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

creedp

Godge wrote: »

I don't agree with the culture of exemptions in this country.

The huge number of extras pushes up the value of social welfare well above any of our peer countries and narrows the gap with employment creating a huge disincentive to take up employment.

Agree. In addition why is there no [very limited] exemptions (only deferrals) from the LPT and potentially exemptions from the broadcast tax? Is it because of another peculiar idiosyncrosy of political life in this great country .... "what you have you hold"

alastair

creedp wrote: »

Agree. In addition why is there no [very limited] exemptions (only deferrals) from the LPT and potentially exemptions from the broadcast tax? Is it because of another peculiar idiosyncrosy of political life in this great country .... "what you have you hold"

The OAP TV licence wasn't strictly an exemption though - they just had the licence bought for them. Which would be the equivalent of renters avoiding the LPT.

Banjo String

Pat puts his foot in it today again.

He has implied that anyone not owning a TV, or accessing public service programming via an internet capable device as 'Cave men'.

ignorance is bliss, bless him.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Pat puts his foot in it today again.

He has implied that anyone not owning a TV, or accessing public service programming via an internet capable device as 'Cave men'.

ignorance is bliss, bless him.

He's just spicing up the consultation process. No such thing as bad publicity and all that.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

The OAP TV licence wasn't strictly an exemption though - they just had the licence bought for them. Which would be the equivalent of renters avoiding the LPT.

Not quite, in the case of renters it is mostly private landlords paying the tax on their behalf. Wait and see rents go up, including local authority rents so they themselves will pay for it.

In the case of the OAP TV licence, it is us the taxpayers, paying their TV licence for them.

Quin_Dub

What constitutes "Public Service Programming" is the context of this charge?

News & Current affairs I assume , anything else?

Banjo String

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What constitutes "Public Service Programming" is the context of this charge?

News & Current affairs I assume , anything else?

I assume anything transmitted via the state broadcaster.

Yip, even repeats of shows screened months earlier on sky/itv etc.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

Not quite, in the case of renters it is mostly private landlords paying the tax on their behalf. Wait and see rents go up, including local authority rents so they themselves will pay for it.

In the case of the OAP TV licence, it is us the taxpayers, paying their TV licence for them.

Just as local authorities pay their tenants' LPT, out of their taxation subventions.

Did the TV licence go up on the back of subsidised OAP licences? Rather unlikely tbh - there was a much greater cost overhead in paying An Post for collection, and the cost of the licence was dictated by broadcasting overheads rather than anything to do with the logistics of licencing.

Mr.Micro

SamHall wrote: »

I assume anything transmitted via the state broadcaster.

Yip, even repeats of shows screened months earlier on sky/itv etc.

and plenty of other poor quality stuff, including the teleshopping on RTE 2 at the weekends.

alastair

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What constitutes "Public Service Programming" is the context of this charge?

News & Current affairs I assume , anything else?

All RTE, TG4, and Radio n G services (telly, radio, web, other activities like the orchestras etc), and some subsidies get to the commercial stations via the BCI Broadcasting Fund.

Covers the gamut really.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

and plenty of other poor quality stuff, including the teleshopping on RTE 2 at the weekends.

To be fair - RTE shows stuff that doesn't fall under the public service charter - because the licence/charge doesn't cover all their operating costs. Ads aren't paid for with licence money - they're paid for by commercial income.

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

To be fair - RTE shows stuff that doesn't fall under the public service charter - because the licence/charge doesn't cover all their operating costs. Ads aren't paid for with licence money - they're paid for by commercial income.

Why don't the govt let them become ppv?

They're already broadcasting in digital.

Alternatively, make sky/upc etc pay a levy to be permitted to broadcast the channel's on their systems.

lastly. I'm pretty sure the lads in the six counties can receive all these 'services' too. How do the govt intend to charge them for not being cavemen?

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Why don't the govt let them become ppv?

They're already broadcasting in digital.

Alternatively, make sky/upc etc pay a levy to be permitted to broadcast the channel's on their systems.

lastly. I'm pretty sure the lads in the six counties can receive all these 'services' too. How do the govt intend to charge them for not being cavemen?

Does anyone on the border contribute to the BBC coffers? Transmission spill has never been an issue with domestic telly licences.

How would you make radio PPV? And what would the costs be to provide and administrate every telly in the country with a card-controlled set-top box? You're not going to save much money there.

Godge

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What constitutes "Public Service Programming" is the context of this charge?

News & Current affairs I assume , anything else?

http://www.bai.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20130619_BAI-Recommendations-to-Minister-with-Addendum_FINAL_CC.pdf

Banjo String

alastair wrote: »

Does anyone on the border contribute to the BBC coffers? Transmission spill has never been an issue with domestic telly licences.

How would you make radio PPV? And what would the costs be to provide and administrate every telly in the country with a card-controlled set-top box? You're not going to save much money there.

1, the British govt don't impose a charge such as this. No TV? No license fee,.

Those that do pay? BBC don't show commercials every ten-fifteen minutes.

2, no need to produce new boxes. The services switched to digital last year. The technologies already in the broadcast frequency.

Don't pay? Signal not decrypted.

I will wait on a fair argument why RTE won't go pay per view and see just how important it is/needed by tax payers.

I currently buy a TV license each year incidentally. But this is an attempt to remove my freedom of choice.

Mr.Micro

SamHall wrote: »

Why don't the govt let them become ppv?

They're already broadcasting in digital.

Alternatively, make sky/upc etc pay a levy to be permitted to broadcast the channel's on their systems.

lastly. I'm pretty sure the lads in the six counties can receive all these 'services' too. How do the govt intend to charge them for not being cavemen?

I get the basic Sky package and get my BBC on that. Whilst RTE is the national broadcaster and has that responsibility, the other part of it, ie. its commercial half, can put out low quality rubbish. It has the best of both worlds.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

1, the British govt don't impose a charge such as this. No TV? No license fee,.

Sure - for the time being anyway.

SamHall wrote: »

Those that do pay? BBC don't show commercials every ten-fifteen minutes.

One of the benefits of a much larger population and consequent operational budgets.

SamHall wrote: »

2, no need to produce new boxes. The services switched to digital last year. The technologies already in the broadcast frequency.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't help with payment controls.

SamHall wrote: »

Don't pay? Signal not decrypted.

By whom? You need a card-controlled subscription for that.

SamHall wrote: »

I will wait on a fair argument why RTE won't go pay per view and see just how important it is/needed by tax payers.

It would require a roll-out of set-top boxes for every set in the state - which makes no financial sense whatsoever.

SamHall wrote: »

I currently buy a TV license each year incidentally. But this is an attempt to remove my freedom of choice.

True. So what?

Godge

SamHall wrote: »

1, the British govt don't impose a charge such as this. No TV? No license fee,.

Those that do pay? BBC don't show commercials every ten-fifteen minutes.

.

.

alastair

Godge wrote: »

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder"


Now, it is not quite as broad as the definition we will be bringing in but it is not as simple as saying that if you don't own a TV, you don't pay.

SamHall meant they don't have a household-based broadcaster charge in the UK, just a telly (or strictly speaking - a TV tuner) licence, same as we currently have.

Godge

alastair wrote: »

SamHall meant they don't have a household-based broadcaster charge in the UK, just a telly (or strictly speaking - a TV tuner) licence, same as we currently have.

Fair enough, post withdrawn

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

It would require a roll-out of set-top boxes for every set in the state - which makes no financial sense whatsoever.

So when the analogue signal was turned off, people had to get a saorview box or new TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV, unless they were already with Sky or UPC. That made financial sense to some.

Banjo String

Mr.Micro wrote: »

So when the analogue signal was turned off, people had to get a saorview box or new TV capable of receiving terrestrial TV, unless they were already with Sky or UPC. That made financial sense to some.

I'm sure 160 a year to buy a set top box would be completely feasible tbh. They'd only have to purchase it once incidentally a renewal charge/monthly subscription there on in.

Jonny Blaze

We'll all be paying stamp duty next... even if you don't have a house... "Sure there are houses on the market like!"

Mr.Micro

SamHall wrote: »

I'm sure 160 a year to buy a set top box would be completely feasible tbh. They'd only have to purchase it once incidentally a renewal charge/monthly subscription there on in.

Yes indeed. I bought a freesat box when I moved to the sticks some years ago. The reason was to get BBC and other channels apart from RTE fayre. I paid about €150 for the box and that was the total outlay about 6 years ago to this day:) Worth every penny, I even get HD channels.:):)

Happyman42

I wish they'd just say we need 'x' amount in tax from everybody to pay for the balls up made of the country. Then other parties could come up with their figures then just go to the polls.
This lying and spinning to hide what is basically, yet another tax grab is getting tiresome.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

This lying and spinning to hide what is basically, yet another tax grab is getting tiresome.

Not another tax. It replaces the TV licence.

Happyman42

Phoebas wrote: »

Not another tax. It replaces the TV licence.

It is another tax if you don't have a TV.

Banjo String

Phoebas wrote: »

Not another tax. It replaces the TV licence.

its a new tax for folk who've chosen not to own a TV Phoebie

quite similar to a poll tax actually.

creedp

Jonny Blaze wrote: »

We'll all be paying stamp duty next... even if you don't have a house... "Sure there are houses on the market like!"

When l lived in an apartment block there was always arguments when setting the annual budget as some people claimed they shouldnt have to pay for the maintenance of the lift as they lived on the ground floor or pay for lighting the underground car park as they didn't have a car. However, each year it was pointed out that as you live in the complex you share in the costs of running the common areas irrespective of whether or not you actually benefit from some of the services funded.

Phoebas

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is another tax if you don't have a TV.

True enough. I suppose it'll also be seen as another tax to those who do own a TV but have evading the licence up to now.