Broadcasting charge

AlekSmart

rasper wrote: »

I'd say this has more to do with creating the databases for the increased property tax etc , roll in the identity cards alongside and the bank debt will be solved

I'd suggest Rasper is on the money here...Rabbite is just a bog-standard windbag politician and in this case he's just flyin a kite designed by some grey eminence within this "Working-Party".

This stunt is all about data collection and formulating a cross referencable database with the eventual intention of imposing an Information Technology charge...incorporating PC's Laptop's,PDI's,Cellular Phones and associated other devices such as SatNav's and Game Consoles.

This is why,for example,Mr Rabbite has not pointed to the rather obvious and sensible incorporation of the TV Licence fee into the Household Charge......as this would allow the individuals within a household to escape the Revenue's net.

It's yet another backdoor operation which focuses on imposing yet more charges on the constantly dwindling numbers of the "Contributing Class".....

greenhouse1234

I really do not understand the funda behind TV licence Fee .
e.q. We have TV, but we do not watch RTE TV on it, We have only Sky Free SAT, i.e. RTE channels are blocked for us, No Roof antenna. So basically we dnt get Irish public broadcast at all, still they argue, its not that you watch/get access to public broadcast or not, its because you have a TV and thats it, you are liable for a TV licence fee.

and now they are arguing its not that you have TV or no TV!! but because you have smart phone or a laptop.thats it you are liable for Broadcasting fee. Oh GOSH! where it all gona stop

Then why not they just make 'public broadcast service' as PAY PER VIEW SUBCRIPTION/ or same as anyother bill, so who wants to watch, pay for the service as everything else i.e. GAS, Electricity, phone etc. It could'nt be simpler than that!!
people who want to watch RTE, will get another bill, wats big deal. people who can not afford this 'Luxury' will not get this bill.

"As a community we are living away beyond our means" ...

FreudianSlippers

bpb101 wrote: »

Can somebody define a tv as what if you buy a tv and just use it as a screen .
under current law , would you pay a tv licenses

A TV is a device that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal. So if you have a TV but only use it as a monitor you still need a licence. You can buy large monitors that have no tuners though.

thebman

Fergus wrote: »

No, Mr. Rabbitte, one can also conclude they don't want anything to do with RTE.

The arrogance of this man disgusts me.

You can only conclude that Mr. Rabbitte and logic cannot co-exist peacefully in the same room.

The government is quite happy to close hospitals and privatise essential state assets but we need to own an entertainment channel for some reason at all costs.

The government would rather people die than give up RTE is only the conclusion I can come to. This is why I don't have a problem paying the charge as long as they privatise RTE. Put the money into the general tax coffers, stop pretending it isn't a tax and use it to reduce the extent of cuts needed.

Since many people already pay it, the impact wouldn't be felt by many people and the ones that aren't, most should have been paying it anyway.

zenno

I don't use a tv and have not used a tv in years and I also do not watch tv with garbage adverts online so I will not be paying this. neither will I be paying the household charge or water charges so when the judge asks me why I will not pay for these stealth taxes I will just tell him/her that I neither have a tv and do not watch tv and simply cannot pay for these extortion rackets. also I will tell him/her that it is not fair on the taxpayers of this country to foot the hefty bill to keep me incarcerated. all they can do is imprison me for a short period of time, they cannot do anything else to me.

mistermouse

This charge if enforced should be used to roll out and even subsidise Broadband. RTE should be in part privatised (RTE 2 and 2FM) like BBC-ITV with RTE 1 and Radio one becoming solely pBS with no adverts.

If this goes solely to support RTE and TG4 as is, especially with their output and mamoth costs and payrolls then it like the current license is a huge stealth tax to fund what is Ireland's biggest quango/waste/unfit for purpose organisation

Were RTE to have to forgo their advertising revenue it could open up independent broadcasting.

I never liked the idea of broadcasting licenses being so limited on local basis either, it was a means to award very lucrative licences to companies, often making huge sums from market domination

Having the only local license for example gives a private company quite an amount of power, influence and revenue stream, often sold on.

Survival of the fittest should be the mantra here. Best programming should win the day

Jaysoose

rasper wrote: »

Wow touchy , my point is everything is constantly being compared with the uk , so people should be aware it isn't just Ireland

Its not comparable at all to the UK, rte have the additional revenue from advertising of private businesses.

The fact that we even have to pay a tv license is a joke when the station has so many revenue streams.

but sure its ok Doe Juffy and Pat the plank are worth it.

Tora Bora

Don't know about you folks, but I believe the new broadcasting charge is well and truely merited.
These days, we have all the opportunity of watching and listening to truely great patriots and luminaries the likes of Eamon Gilmore, Pat Rabbitte, Enda Kenny, Batt O Keefe, et all, at any time day or night.

We also get to see Pat Kenny and Tubs! We get to see Sinead O Connor wheeled out on a regular basis, we get to see Jedward at every twist and turn.

Ah yes! It's money well spent in my view. Reckon somewhere in the region of €1k would be appropriate. :cool:

wolf99

At home we dont have aTV at all and havent had for nearly 10 yrs
In my flat I have a PC which I use for netflix (which I pay them for) and a few other media sites - none of which are funded by the irish govt/tax payer. Of course my ISP also gets paid for this.

WHY IN GODS NAME SHOULD I BE PAYING F******* USELESS RTE!!!

Their scheduling is advert ridden as it is, If they cannot survive off of that, RTE should slink of and curl up in a corner and die. The programmes they do have a mostly the same old load of crap and ancient films shown over and over again anyway.

This is one more example (as if we needed another) of the Irish governments (FF, FG, SF, whichever) ability to attempt to fill bottomless holes by chucking shed loads of money at them. In this day and age they REALLY should have got their act together by now! I mean where exactly is our tax money going? We pay for doctors and hospitals, we pay to use any road thats less than 50% pothole, we pay for ambulances and the fire service, we pay for TV, rubbish disposal, outside of a city public transport costs a fortune, now we even pay metered water in places it used to be a flat yearly rate and we're told we have to pay a tax on having a place to live in and a broadcast charge for that house even if its in a location incapable of receiving ANY transmission of ANY type!!
And nearly all of those services we pay for are atrocious! What's more non-financial social services are pretty much non-existent outside of the holy triumvate of Dublin, Cork and Galway.

ears. steam. :mad:

Liam Byrne

enigma_b17 wrote: »

The original TV license was setup back when Digital TV was a thing of fantasy and everyone accessed the TV system via the analog cable that was piped into your house.

Rubbish. Most households received RTE through an aerial. Anyone using cable was paying a cable company separately.

Godge

zenno wrote: »

I don't use a tv and have not used a tv in years and I also do not watch tv with garbage adverts online so I will not be paying this. neither will I be paying the household charge or water charges so when the judge asks me why I will not pay for these stealth taxes I will just tell him/her that I neither have a tv and do not watch tv and simply cannot pay for these extortion rackets. also I will tell him/her that it is not fair on the taxpayers of this country to foot the hefty bill to keep me incarcerated. all they can do is imprison me for a short period of time, they cannot do anything else to me.

The judge will make an order for the money (including interest) to be taken out of your salary, wages or social welfare payment. This isn't legal yet, but it is one way being considered so that people won't be taking up space in prisons for not paying fines and the state will still get its money plus interest. The only loser will be the poor sap who will probably quote freeman's law or other such rubbish when he is hauled before the court.

ART6

Godge wrote: »

The judge will make an order for the money (including interest) to be taken out of your salary, wages or social welfare payment. This isn't legal yet, but it is one way being considered so that people won't be taking up space in prisons for not paying fines and the state will still get its money plus interest. The only loser will be the poor sap who will probably quote freeman's law or other such rubbish when he is hauled before the court.

In other words you will be forced to pay the government two or three times overfor a service you don't want, need or receive, and if you refuse to do so you will be criminalised. Ireland ceased to be a democracy more-or-less until FG were elected and then formed a coalition with Labour that no-one voted for. Ireland is now governed by an elected dictatorship, and will be for the next few years.

If this was a democracy the politicians would listen to the views of the people instead of treating them with contempt. They would concentrate government on providing essential services that everyone pays for from transparent general taxation even if as individuals they don't actually use all of them. RTE is not an essential service.

rasper

absolutely crazy that an someone on a social welfare payment has to give up a weeks income, half a week for someone on minimum wage to fund this dinosaur, time to slash and burn, wastage needs to be stamped out

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463069-bai-public-service-broadcasting-charge/

carpejugulum

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

Currently nearly one in five households does not pay the TV licence fee and this is costing the government €30m a year in lost revenue.

costing :rolleyes:

stoneill

I have paid the TV licence up to now and will pay this broadcasting charge, actually no option but to pay.
But if this is to catch the 20% of households that do not pay (Pat Rabbitte's figures) will that mean a reciprocal 20% drop in the fee?
Will we get a say in how the money is spent and invested, hopefully not on Plank Kenny and Ryan Turbulence's salary.
I already know the answer is no.

Beneath the issue of broadcasting charge and local property tax is an insidious way that the govt. is now taking these "charges" directly from your wages, whether you avail of the services or not.
More and more "charges" are going to be introduced that will be deducted straight from pay for services that you rarely or never use.

RichardAnd

Is there a snowball's chance in hell that this charge might actually be resisted?

ART6

RichardAnd wrote: »

Is there a snowball's chance in hell that this charge might actually be resisted?

Resisted? How? You have a government with an overwhelming majority, and you have given them the power to do what the hell they like. If you don't pay then, presumably, the Revenue Gestapo will take the money from your wages, welfare, savings or bank account. However, all is not lost. You have only another year or so to put up with this, then you can elect Fianna Fail who will continue with the same policies but under a different colour and for four years blame the previous government or the EU for it.

So how to change it? I don't know. But I do wonder what would happen if the population boycotted a general election and refused to vote?

RichardAnd

ART6 wrote: »

Resisted? How? You have a government with an overwhelming majority, and you have given them the power to do what the hell they like. If you don't pay then, presumably, the Revenue Gestapo will take the money from your wages, welfare, savings or bank account. However, all is not lost. You have only another year or so to put up with this, then you can elect Fianna Fail who will continue with the same policies but under a different colour and for four years blame the previous government or the EU for it.

So how to change it? I don't know. But I do wonder what would happen if the population boycotted a general election and refused to vote?

I gave this current government nothing and I do not labour under any infantile beleif that choosing the puppet on the left will make any difference. Kindly refrain from making assumptions about me in future, thank you.

As to your question regarding voting, I think it would make no difference what so ever.

ART6

RichardAnd wrote: »

I gave this current government nothing and I do not labour under any infantile beleif that choosing the puppet on the left will make any difference. Kindly refrain from making assumptions about me in future, thank you.

As to your question regarding voting, I think it would make no difference what so ever.

I did not make any assumptions about your viewpoint. Instead, I respected it and was attempting to add to it. If I gave any other imression it was unintentional, and so I apologise unreservedly.

The Muppet

stoneill wrote: »

I have paid the TV licence up to now and will pay this broadcasting charge, actually no option but to pay.
But if this is to catch the 20% of households that do not pay (Pat Rabbitte's figures) will that mean a reciprocal 20% drop in the fee?
Will we get a say in how the money is spent and invested, hopefully not on Plank Kenny and Ryan Turbulence's salary.
I already know the answer is no.

.

There is some talk of that extra 20% going to fund the commercial broadcast sector who have lobbied hard to get a slice of the Licence Fee so you're right in thinking this will not lead to a reduction in the licence fee.

mistermouse

The Muppet wrote: »

There is some talk of that extra 20% going to fund the commercial broadcast sector who have lobbied hard to get a slice of the Licence Fee so you're right in thinking this will not lead to a reduction in the licence fee.

I think the Minister stated that there would be none of the Broadcasting fee set aside for commercial broadcasters.

It appears it is a fee for RTE and nothing else. At the very least some of it should be invested in upgrading broadband services nationwide

RichardAnd

ART6 wrote: »

I did not make any assumptions about your viewpoint. Instead, I respected it and was attempting to add to it. If I gave any other imression it was unintentional, and so I apologise unreservedly.

Apology accepted and I in turn apologise for my crass attitude. I blame the heat ...

Blured

Has there been any discussion on whether this charge will be on the home owner (landlord) or the tenant?

carpejugulum

Rabbitte:
It’s not some of us should pay for, all of us should pay for it, we should not have freeloaders

Then RTE should be funded from general taxation. This is just another unfair regressive tax that goes to an overpaid bunch of unelected people.

RTE Director General Noel Curran said: "Irish public service media plays a crucial role in the social, cultural and political life of this country.

..unfortunately

thebman

carpejugulum wrote: »

Then RTE should be funded from general taxation. This is just another unfair regressive tax that goes to an overpaid bunch of unelected people.

..unfortunately

If you want to actually throw up, you should listen to RTE trying to defend the license fee by talking about how they are a public service and look into things in the public interest and the issues the people care about and how it is our TV network.

When they refuse to let people have any real kind of say in what it does with its license fee money...

Run like a business in the way it spends money, run like a public service in how it gets its revenue.

wolf99

Could such a tax be challenged on a constitutional ground?

I.e. As it is a *supposedly* direct/ringfenced tax specifically for a single service we are being forced to pay for something that we do not have the choice not to - even those that do not avail of it in any way, shape or form


----Rant below here ----
To continue on the subject of these supposedly ringfenced taxes that get re-jiggled so they turn out not to actually be ringfenced, like the household tax, These taxes - take again the household tax, are supposed, still, to pay for specific, named, services such as public libraries, local street cleaning, local public lighting, etc.

Where I live: They closed the library some years back. Around the same time they fired the one street cleaner/bin emptier, the roads are in sh*te 90% of the year, flooded the other 10% and who in god's name *wants* street lighting in the middle of nowhere?!

Whats more as regards tax in general in this country, that is supposed to pay for public service, as this is the general reason for tax - we still have to pay for calling the fire and ambulance service using the hospital or doctors, using any road that's any bit decent in the form of tolls, car tax and fuel tax. The schools ask for mandatory voluntary "contributions" or turn your kids away, Public offices such as VECs, welfare, passport, county council, etc open only for laughably ridiculous hours such as 9 - 11 Monday and Thursday only or some cr*p and want you to do half the work yourself.
To top it all off the government tries to make out like the reason it's nearly broke is because it's trying to pay for all these things!!

The only thing it's paying for is to keep fat idiots like Pat Rabbite fat!

BTW does anyone know what number point of the 5-point wonder plan we are on now?!

ART6

wolf99 wrote: »

Could such a tax be challenged on a constitutional ground?

I.e. As it is a *supposedly* direct/ringfenced tax specifically for a single service we are being forced to pay for something that we do not have the choice not to - even those that do not avail of it in any way, shape or form
!

I guess the response to that question is that you pay through your taxes for all sorts of public services that you personally don't use. If you don't have children you still have to pay for education, for example. That does not mean that I support this particular tax, however. I consider it to be another cynical rip off from a government that has changed that practice into an art form!

wolf99

ART6, but this tax is not the same as regular tax (income, VAT, etc) in that it is for one specific service, that before this has been for the personal use of one specific service, that each person is being forced to buy even if they do not, or even cannot avail of said service - If a private sector entity tried to do something similar they would get very far I don't think.

Furthermore: A) the service is acknowledged by most to pretty cr*p, has piles of adverts that are supposed to pay for the same thing (the double payment again - this time with our bleeding eyes!), and most importantly, C) a good chunk of people STILL cannot physically avail of the service even if they wanted to.

As a consequence of A and B, I have not watched broadcast TV or listened to radio within my own residence at all since about 5 years ago and do not own a TV or radio. If I wanted to own a TV I would not be overly unhappy to pay a TV license fee (I'd still be pee'd that RTE is so mind-numbingly bad).

Of course if the government wasn't so insanely useless at implementing things - collecting the TV license fee in this case - we wouldn't have the problem this tax tries to solve

ART6

wolf99 wrote: »

ART6, but this tax is not the same as regular tax (income, VAT, etc) in that it is for one specific service, that before this has been for the personal use of one specific service, that each person is being forced to buy even if they do not, or even cannot avail of said service - If a private sector entity tried to do something similar they would get very far I don't think.

Furthermore: A) the service is acknowledged by most to pretty cr*p, has piles of adverts that are supposed to pay for the same thing (the double payment again - this time with our bleeding eyes!), and most importantly, C) a good chunk of people STILL cannot physically avail of the service even if they wanted to.

As a consequence of A and B, I have not watched broadcast TV or listened to radio within my own residence at all since about 5 years ago and do not on a TV or radio. If I wanted to own a TV I would not be overly unhappy to pay a TV license fee (I'd still be pee'd that RTE is so mind-numbingly bad).

Of course if the government wasn't so insanely useless at implementing things - collecting the TV license fee in this case - we wouldn't have the problem this tax tries to solve

I totally agree. This sort of behaviour bugs the hell out of me too. Like the way they impose "excise duty" on fuels etc. and then have the gall to add VAT on the total -- a tax on a tax. If any private supplier tried to make customers pay twice or more times for the same service they would be charged with fraud. Unfortunately the politicians make the laws, and are therefore free to conduct criminal behaviour!

wolf99

If you start really looking at the tax system you really do begin to question where the money is going.

Take a car. You paid income tax (or inheritance tax, etc) on the money you will use to buy it. If it is manufactured here the manufacturer will have paid VAT on all the materials purchased and corporate gains tax, if it is not the wholesaler will pay VRT and corporate tax on their profits (plus what VAT they spend on fuel, and other resources and their employees income tax). The retailer pays tax on their purchase of the car and again VAT on any other resources and corporate tax. You as the buyer pay tax on the purchase, car tax, fuel tax, VAT on the insurance, you pay household tax that is supposed to be partly used to pay for local road upkeep you pay VAT on any repairs or services purchased and you pay tolls on any of the roads that are any bit semi-decent. When it comes to getting rid of the car you have to now pay either road tax for an extra period of time (plus do a load of paperwork) to take it off the road, pay VAT on the scrapping cost, or pay VAT on the buyback cost.


Even for one car, over it's lifetime, there is a significant amount of money paid in tax, to the government. That's just one car!
Where in God's name does it all go! Because it's not on the roads or, as already discussed, anything else that it's supposed to be spent on.

ART6

wolf99 wrote: »

If you start really looking at the tax system you really do begin to question where the money is going.

Take a car. You paid income tax (or inheritance tax, etc) on the money you will use to buy it. If it is manufactured here the manufacturer will have paid VAT on all the materials purchased and corporate gains tax, if it is not the wholesaler will pay VRT and corporate tax on their profits (plus what VAT they spend on fuel, and other resources and their employees income tax). The retailer pays tax on their purchase of the car and again VAT on any other resources and corporate tax. You as the buyer pay tax on the purchase, car tax, fuel tax, VAT on the insurance, you pay household tax that is supposed to be partly used to pay for local road upkeep you pay VAT on any repairs or services purchased and you pay tolls on any of the roads that are any bit semi-decent. When it comes to getting rid of the car you have to now pay either road tax for an extra period of time (plus do a load of paperwork) to take it off the road, pay VAT on the scrapping cost, or pay VAT on the buyback cost.


Even for one car, over it's lifetime, there is a significant amount of money paid in tax, to the government. That's just one car!
Where in God's name does it all go! Because it's not on the roads or, as already discussed, anything else that it's supposed to be spent on.

Where indeed! If, as you say, you follow the tax trail of everything you need for a normal human existence, a tax trail that the final consumer pays but which is conveniently hidden from him by subterfuge, then I suspect that the result for be horrifying. Take an average family of, say, husband and wife, two kids in school, both parents working. Mum works locally, husband uses the family car to get to work. They enjoy the odd bottle of wine, and maybe a meal out on rare occasions. They have a mortgage on a three bedroom semi. Add up all the taxes that come out of their joint income going right back to the farmer who supplied the flour that was baked into the bread they buy. I would hazard a guess that anything up to 70% of their income goes to the government in one form or another, because those earlier in the tax trail simply add it to the products.

This broadcasting charge is just another example of ruthless and immoral government. We are assured that it is to fund public service broadcasting -- ie. RTE. But if it is to be applied to every household even if all they own is a laptop or a smart phone, then the revenue gathered must be several times that currently recovered from the TV licence. So either RTE is going to be deluged under a rain of cash to squander, or a large proportion of the money is going to go for some other undisclosed purpose. A cynic might just smell yet another FG/Labour rat!

ardmacha

ART6 wrote: »

Take an average family of, say, husband and wife, two kids in school, both parents working. Mum works locally, husband uses the family car to get to work. They enjoy the odd bottle of wine, and maybe a meal out on rare occasions. They have a mortgage on a three bedroom semi. Add up all the taxes that come out of their joint income going right back to the farmer who supplied the flour that was baked into the bread they buy. I would hazard a guess that anything up to 70% of their income goes to the government in one form or another, because those earlier in the tax trail simply add it to the products.

These calculations are spurious, how can VAT at 23% end up costing 70% of a persons income? This family also receive mortgage interest relief and childrens allowance. In reality, they hardly pay enough net tax to cover the cost of the road they drive on and the cost of the school their children attend, never mind making a contribution to general services.

AlekSmart

wolf99 wrote: »

If you start really looking at the tax system you really do begin to question where the money is going.

Well some €21,000,000,000 (How many noughts in a Billion ?) is going to pay the Social Welfare Budget alone...I'm uncertain if we have anything left over for other stuff....?

Cork24

lets burn down RTE, thats one way of sorting out this crap.. Just make sure Ryan Turbridy is inside the building..

on a more serious note, TV3 are axing a load of programs to keep afloat and on the other hand you have RTE who are over paid with crap tv shows, and getting money off the government to keep them were they are, This government needs to sell this Station.

and create a new cheaper broadcasting station.

ART6

ardmacha wrote: »

These calculations are spurious, how can VAT at 23% end up costing 70% of a persons income? This family also receive mortgage interest relief and childrens allowance. In reality, they hardly pay enough net tax to cover the cost of the road they drive on and the cost of the school their children attend, never mind making a contribution to general services.

Where did I suggest that VAT absorbed 70% of anyone's income? Perhaps you might try reading the post before engaging the typing fingers? Let's take an example: A farmer grows a cabbage, which he sells for someone to eat. He is taxed on his income from that cabbage, but he knows what he will be taxed and so he adds that to the price he charges for that cabbage. Someone transports the cabbage from his farm, and that person pays corporation tax, vehicle licence fees, fuel tax and duty and, possibly, road tolls. A wholesaler sells the cabbage on, and he pays corporation tax, business rates to the local authority, etc. etc. He adds those into the price of the cabbage and delivers it to the retailer, again incurring costs inclusive of tax from the haulier that he uses. So at last the cabbage arrives on a retailers shelf. The retailer adds his markup, which includes his overheads like corporation tax, business rates, water charges, waste disposal charges, RSI for his employees, and all of the other mess of taxes, fees, levies, that cunning finance ministers can envisage.

Now comes Mrs. **** who buys the cabbage. She takes it home and cooks it. She didn't pay VAT on the cabbage, but she did pay all of the other taxes because they were included in the price of the product. When she cooks that cabbage she will pay a service charge for the power she uses, and VAT on it. Now she will pay a property tax on the house that she cooks the cabbage in, and will soon pay a tax for the water that she puts in the saucepan.

Of course, lots of people can avail of discounts like family allowance or rent supplements or subsided housing. But you say my assumptions are spurious. Then show me how!

creedp

ART6 wrote: »

Where did I suggest that VAT absorbed 70% of anyone's income? Perhaps you might try reading the post before engaging the typing fingers? Let's take an example: A farmer grows a cabbage, which he sells for someone to eat. He is taxed on his income from that cabbage, but he knows what he will be taxed and so he adds that to the price he charges for that cabbage. Someone transports the cabbage from his farm, and that person pays corporation tax, vehicle licence fees, fuel tax and duty and, possibly, road tolls. A wholesaler sells the cabbage on, and he pays corporation tax, business rates to the local authority, etc. etc. He adds those into the price of the cabbage and delivers it to the retailer, again incurring costs inclusive of tax from the haulier that he uses. So at last the cabbage arrives on a retailers shelf. The retailer adds his markup, which includes his overheads like corporation tax, business rates, water charges, waste disposal charges, RSI for his employees, and all of the other mess of taxes, fees, levies, that cunning finance ministers can envisage.

Now comes Mrs. **** who buys the cabbage. She takes it home and cooks it. She didn't pay VAT on the cabbage, but she did pay all of the other taxes because they were included in the price of the product. When she cooks that cabbage she will pay a service charge for the power she uses, and VAT on it. Now she will pay a property tax on the house that she cooks the cabbage in, and will soon pay a tax for the water that she puts in the saucepan.

Of course, lots of people can avail of discounts like family allowance or rent supplements or subsided housing. But you say my assumptions are spurious. Then show me how!

Without getting into detail I suppose the real issue is the magnitude of the net transfer of income either to the Govt or to the taxpayer. Yes Mrs. **** pays [a little/lot of] tax but she also receives either free or subsidised services in return .. roads, public transport, education, health, police, social welfare (job seekers, pension, child benefit, etc), water/sewage services, public broadcasting!! ..... Its never purely a one way system. Its likely the lower the income she earns the better chance of the net transfer being in her favour.

ardmacha

Some recent posts on this thread are about some fantasy world, in which there are enormous inappropriate taxes, not Ireland which has one of the lowest overall taxation regimes in Western Europe. You can give all the examples you want about cabbages, but the total tax take as percentage of GDP or even GNP is at the lower end of Western European levels, which is why there is a problem with the public finances as there are presently so many unemployed.

As I said, someone who doesn't pay enough tax to cover what their own family receives will be convinced that they are overtaxed.

carpejugulum

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said, someone who doesn't pay enough tax to cover what their own family receives will be convinced that they are overtaxed.

But that's also because not all services are required or wanted and most are too expensive, e.g. RTE.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

But that's also because not all services are required or wanted and most are too expensive, e.g. RTE.

You can certainly argue that RTE shoot themselves in the foot with their decision-making and budgeting priorities, but overall, the tax burden of public broadcasting in Ireland is not noticeably higher than elsewhere, and garners a pretty respectable audience.

ardmacha

carpejugulum wrote: »

But that's also because not all services are required or wanted and most are too expensive, e.g. RTE.

As I said that family probably scarcely cover the cost of roads, schools etc that they do use.

As for RTÉ, while I agree with some of the observations about programming and personalities, 50c a day is not a vast amount, 13c each for the people in this household.

JustAThought

As for RTÉ, while I agree with some of the observations about programming and personalities, 50c a day is not a vast amount, 13C each for the people in this household.[/quote]

I see the staff of RTE must be on board here. It is when you listen nor watch nothing of their obsolete services nor want to. I pay phone, broadband & Netflix. I shouldn't have to pay a tax for something I don't use on a device I don't own.

alastair

JustAThought wrote: »

I see the staff of RTE must be on board here. It is when you listen nor watch nothing of their obsolete services nor want to. I pay phone, broadband & Netflix. I shouldn't have to pay a tax for something I don't use on a device I don't own.

More conspiracy theorists you mean? And when did radio, digital television broadcasting, and the web become obsolete? Is that you Buck Rogers?

(If you're claiming you never make use of some aspects of public broadcasting, I'm not buying it. The independent broadcasters also benefit from the licence fee, so you'd have to avoid all RTE services, local radio stations, independent national radio stations, TV3, TG4 etc. Never watch a sporting event broadcast in this country? I suggest you're a surreptitious public broadcasting user - come out of the closet!)

spank_inferno

alastair wrote: »

More conspiracy theorists you mean? And when did radio, digital television broadcasting, and the web become obsolete? Is that you Buck Rogers?

(If you're claiming you never make use of some aspects of public broadcasting, I'm not buying it. The independent broadcasters also benefit from the licence fee, so you'd have to avoid all RTE services, local radio stations, independent national radio stations, TV3, TG4 etc. Never watch a sporting event broadcast in this country? I suggest you're a surreptitious public broadcasting user - come out of the closet!)

He may be.... he may not be.

To be honest its irrelevent.

the point is, let the product be purchased by those who want it.

let this poll tax die, once and for all.


Is such freedom too hard for you to comprehend?

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

Is such freedom too hard for you to comprehend?

Is the principle of the social merit of public broadcasting so hard for you to comprehend? Your freedoms are completely unaffected by a levy for it.

carpejugulum

ardmacha wrote: »

As I said that family probably scarcely cover the cost of roads, schools etc that they do use.

Again, that's also because those services are much more expensive than they could and should be.

ardmacha wrote: »

As for RTÉ, while I agree with some of the observations about programming and personalities, 50c a day is not a vast amount, 13c each for the people in this household.

:rolleyes:
Will you send me 50c a day?

alastair wrote: »

Is the principle of the social merit of public broadcasting so hard for you to comprehend? Your freedoms are completely unaffected by a levy for it.

There is social merit of public broadcasting and then there is social merit of public broadcasting paying mediocre presenters 500,000 a year.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

There is social merit of public broadcasting and then there is social merit of public broadcasting paying mediocre presenters 500,000 a year.

Our public broadcasting levy/tax/fee isn't excessive by European standards. If RTE fired Pat Kenny tomorrow, you'd still be spending the same amount to support them, and maybe you'd even miss the man, or dislike his replacement. I'm no fan of paying anyone a half million if they're taxpayer-supported, but I'm not pretending those choices/misjudgments within RTE impact on my freedom, and that we should privatize all public broadcasters.

spank_inferno

alastair wrote: »

Is the principle of the social merit of public broadcasting so hard for you to comprehend?

Ok dude.... please provide an example of the above that is not also available to purchase voluntarily, without the need for a poll tax.

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

Ok dude.... please provide an example of the above that is not also available to purchase voluntarily, without the need for a poll tax.

Compare the quality, scope, and priorities of publically-funded broadcasting anywhere to it's for-profit commercial competitors. Outside common-denominator entertainment, it's usually no match. BBC V ITV? RTE TV News v TV3 News? Quality of radio documentaries on RTE radio compared to ??, Children's programming that's not product placement for some toy manufacturer?

spank_inferno

alastair wrote: »

Compare the quality, scope, and priorities of publically-funded broadcasting anywhere to it's for-profit commercial competitors. Outside common-denominator entertainment, it's usually no match. BBC V ITV? RTE TV News v TV3 News? Quality of radio documentaries on RTE radio compared to ??, Children's programming that's not product placement for some toy manufacturer?

Still waiting for an example.

That was just a rant.