Scrap the TV licence

cruiserweight

Originally posted by Macros42
Not true. If your car is declared off the road then you don't have to pay road tax for that period. For example of you go away for 6 months and your car is left sitting on your driveway - you can sign a declaration on your renewal (and get it signed by a Garda) so that period is ignored.

So maybe the same policy should apply to RTE. If I don't watch RTE or TG4 for 6 months then I should have to pay the license fee for that period.

The point I made is that you pay the fee to receive a signal,not to watch RTE. So if you don't want to pay the fee for 6 months then get rid of your telly.

Orion

Originally posted by Macros42
Not true. If your car is declared off the road then you don't have to pay road tax for that period.

Sorry - just realised that I misread your post. This is pretty much what you said yourself.

Rev Hellfire

Originally posted by Macros42
The license fee merely pays for something that should be optional.

Hee, but it is optional, if you dont want to have to pay, dont own a television.

On a side note (ish) I seem to recall an story from yonderyear where someone did get away with not paying a license in that they were able to argue and prove that their television wasnt able to recieve RTE and as such not have to pay. Although it may be my mind starting to go

Orion

Originally posted by cruiserweight
you don't want to pay the fee for 6 months then get rid of your telly.

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?

This argument goes against what you said already - if it's a tax to benefit society then everyone should pay it regardless of whether or not they own/posess a TV. If that's not the case then it should be based on what you use the TV for.

Orion

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
It is on a par!!! How is it not!! I mean its a tax decided to be acceptable by the majority of Irish people! Oh, so some taxes should be optional!!! I see. mmmmmmmm I've never drawn the dole!!! **** that, I'm not paying!!

That's just nuts. Since when did TV become as important and having a healthy life and being able to have money for food?

Originally posted by Johnmb

What you mention there provides me with a service, that's why I pay for it. If RTE provided me with a service, I'd pay for it. RTE doesn't, so I won't.

I see so you would agree then that, Ansbacher account holders have every right to have those accounts to evade paying tax...
They are so rich , they in all likelyhood will never have to use most of our social services.
They believe it is their right to evad tax as they don't want to pay it and ergo for the services they'll never use.
Just like you believe you shouldnt pay for public service broadcasting...

So by your logic,I can open up one in the morning,can I quote you during the Revenue commissioners-V-Earthman case and will you visit me in jail?

Redleslie2

Originally posted by Johnmb
You need a little more than the information you can get here to have anyone checked out.

Are you John M.Byrne by any chance? Unless it's a pseudonym then finding out whether you've got a licence or not should be a fairly simple matter.

If you won't subsidise my Sky viewing, why should I subsidise your RTE viewing?

Because it's the law and breaking the law is bold.

Orion

Originally posted by Rev Hellfire

On a side note (ish) I seem to recall an story from yonderyear where someone did get away with not paying a license in that they were able to argue and prove that their television wasnt able to recieve RTE and as such not have to pay. Although it may be my mind starting to go

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.

Mighty_Mouse

That's just nuts. Since when did TV become as important and having a healthy life and being able to have money for food?

Right so, some taxes should be optional with only the "important" ones being payable. Like I just said. I've never drawn the dole. My TV is more important to me than your dole. Why should I pay tax for dole?

Johnmb

Originally posted by Redleslie2
Are you John M.Byrne by any chance? Unless it's a pseudonym then finding out whether you've got a licence or not should be a fairly simple matter.

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.

cruiserweight

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?

This argument goes against what you said already - if it's a tax to benefit society then everyone should pay it regardless of whether or not they own/posess a TV. If that's not the case then it should be based on what you use the TV for.

It is a tax to benefit people how watch telly, so that we have our own national broadcastor!

If you have a telly you still have the ability to receive a signal that is what is taxed. If a terrorist was arrested with some uranium and argued that they did not have the rest of the material to make a nuclear device do you think that they would get off (maybe a bit of an extreme example)

Rev Hellfire

I thought it was some guy who had bought a telly in the north, at the time rte broadcast outside of it tuneable range. Not that its relevent now, but was a intersting sidenote to all this.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Johnmb
No, it my country. If the majority of other people decide that something is worth paying for, then those other people can pay for it, I won't (unless I decide it's worth paying for.

You aren't American are you

Originally posted by Johnmb
What you mention there provides me with a service, that's why I pay for it. If RTE provided me with a service, I'd pay for it. RTE doesn't, so I won't.

Thats like saying "I never cross at the traffic lights, so why should I have to pay for them!!!"

The public service is available to you. 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.

If you then do not to avail of the public service that is available to you and that you are already paying for (like traffic lights) then stupid-on-you.

Orion

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Right so, some taxes should be optional with only the "important" ones being payable. Like I just said. I've never drawn the dole. My TV is more important to me than your dole. Why should I pay tax for dole?

Because you can live without the TV. It's a luxury. Food, healthcare, education are not luxuries!

Zombrex

Originally posted by Macros42
Because you can live without the TV. It's a luxury.

What about culture and national identity ... are they a luxury?

And by the way, if you can live without a TV, you don't have to pay the TV licence. Like I said above, you have more of a choice with the TV licence than nearly every other tax

Orion

Originally posted by cruiserweight
It is a tax to benefit people how watch telly, so that we have our own national broadcastor!

If you have a telly you still have the ability to receive a signal that is what is taxed. If a terrorist was arrested with some uranium and argued that they did not have the rest of the material to make a nuclear device do you think that they would get off (maybe a bit of an extreme example)

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.

Orion

Originally posted by Macros42

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

Just realised how that read - I am talking about TVs

Orion

Originally posted by Wicknight

The public service is available to you. You have the ability to watch RTE because you have a TV.

If I don't have a TV I can still watch RTE (in the pub, friends houses etc). So why shouldn't I be taxed the same way. Owning a TV isn't the only way to make use of the public service that RTE is supposed to be.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Macros42
If I don't have a TV I can still watch RTE (in the pub, friends houses etc). So why shouldn't I be taxed the same way. Owning a TV isn't the only way to make use of the public service that RTE is supposed to be.

If you are watching it somewhere else then the person whos TV it is is paying to avail of the service.

If I go to london and watch TV in a hotel, the BBC are going to bash down the door and demand I pay the licence fee, because the hotel is already paying for it.

Mighty_Mouse

Because you can live without the TV. It's a luxury. Food, healthcare, education are not luxuries!

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?





Ps
Im just making a point above.

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).