid hugely for the supposed privilage.

TallGlass wrote: »

One more table below from 2016, RTE1 needs to get it's house in order, no way it can cost €142 Million to run that, sorry but for what it's outputting, that's just purely shocking. Also RnaG actually, costing more to run than 2FM.

well, unless we can get an absolute breakdown on every single thing the money is being spent on, neither of us can say that it could or couldn't cost that amount to run because we don't know.

TallGlass wrote: »

No I am sticking with what I said, RTE needs to get it's house in order. It doesn't matter if the licence system is outdated or not, the situation of what they are spending at the moment it's out of control on certain aspects.

but on what basis. realistically opinion isn't enough.

Doltanian

Mckenna Gigantic Frame wrote: »

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!

No but every manager and pen pusher behind the scenes enforcing pointless legislation when they suck vital money away from the real frontline staff.

Years ago there were two licenses a black and white television license and a colour tv license and the black and white one was cheaper.

My father went down to the post office to renew the dog license and said "its a black and white dog, does that mean I can get the cheaper license?"

previous user

If you're on the Dole you can get a free TV license funded by the taxpayer
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/How-do-I-get-a-Free-Television-Licence.aspx

Bebo stunnah

Before moving to the UK I remember talk of the government introducing a 'Broadcast Licence' to replace the tv one but it was to charge anyone who owned a phone, computer, tv, radio etc, as a "Well, that's what they have in Britain, so we'll do it too", like many other aspects of Irish political principals.

And sure enough they have one here. Less than a week of moving into my own place here I received a letter addressed to myself and was somewhat confused to find out that, despite the fact I own a TV, I was exempt from having to pay for a TV licence as the only things I use it for is watching Netflix, Prime video and playing video games the odd time.

Oddly enough that part of the "They have it over there" argument never gets mentioned...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

VinLieger

Bebo stunnah wrote: »

Before moving to the UK I remember talk of the government introducing a 'Broadcast Licence' to replace the tv one but it was to charge anyone who owned a phone, computer, tv, radio etc, as a "Well, that's what they have in Britain, so we'll do it too", like many other aspects of Irish political principals.

And sure enough they have one here. Less than a week of moving into my own place here I received a letter addressed to myself and was somewhat confused to find out that, despite the fact I own a TV, I was exempt from having to pay for a TV licence as the only things I use it for is watching Netflix, Prime video and playing video games the odd time.

Oddly enough that part of the "They have it over there" argument never gets mentioned...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

Who cares if they have it over there?

The beeb is a far higher caliber of programming and a service than RTE ever has been. In fact I can without a doubt say I watch 100% more BBC shows than I do RTE as what I watch of RTE is absolutely zero so why should I have to pay for it?

Similarly if you arent watching RTE and are just watching Netflix etc why should you have to pay for it?

Also you arent actually exempt, any TV capable of receiving a signal is liable for the license, you are only exempt if your device cannot tune in RTE

McMurphy

Bebo stunnah wrote: »

Before moving to the UK I remember talk of the government introducing a 'Broadcast Licence' to replace the tv one but it was to charge anyone who owned a phone, computer, tv, radio etc, as a "Well, that's what they have in Britain, so we'll do it too", like many other aspects of Irish political principals.

And sure enough they have one here. Less than a week of moving into my own place here I received a letter addressed to myself and was somewhat confused to find out that, despite the fact I own a TV, I was exempt from having to pay for a TV licence as the only things I use it for is watching Netflix, Prime video and playing video games the odd time.

Oddly enough that part of the "They have it over there" argument never gets mentioned...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

That doesn't exempt you, as far as I am aware, the licence requirement is for owning a tv, what you use it for is irrelevant.

Think of it this way, if you own a gun - you're required to have a license for it too. It won't wash as a defence saying you don't use it to shoot at people if the guards come asking for a license.

I am firmly of the belief that the license fee should be scrapped for RTE as I don't believe they're even required in this day and age.

Plenty of news outlets and alternative entertainment sources these days.

If there's better value alternatives out there, that's part and parcel of living in a capitalist free market.

I reckon revenue will tell them to slide on though.

previous user

previous user wrote: »

If you're on the Dole you can get a free TV license funded by the taxpayer
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/How-do-I-get-a-Free-Television-Licence.aspx

Only if they’re entitled to the household benefits package http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/2898_How-do-I-qualify.aspx

DivingDuck

I don't watch RTE, but I do believe it's important to have an independent broadcaster for news etc. that doesn't rely on advertising funding. I'd be prepared to contribute to one even if it wasn't something I personally watched, the same way private healthcare patients pay into the public hospital system, or childless people contribute towards the education system, or non-drivers to the roads.

What I object to paying for is chat show hosts, soap operas, etc. We don't need that— and going by its low viewership figures, we don't want it, either. RTE could fulfill its remit of providing local news and sport cover with a fraction of its current budget, and that's all "the public" should be paying for via the license fee, which could be dramatically reduced— and yes, could IMO be treated as a tax. Everyone contributes, whether they use it or not, because it's for the general betterment of the country.

The chat shows, "documentaries" and dramas should be produced and overseen by a separate, non-state entity and should have to support themselves via advertising or subscription. While RTE or BBC or any other national broadcaster might produce great TV (there will always be arguments about that because it's subjective), it's not a national necessity in the way that independent news is, so why should people who don't want it pay for it?

ellejay

Ulises Cool Bear wrote: »

I don't think the licence fee reflects the poor value we get for it but the amount, at the same time, is not out of line with many countries (with larger populations). Here it's €160; UK €165; Austria and Denmark are €335!

I personally couldn't care less what organ of the state collects it. If it's due it's due. At least Revenue might collect the €40 not paid each year at present.

The UK have 3 TV Channels with NO ads.
And churn out excellent content.

VinLieger

ellejay wrote: »

The UK have 3 TV Channels with NO ads.
And churn out excellent content.

True but due to their population they have a far higher budget therefore the quality is bound to be higher .

I think something a previous poster said is what we should be aiming for, scrap the idiotic talkshows and the likes of fair city etc. Remove all advertising and have it be sport, news and possibly other stuff like documentaries or informational programs about stuff happening around the country, ear to the ground, reeling in the years, etc. Id happily pay for that, still wouldn't watch a second but id be far more willing to pay for it as a national broadcaster doing its job.

Conall Cernach

What's the justification for having Revenue collect it rather than An Post? Surely there aren't that many people getting away with not paying it nowadays.

VinLieger

Conall Cernach wrote: »

What's the justification for having Revenue collect it rather than An Post? Surely there aren't that many people getting away with not paying it nowadays.

So they can take it directly out of everyone's pay cheques

Conall Cernach

VinLieger wrote: »

So they can take it directly out of everyone's pay cheques

But why would they have to? I mean, don't they know exactly who doesn't have a licence so why not just target those?