Scrap the TV licence

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Johnmb
LOL :rolleyes:
You should have a look in the phone book. How many John (or J.) Byrnes can you count? Then realise that there are a whole lot more that aren't in the phone book. When you phone the authorities to report me you should be aware that the noise you hear on the end of the line is them laughing at you, not with you.

There's only a couple of columns of John Byrnes in the book actually, and like I said, I've informed them already. It should all be fairly straightforward. But if it's paid in your name you've nothing to worry about.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
There's only a couple of columns of John Byrnes in the book actually, and like I said, I've informed them already. It should all be fairly straightforward. But if it's paid in your name you've nothing to worry about.

Don't forget the J. Byrnes as well. You don't know what the J stands for, it could be John. Then you have to realise that I'm not actually in the phone book. Do you really think anybody you contacted is going to waste their day looking up a name? Especially such a common one. If you had an address to go with it, maybe. Did you hear them laugh at you, or did they manage to hang up before they started?

cruiserweight

Originally posted by Macros42
Just a bit extreme

But again - if it's a tax to benefit people then whether or not you own a tv is irrelevant - it should apply to everyone even those with no TV - after all it for the greater good.

If it's only applying to people who have the equipment then the usage of that equipment should be a consideration.

Possession is easier to prove than usage. If it was usage less people would pay the fees, as it would have to be proven in court that they used the telly. Also what you be defined as usage. if I rested a cup of tea on my telly is that usage?:)

So possession make things clear cut and people know exactly where they stand

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Johnmb
Don't forget the J. Byrnes as well. You don't know what the J stands for, it could be John. Then you have to realise that I'm not actually in the phone book. Do you really think anybody you contacted is going to waste their day looking up a name? Especially such a common one. If you had an address to go with it, maybe. Did you hear them laugh at you, or did they manage to hang up before they started?

I included the J.Byrnes don't worry Licence inspectors take their job reasonably seriously actually, probably more seriously than a lot of gardai. But anytime I've reported a crime to the gardai, even if I didn't have much information, they've behaved professionally, followed it up and sometimes succeeded in getting the baddie.

You're sounding very flustered for someone who claims not to be a sponger.

Johnmb

Originally posted by cruiserweight
Possession is easier to prove than usage. If it was usage less people would pay the fees, as it would have to be proven in court that they used the telly. Also what you be defined as usage. if I rested a cup of tea on my telly is that usage?:)

So possession make things clear cut and people know exactly where they stand

But above, another poster claimed that the majority of people wanted the licence, so if that is true, then only a minority will stop paying, which won't be too much trouble. If the majority stop paying, then the other posters argument (and yous to a large extent) becomes irrelevant.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
You're sounding very flustered for someone who claims not to be a sponger.

Not flustered, I just find it comical that you think anyone could take you seriously when you tell them that "John Byrne" did something. There are likely to be several hundred adult John Byrnes in the Dublin Area alone. Unless you narrow down their search, they can't do anything about it. They'll just go about their normal business and hope to come across me by chance. When the third party stops buying a licence in my name (and it is bound to happen given that they keep uping the price), then the inspectors will easily find me, as I subscribe to NTL basic, and Sky digital. There is even an unused satelite dish on the front of the house. I look forward to that day as I send them packing with a smile on my face, and I look forward to my day in court even more.

cruiserweight

Originally posted by Johnmb
But above, another poster claimed that the majority of people wanted the licence, so if that is true, then only a minority will stop paying, which won't be too much trouble. If the majority stop paying, then the other posters argument (and yous to a large extent) becomes irrelevant.

Yes but for those who do not pay, it will be easier to get away with it, and they will not be forced to pay. Maybe a few other people will stop paying. The majority will still pay, but the loss in revenue from the two types of people I mentioned will mean that the extra cost will be borne by those who do pay.

By the law stating that it is the ability to receive a signal it is easier to govern and prosecute. How do you gauge how much somebody uses a telly, or if it is used at all?

Johnmb

Originally posted by cruiserweight
Yes but for those who do not pay, it will be easier to get away with it, and they will not be forced to pay. Maybe a few other people will stop paying. The majority will still pay, but the loss in revenue from the two types of people I mentioned will mean that the extra cost will be borne by those who do pay.

By the law stating that it is the ability to receive a signal it is easier to govern and prosecute. How do you gauge how much somebody uses a telly, or if it is used at all?

With todays tecnology, it is easy to control who watches what. RTE could easily be coded, and a decoder provided cheaply in return for paying the licence fee. Those that don't pay, can't see. Simple. Or, as someone said previously, a blocker could easily be fitted to the TVs of those who decide to opt-out of the licence fee regime.

cruiserweight

Originally posted by Johnmb
With todays tecnology, it is easy to control who watches what. RTE could easily be coded, and a decoder provided cheaply in return for paying the licence fee. Those that don't pay, can't see. Simple. Or, as someone said previously, a blocker could easily be fitted to the TVs of those who decide to opt-out of the licence fee regime.

And who will pay for this?

Johnmb

Originally posted by cruiserweight
And who will pay for this?

It depends which option you are going for. If it is the decoder option, they the people who want it pay for it (as is done with subscription channels now). If it is the blocker option, the the people getting it fitted make the one off payment (new TVs will come with the option of having them pre-fitted, thereby not requiring your name/address to be supplied when purchasing).

Originally posted by Johnmb
With todays tecnology, it is easy to control who watches what. RTE could easily be coded, and a decoder provided cheaply in return for paying the licence fee. Those that don't pay, can't see. Simple. Or, as someone said previously, a blocker could easily be fitted to the TVs of those who decide to opt-out of the licence fee regime.

Actually,I'd reckon that such technology will be used in future to block all television if there is no electronic record of a licence having been paid.
That will become possible after analog shut down which is still at least ten years away.

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Johnmb
Not flustered, I just find it comical that you think anyone could take you seriously when you tell them that "John Byrne" did something.

And I find it comical that you believe that you can't be traced by state agencies just because you may not be in the phone book and because your name is fairly common or because inspectors just couldn't be bothered doing their jobs.

cruiserweight

Originally posted by Johnmb
It depends which option you are going for. If it is the decoder option, they the people who want it pay for it (as is done with subscription channels now). If it is the blocker option, the the people getting it fitted make the one off payment (new TVs will come with the option of having them pre-fitted, thereby not requiring your name/address to be supplied when purchasing).

So in option one you are penalised for abiding by the law. as for option two I am sure that people will remove blockers.

Since when do you have to provide your name and address when buying a telly?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Macros42
What if I ony want the TV to play X-Box games? Or just to watch DVDs? Let's say I get rid of cable (already done), cancel my Sky sub, never get an aerial - should I still pay for the service?

A friend of mine some years back got out of not having to pay the fee while having a TV. He used it only for the computer. Inspectors checked him out and all.

They should remove the license fee, or remove the option not to get RTE if you don't want to pay it. I can't remember the last time I watched Irish stations, yet I have to pay???

One thing gets me though is how anal RTE are in collecting it. A company I worked for a long time ago brought some heads from RTE to give a tour of the company/factory. There were some areas they were not allowed go so they had a TV demonstration of the areas in the conference room. Two weeks later the company got sent a TV licence summons.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
And I find it comical that you believe that you can't be traced by state agencies just because you may not be in the phone book and because your name is fairly common or because inspectors just couldn't be bothered doing their jobs.

The phone book is just an example. How can the state agency trace me? Do you really think that they are going to look up every John Byrne that there is, and ask "Are you the one Redleslie2 was talking about"? You might as well phone the Gardai and tell them that Paddy was speeding.

halkar

I still think RTE should come FTA like BBCs did so we can get quality reception with small dishes without having to pay SKY and NTL for it. Then I know I am getting value for money. I know many people have SKY and most of the time they only watch Irish channels. 99% channels on SKY are rubbish anyway

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Johnmb
The phone book is just an example. How can the state agency trace me? Do you really think that they are going to look up every John Byrne that there is, and ask "Are you the one Redleslie2 was talking about"? You might as well phone the Gardai and tell them that Paddy was speeding.

You are John M Byrne, a self-employed accountant with this website and you post here so your IP may be traceable. That should be more than enough to get any sponger checked out.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
You are John M Byrne, a self-employed accountant with this website and you post here so your IP may be traceable. That should be more than enough to get any sponger checked out.

ROTFLMAO. I'm not a self employed accountant BTW. As for tracing the IP address, or tracing the owner of the website you linked to, they'd need justifiable reason, and a court order, before anybody can release those records. Your word counts for nothing in that regard. My post states quite clearly that I have a licence (it doesn't matter that I didn't pay for it). So they are stuck. They could start looking up every John Byrne (the "M" is irrelevant, as I have never used it on anything that they would be able to access), but in all likelihood they will just ignore you and hope that if I haven't got a licence they will find me during their normal investigations. As I said earlier though, when I stop having a licence, they shouldn't have any problems finding me, between NTL, Sky, and a satelite dish on the front of a house which hasn't renewed its licence.

Hobbes

If they wanted to find you, they can just use a detector van.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Hobbes
If they wanted to find you, they can just use a detector van.

Exactly what I've been saying. Someone giving them a name, and nothing more, is no good to them, especially when it is such a common name.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie2

The cops were able to track down a guy who was stupid enough to tell me about some bold illegal stuff he was into after I gave them his name and nothing more. Finding spongers is probably not much different. The self-orbiting Mr.Byrne here may or may not be a sponger but he sounds like someone who needs to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
The cops were able to track down a guy who was stupid enough to tell me about some bold illegal stuff he was into after I gave them his name and nothing more. Finding spongers is probably not much different. The self-orbiting Mr.Byrne here may or may not be a sponger but he sounds like someone who needs to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

Well, you'll have to do better than that to take me down. It is a fairly simple concept, the inspectors are not going to drop their normal work to check out every John Byrne in Dublin, no matter how important you think you are. Privacy laws stop them from tracing me via my website, and I wouldn't hesitate to sue IOL if they illegally gave out my details. Even if they were daft enough to believe you without checking into where you got your "information", they'd still just go about their normal routines and trust that they'll eventually get around to me. Be thankful that the licence inspectors are not the Gardai, as otherwise you would risk being charged with wasting police time by making unsupported claims. In fact, if you did make any accusations to the inspectors about me, I may have a case for harrassment against you.

sceptre

Originally posted by Redleslie2
The self-orbiting Mr.Byrne here may or may not be a sponger but he sounds like someone who needs to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

So you're hoping to waste someone's time by attempting to get someone chasing after someone who says he has a TV licence that covers his home? Have fun with that.

de5p0i1er

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
I can live without the dole I consider it essential that a service be made available to the Irish people which has Irish programming, educational programming etc. I consider the Tv MORE ESSENTIAL than the DOLE. I consider it a lot more essential than the luxury of some students getting the dole, rent and a cash in hand job.I mean get a job FFS. I absolutely love Pat Kenny and couldnt live without him so again the dole is not essential to ME. Why should I pay?

Lets see how long you would last without the Dole if you were out off work for a few months and the bills started piling up. People need money to live the don't need RTE, They pay the likes of Pat Kenny way to much money and we don't get a say in that. The only good shows they have are importedand can be seen on Sky, I don't bother with RTE anymore since I got a satelite dish. Why should I pay for something I don't use.

arcadegame2004

I would abolosh the TV license because it is against fair competition. RTE's financial woes demonstrate my consistent belief over the years that semi-states are usually inefficient because of years of experience of being bailed out by taxpayer's cash injections.

Let them depend on advertising-revenue. The more popular the programmes they produce the greater that revenue will be.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

Let them depend on advertising-revenue. The more popular the programmes they produce the greater that revenue will be.

And where would they get the money on this small island to produce these programmes?
There simply isn't the audience/advertising revenue on this island to make these programmes without outside funding such as the licence fee.
Without it the majority of programming would be foreign.
You would end up with four tv3's...
yuck

GoneShootin

Who needs TVs anyway. The Internet is where its at !

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Macros42:
That was in England iirc. A guy only used his TV for watching videos and got away without paying the fee. The law is different here - any equipment capable of receiving a telegraphic signal is chargeable.

For your information, the law here in Britain requires a license to receive any TV broadcast which originates from or is controlled from within the U.K.

So for watching terrestrial U.K. broadcasts of BBC or ITV, a license is required. To watch Sky channels on satellite, controlled from the U.K., requires a license.

To view RTE from across the border, or to watch non-U.K. satellite channels does not require a license.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Redleslie2
The cops were able to track down a guy who was stupid enough to tell me about some bold illegal stuff he was into after I gave them his name and nothing more. Finding spongers is probably not much different. The self-orbiting Mr.Byrne here may or may not be a sponger but he sounds like someone who needs to be taken down a peg or two anyway.

*yawn* look, I'll buy johnmb a poxy TV licence if you just stfu


anyhoo i agree in principle with the concept of the TV licence, however unfair and anti-competition it may be, but I believe that RTE needs to be dragged into this century

also I recall reading about a court case years ago where someone who lived in a valley in the arse end of nowhere (in Ireland) proved in court that he could not receive a signal and that his TV was only used for videos and was thus cleared of the charges of not having a licence, I've no idea if there is any evidence of this on tinternet, but I vaguely recall reading about the case....

arcadegame2004

Well if the advertising revenue isn't sufficient then I would propose dividing the license-fee revenues equally between Irish TV Channels. It just isn't on for RTE to get a state-subsidy which discriminates against everyone else.

Zombrex

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Well if the advertising revenue isn't sufficient then I would propose dividing the license-fee revenues equally between Irish TV Channels. It just isn't on for RTE to get a state-subsidy which discriminates against everyone else.

But TV3 isn't a state broadcaster, and I don't think they would want to be one ... they don't want to be a station that has to provide unprofitable issue lead television for the public. They want to be Sky One (ie crap programs produced at low cost to maximise profits).

Nietzschean

i don't agree with that arguement that the reason we have ads on rte is because its a smaller pot and all that.

if they can't afford more programming don't show it, i'd rather have 6hrs a day of proper irish broadcasting. Show's like primetime/questions and answers provide a public service i don't see how fair city is one, malcom in the middle is hardly irish broadcasting.

fair city is irish broadcasting, but its hardly a public service its not designed to appeal to the entire country and provides no tangeable benefits, you wouldn't see the bbc funding cornation street.

if they showed 2 decent show's a day i wouldn't mind paying a tv licence, i'd actually much rather if i paid my tv licence to the uk gov and they broadcast the bbc here terrestrial. In this day in age we could easily have bbc ireland, they have an ulster, just have the irish stuff put in. I'd rather our funding went to that instead of duplicateing news and so on, the bbc documentarys are much better public service to be funding than fair city.

halkar

Originally posted by Tommy Vercetti
...
also I recall reading about a court case years ago where someone who lived in a valley in the arse end of nowhere (in Ireland) proved in court that he could not receive a signal and that his TV was only used for videos and was thus cleared of the charges of not having a licence, I've no idea if there is any evidence of this on tinternet, but I vaguely recall reading about the case....

that is serious, then, even if you get reception but not watch it, you shouldn't have to pay the license fee. You can have tv for sattelite, dvd, video or gaming and in this case it is like buying an Xbox but not paying Xbox license Why pay license if one doesn't watch RTE?
Though I am still in favour of paying the license and having RTE upgraded to digital to be put on FTA on sattelites and so I can kick the sky's @ss

gurramok

Originally posted by arcadegame2004

Let them depend on advertising-revenue. The more popular the programmes they produce the greater that revenue will be.

Agreed.

If you don't wanna watch RTE EVER and want to watch a non-rte channel, you should not have to pay the stealth tax.

Rte getting ad revenue as well as fee revenue is robbery of public finances without the balaclavas, if TV3 can survive, why not rte ?

The increases in the licence fee over the last 2 yrs justifies evading it in my opinion.
Some here say a majority supports it...on what prrof...why dont we have a referendum\zillion polls to decide if its needed or not?
In Holland the 'national broadcasting tax' is taken from your wages to support the national station with no ads rather than having a 'licence fee'

If the fee applies to a tv and/or receiver equipment, surely there are many boardsters here who own more than one tv and must pay the licence fee for the extra tv's in their homes??

de5p0i1er

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Let them depend on advertising-revenue. The more popular the programmes they produce the greater that revenue will be.

Agreed. Mabye then they'll think about getting some talented ppl on the television instead of git's like Pat Kenny & The cast of Fair City. There cost's would be a lot lower then it is now if they got rid of all these Directors that get a six figure salery for doing nothing and only got there job's because they know somebody who used to be a T.D.

SCULLY

Originally posted by Serialkiller
i don't agree with that arguement that the reason we have ads on rte is because its a smaller pot and all that.

if they can't afford more programming don't show it, i'd rather have 6hrs a day of proper irish broadcasting. Show's like primetime/questions and answers provide a public service i don't see how fair city is one, malcom in the middle is hardly irish broadcasting.

fair city is irish broadcasting, but its hardly a public service its not designed to appeal to the entire country and provides no tangeable benefits, you wouldn't see the bbc funding cornation street.

if they showed 2 decent show's a day i wouldn't mind paying a tv licence, i'd actually much rather if i paid my tv licence to the uk gov and they broadcast the bbc here terrestrial. In this day in age we could easily have bbc ireland, they have an ulster, just have the irish stuff put in. I'd rather our funding went to that instead of duplicateing news and so on, the bbc documentarys are much better public service to be funding than fair city.

While I think Fair City is quite poor a huge amount of people watrch it on a regular basis - therefore it does provide a public service. You should also define what you mean by 'proper irish broadcasting'. While primetime and q&a are good productions they also are not 'designed to appeal to the entire country ' - what program is.

'you wouldn't see the bbc funding cornation street.' No - they fund Eastenders.

A lot of people would gladly have RTE show less (or no) sport and increase the programs like Fair City. The problem RTE has is getting a correct balance. BTW I think that the licence fee is too much but is a necessary evil.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Serialkiller
I'd rather our funding went to that instead of duplicateing news and so on, the bbc documentarys are much better public service to be funding than fair city.

Even on RTE if a entertainment show such as Fair City is un-popular ratingswise, then it is axed. Fair City is very popular. Just because you think it is crap doesn't mean no one should watch it. I think the entire Sky One line up is crap, doesn't mean it isn't popular

Nietzschean

if its profitable then seperate it out, show it on tv3..i do believe they are interested in profit , i don't need to see that or any other 'entertainment' show's on the national broadcaster tbh

As its stands i'm paying the cast of fair city which isn't right imo, i've no problem paying for news/nationwide or anything else like that...but all others should just be axe'd...

whosurpaddy

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
If you don’t like the current situation and you feel there is a ground swell behind you, get off your áss and start campaigning. But I suspect you'll just sit and moan rather than do something proactive about this deplorable situation you and your television have found yourselves in.

why dont you? can I not ask a question without you telling me what i should be doing? maybe i dont care, maybe i do, maybe im the leader of the anti tv licence coalition.

point is you dont know, yet ul quite happily pick a random post of a poster you know nothing about and proceed to apply your theory that im lazy appethetic and generally a tosser who would rather moan about something than do anything about it.

in short STFU

Originally posted by Earthman
That will become possible after analog shut down which is still at least ten years away.

does anyone know when analog is being switched off? i thought it was a lot closer than 10 years?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire
If you don’t like the current situation and you feel there is a ground swell behind you, get off your áss and start campaigning. But I suspect you'll just sit and moan rather than do something proactive about this deplorable situation you and your television have found yourselves in.

---

Where is this determined? Because I've never heard of a campaign that related to this or such. Is this just another issue that falls with our TD's?

Redleslie2 -- You do realise that by submitting Johnmb's info you could be charged with submitting false information. If the Agencies found Johnmb to be clear of any guilt, you could be called to account. Also submitting the name "John Byrne" and saying he lived in Dublin, would have you laughed off the phone.

rubadub

Originally posted by Wicknight
You have the ability to watch RTE because you have a TV. Therefore you should pay for the public service in the form of a tax. You are actually given a choice in the matter. You can choose not to own a TV in which case you cannot avail of the service and dont have to pay for it, which is more than a lot of taxes.

The govenment could just as easily start sending spam text messages with weather forecasts etc. to everybodys phone in the country and start charging a mobile phone licence for their great service, I think €150 would be reasonable. You could ask them not to send them to you if they were of no interest to you but you still should pay, after all...
"You have the ability to avail of these text messages because you have a mobile phone. Therefore you should pay for the public service in the form of a tax."

What other appliances you not mind paying licence fees on for a public service the government could supply, I already suggested recipies and food for your cooker licence. How about the govenment offering models that you can take photos of with your camera? Or a internet licence for a government website.

DublinWriter

First of all, let's get one thing straight. RTE are not a public service broadcaster.

Huh you say? But we pay them all that money for a TV licence. How so?

RTE receive around 75% from commercial advertisers and 25% from licence fee revenue. So bearing that statistic in mind, answer the following:

a) RTE are a public service broadcaster
b) RTE are a commercial semi-state broadcaster who subsidise their commercial advertising revenue with the licence fee.

If you answered b, then well done, full marks. And if you're in any doubt about this, just look at the Late Late when it bothers to come back on air later this year. Chat show, or show case for Renault Ireland? You decide.

Just imagine Parky breaking off at the end of an interview to discuss the merits of
the new Clio (well, now that he's with the ITV I suppose thats a possibility).

With all that corporate buy-in, it’s it small wonder that RTE never had a consumer affairs programme in their schedule……..ever?

RTE are a semi-state commercial organisation and they use the Licence Fee as justification for their 'public service' status, when in reality it's just a safety net.

We should scrap the Licence Fee and privatise RTE. If RTE only lose 25% of revenue then can you imagine how much worse they could get? In short, not a lot.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by halkar
that is serious, then, even if you get reception but not watch it, you shouldn't have to pay the license fee. You can have tv for sattelite, dvd, video or gaming and in this case it is like buying an Xbox but not paying Xbox license Why pay license if one doesn't watch RTE?
Though I am still in favour of paying the license and having RTE upgraded to digital to be put on FTA on sattelites and so I can kick the sky's @ss

in the case I'm referring to though, it was demonstrated/proven that the guy could not get any reception...like I said, I only vaguely remember reading about it, probably 10 years ago or so....


just as a matter of interest, say a shop or whatever has a monitor/TV solely for CCTV purposes, do they have to pay for a licence?

Gurgle

Would everyone be happy if their income tax was raised by 1% and the TV ownership tax, car ownership tax and a few more of the 'window tax' types were abandoned ?

This would also ensure that nobody could avoid these taxes, we would be taxed proportionally to income and the extra costs of collection and enforcement wouldn't be needed (wasted).

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Gurgle
and the extra costs of collection and enforcement wouldn't be needed (wasted).

I think that's a point which is often overlooked. Bureaucrats tell people "Well, if we took away this tax we'd have to put it on something else," but neglect to mention that every new tax they impose seems to involve the creation of "jobs" for thousands more civil servants to shuffle even more bits of paper around. VAT would be an excellent candidate for removal and would probably help save several forests a year into the bargain.

The Corinthian

The ‘TV’ Licence fee is in fact a throwback of when there was no other means of funding radio. Advertising was an American invention and we were above that sort of thing, after all. This was also at a time when radio was a public State service, and often the only means for the population to keep in contact with the events of the day.

Of course, as time progressed, sponsorship and later advertising were introduced as alternative means of funding Radio and later Television. With the advent of commercial television that did not benefit from licence fee revenue, further diminished broadcasting need for the licence fees.

Regrettably while the reasons for the tax have gone, the tax itself remains, largely due to the chronic inefficiency of State broadcasting companies. And while it may be law, it does not mean that we should not seek for it to be changed.

Indeed, I find it amusing that one of the individuals most ardently defending this law here has on a number of occasions (and incarnations) defended the right to public demonstration and disobedience. Obviously only when it suits him.

PBC_1966

I know that Telefis Eireann (later RTE) started broadcasting in 1961. When did they start showing commercials, rather than being entirely license-fee funded?

It's always struck me as kind of odd that in the U.K. the government authorized commercial TV, which started in 1955, yet officially-sanctioned commercial radio had to wait until 1973.

whosurpaddy

Originally posted by Gurgle
Would everyone be happy if their income tax was raised by 1% and the TV ownership tax, car ownership tax and a few more of the 'window tax' types were abandoned ?

This would also ensure that nobody could avoid these taxes, we would be taxed proportionally to income and the extra costs of collection and enforcement wouldn't be needed (wasted).

personally id much prefer this. seems a much fairer and open way of collecting the neccessary money. its the idea of being taxed multiple times that sticks in a lot of peoples throats as opposed to the actual amount they have to pay.