A compulsory 'Broadcast tax' next on the list for homes in Ireland

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

nobody wants an irish language radio station, therefore everyone has to pay for it

seems reasonable

alastair

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

nobody wants an irish language radio station, therefore everyone has to pay for it

seems reasonable

An Irish TV channel - there's enough demand for an economically viable Irish language radio station. And clearly there are enough people (800,000 daily) want an Irish TV channel to warrant it's subsidising.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

Try to focus on the points I'm making - not putting words in people's mouths, eh?

Lol, will leave that to you. You appear to defend RTE no matter what.

alastair wrote: »

An Irish TV channel - there's enough demand for an economically viable Irish language radio station. And clearly there are enough people (800,000 daily) want an Irish TV channel to warrant it's subsidising.

The vast majority subsidising the minority for a channel that the majority probably do not want and certainly not if they had the choice of paying for it or not.

Banjo String

The guys on here defending RTE as a 'public service povider'.

What if the govt decided to intervene in the Dublin bus row?

Public transport tax next?

Chips Lovell

Dublin Bus already receives a subsidy of taxpayers' money every year.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Dublin Bus already receives a subsidy of taxpayers' money every year.

That wasn't my question.

The upkeep of the roads gets taken from a central Fund Vlad.

Maybe they've a compulsory motor tax charge lined up for every home too?

Chips Lovell

Pretty much all taxes are compulsory.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Pretty much all taxes are compulsory.

Except the ones that aren't?

spank_inferno

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Pretty much all taxes are compulsory.

How do you square that with people who don't have cars?

cavedave

alastair

'Simple economics' provide for simple, and often simply poor, outcomes.

Do people who listen to publicly sponsored radio and watch RTE have a better knowledge of politics, economics and science then those who don't? Bryan Caplan's "Myth of the Rational Voter" does a comparison between education, wealth etc and knowledge of economics. Has a similar analysis been done about knowledge of science, economics, politics and watching RTE and if not why not?


My point is if more people who watch RTE then don't believe in antibiotics for the flu, freer immigration and not make work then the public service element has been demonstrated. But I have never seen that analysis.

Mr.Micro

You have to wonder about RTE and its current debt of €65 million and how it will service that debt, keep the viewers happy and its advertizers? It had the monopoly of the airwaves once in Ireland, but not now. It faces competition from other channels, the internet and all that goes with it. Many of the shows it broadcasts people may have seen elsewhere already, and the home grown stuff much of it leaves a lot to be desired.

It can be argued that RTE has a role to promote Irish culture and all that. Will programming suffer now that it has so much debt? At the weekends RTE 2 after midnight admittedly, runs those awful tacky ads/promotions for hours, just like the cheap channels. Soon will it be RTE 1 as well?

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The vast majority subsidising the minority for a channel that the majority probably do not want and certainly not if they had the choice of paying for it or not.

The majority subsiding minority concerns is part and parcel of taxation everywhere. I've never had cause to need a cardiac ambulance, but I'm not going to whinge about my taxes supporting them. Likewise I'm not an Irish speaker, but I can see that if I was, then Irish language media should be part of the national social fabric.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Except the ones that aren't?

Dublin Bus is subsidised by compulsory taxes already - just as road maintenance is. Just because motor taxes are partially responsible for funding roads maintenance, doesn't mean that they're the sole mechanism.

bgrizzley

Are you seriously comparing the need for light entertainment to a cardiac ambulance? You need to Talk to Joe...

alastair

bgrizzley wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing the need for light entertainment to a cardiac ambulance? You need to Talk to Joe...

I'm highlighting the way majority funding and minority needs work in taxation - choose whatever example you prefer - or feign indignation - your choice.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Dublin Bus is subsidised by compulsory taxes already - just as road maintenance is. Just because motor taxes are partially responsible for funding roads maintenance, doesn't mean that they're the sole mechanism.

I know that.

Just like RTE. partially funded by license fee, partially funded by the state.

My point being where do the govt draw the line at introducing compulsory household taxes to fund services that really should be left to plug their own shortfalls, or adapt.

VinLieger

alastair wrote: »

I'm highlighting the way majority funding and minority needs work in taxation - choose whatever example you prefer - or feign indignation - your choice.

Majority funding for minority needs makes sense in the cases that those minorities couldnt function without it, explain how RTE not receiving funding would mean people not being able to function in their day to day lives.
In the case of RTE the reality is the minority are only the people who work there

Chips Lovell

The broadcast charge is less of a new tax and more of a new way of collecting an old one.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

I know that.

Just like RTE. partially funded by license fee, partially funded by the state.

My point being where do the govt draw the line at introducing compulsory household taxes to fund services that really left to plug their own shortfalls, or adapt.

Can you point to where RTE get additional state funding beyond the TV Licence subvention?

The logic of the broadcast charge makes more sense than the TV licence mechanism - given that we're talking about funding activities that go beyond just the telly, and that the technology involved is changing fairly rapidly. Is the same true for any other area of taxation? My only problem with the broadcast charge as currently outlined is that the waiver for OAP's looks like it might go. As far as plugging shortfalls - clearly RTE are doing that already, but the BAI reckon it's not going to be possible for them to bridge sorting their financial situation while retaining the quality of commissioning/programming they need to. That's not the opinion of RTE, but the regulators. For what it's worth - any additional subvention they get is supposed to be earmarked for external commissioning, so none of it would actually go to RTE themselves.

alastair

VinLieger wrote: »

Majority funding for minority needs makes sense in the cases that those minorities couldnt function without it

No it doesn't. If that were the case the state wouldn't spend a penny on third level education, for instance - or a whole swath of tax-supported activities.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The broadcast charge is less of a new tax and more of a new way of collecting an old one.

It'll be a new tax to the folk who neither own a TV/radio nor wish to avail of any of RTEs services or programmes.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

It'll be a new tax to the folk who neither own a TV/radio nor wish to avail of any of RTEs services or programmes.

How many households do you know that don't have a television or radio?

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

It'll be a new tax to the folk who neither own a TV/radio nor wish to avail of any of RTEs services or programmes.

That's the whole point. Virtually every household in the country either has a television, radio or internet access.

The system as it stands is quite inefficient. We've got an estimated 20 per cent evading the licence fee and we're wasting a tonne of money on inspection/enforcement.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

How many households do you know that don't have a television or radio?

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

That's the whole point. Virtually every household in the country either has a television, radio or internet access.

The system as it stands is quite inefficient. We've got an estimated 20 per cent evading the licence fee and we're wasting a tonne of money on inspection/enforcement.

I know quite a few actually.

Yes, these houses have Internet in them, and devices capable of receiving Irish programming.

That doesn't mean they use them though. And they most probably already pay a cable/Internet provider, subs that will have vat tacked on to it also.

This looks and smells like an Internet tax.

Chips Lovell

The tax has never been levied on the basis on whether you consume public service broadcasting but on whether your are capable of access to it.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

I know quite a few actually.

Yes, these houses have Internet in them, and devices capable of receiving Irish programming.

That doesn't mean they use them though. And they most probably already pay a cable/Internet provider, subs that will have vat tacked on to it also.

This looks and smells like an Internet tax.

It's a broadcasting tax - if you continue to pay exactly the same as you did for your TV licence, then it's not much of an Internet tax, is it? Unless you think the 3% or whatever of households that don't have a telly, will bring an 'Internet tax' windfall? Seems like an awful lot of trouble for very little revenue.

Your Sky/UPC bills aren't any more to do with subsidising public broadcasting, than your icecream outlay is.

Banjo String

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The tax has never been levied on the basis on whether you consume public service broadcasting but on whether your are capable of access to it.

Lol.

You've summed up exactly why it's unfair.

Here's me thinking you were all for it Vladimir

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

The majority subsiding minority concerns is part and parcel of taxation everywhere. I've never had cause to need a cardiac ambulance, but I'm not going to whinge about my taxes supporting them. Likewise I'm not an Irish speaker, but I can see that if I was, then Irish language media should be part of the national social fabric.

With regards to the broadcast tax, my concern is that RTE will continue to be funded from this tax. RTE, IMO in its present structure is not up to scratch and its output costs too much for the actual service the public receives. Its not able to manage on 2 huge sources of income, just not good enough. The public should expect better quality output and a slimmer RTE, with a new management structure could do that in time. It needs a big overhaul like several other organizations in Ireland, state and semi state bodies alike. Is that going to happen anytime soon.... no is my guess.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Lol.

You've summed up exactly why it's unfair.

Here's me thinking you were all for it Vladimir

Nothing unfair about it at all - do you begrudge paying taxes for every other service you don't take advantage of?

Chips Lovell

SamHall wrote: »

Lol.

You've summed up exactly why it's unfair.

Here's me thinking you were all for it Vladimir

I am all for it. It helps cut down on licence fee evasion and costs less to administer. What's not to like?

I may not use the public health system, but my taxes still pay for it. I may not have any kids in school, but my taxes still pay for them. Paying for public services you may not use is nothing new, yet you see to see it as something outrageous.