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

yoloc

Phoebas wrote: »

Yeah. You still gave to pay.

Why do you have a freeview box if you don't have a tv?

I dont have a free view box either. I have nothing, all i do is read when home from work then go to bed.

alastair

SamHall wrote: »

Projector/pc monitor?

Well - he had a telly two weeks ago:

My uncle gave me a freeview box with dish, i stuck it up earlier and had to connect it to another piece of same wire that was attached to it. Pluged it into the box,scart lead into tv and cant get no channels.

alastair

yoloc wrote: »

I dont have a free view box either. I have nothing, all i do is read when home from work then go to bed.

Your posting history tells quite a different story.

yoloc

alastair wrote: »

Your posting history tells quite a different story.

lol. i cut that down lol. Ok then, im talking in a what if scenario

alastair

yoloc wrote: »

lol. i cut that down lol. Ok then, im talking in a what if scenario

What if you stopped telling porkies?

The charge would be liable on all households.

You've a telly, so no change for you - same amount to pay as the current TV licence.

yoloc

alastair wrote: »

What if you stopped telling porkies?

:P

The charge would be liable on all households.

That's a kick in the teeth for those who dont have any recievers. I know a johvo witness where they dont have no tv/computers etc.. and all they do is read. IMO it's unfair expecting these people to pay.

You've a telly, so no change for you - same amount to pay as the current TV licence.

I have never paid a tv licence EVER! but was just wondering how i'd get around not paying this charge. NOW awaiting a backlash from people saying how much of a scummy person i am for not paying my taxes lol

Phoebas

yoloc wrote: »

I have never paid a tv licence EVER! but was just wondering how i'd get around not paying this charge. NOW awaiting a backlash from people saying how much of a scummy person i am for not paying my taxes lol

You can't get around it. The changes are designed to catch evaders just like you. lol.

alastair

yoloc wrote: »

I have never paid a tv licence EVER! but was just wondering how i'd get around not paying this charge. NOW awaiting a backlash from people saying how much of a scummy person i am for not paying my taxes lol

You wouldn't get away with it.

The lies are rather more telling than the tax evasion tbh.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It stands to reason that beneficiaries of the TV licence wouldn't charge for screening TV licence campaign ads.



http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/47_TVLicence.pdf

Fair enough, but the phrase 'at their own expense' is important. There is a cost and it is being taken from the taxpayers contribution.
What about the cost to make the ads and the numerous print advertising campaigns?

yoloc

Phoebas wrote: »

You can't get around it. The changes are designed to catch evaders just like you. lol.

:mad:

How many tv license dodgers are there in this country, any stats

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Fair enough, but the phrase 'at their own expense' is important. There is a cost and it is being taken from the taxpayers contribution.
What about the cost to make the ads and the numerous print advertising campaigns?

The ads eat into potential commercial ad revenue space, but you don't subsidise RTE's commercial income. They get an annual budget to public service broadcasting, irrespective of how they do on ad revenue - so it's nothing to do with the taxpayer. If they've any sense, they run them in empty ad slots, so there's no impact on their commercial income.

Print ads (outside the RTE Guide) obviously cost money to run. Are they 'numerous' though?

Edit - it seems the ads are produced internally by RTE, so limited cost there too.

Quin_Dub

yoloc wrote: »

:mad:

How many tv license dodgers are there in this country, any stats

There was a figure of 16% non-compliance given yesterday....

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The ads eat into potential commercial ad revenue space, but you don't subsidise RTE's commercial income. They get an annual budget to public service broadcasting, irrespective of how they do on ad revenue - so it's nothing to do with the taxpayer.

:rolleyes: The taxpayer owns RTE. A fact they seem to forget.
There are costs no matter how you try hide them.
We need transparency here, on how effective or ineffective it is in bringing in revenue and fullfilling their remit to PSB.
Again, a full and exhaustive review is needed before you come up with a strategy to pay for it. That is the sensible thing to do.

Print ads (outside the RTE Guide) obviously cost money to run. Are they 'numerous' though?

They 'cost' money in the RTE Guide too, somebody is paid to make them and print them.
I have gotten numerous leaflets and booklets on the TV licence over the years and have seen advertising campaigns in National and local press (the TV licence inspectors are in your area) etc. That's not to mention print campaigns in the Post network and billboard advertising.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: The taxpayer owns RTE. A fact they seem to forget.

It's a semi-state, and has commercial activity that you don't support.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are costs no matter how you try hide them.

Sure -But costs a far cry from the millions you suggested.

Happyman42 wrote: »

We need transparency here, on how effective or ineffective it is in bringing in revenue and fullfilling their remit to PSB.
Again, a full and exhaustive review is needed before you come up with a strategy to pay for it. That is the sensible thing to do.

They've had that review. The recommendation is that they have a percentage of advertising taken away from them, to be replaced with a bumped government subvention - the ad revenue to be moved sideways to commercial broadcasters.

Happyman42 wrote: »

They 'cost' money in the RTE Guide too, somebody is paid to make them and print them.

The RTE Guide is published irrespective of whether the TV licence ads are in it or not - so it doesn't cost anything to print the ads. Again they probably place them in empty commercial ad slots.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have gotten numerous leaflets and booklets on the TV licence over the years and have seen advertising campaigns in National and local press (the TV licence inspectors are in your area) etc. That's not to mention print campaigns in the Post network and billboard advertising.

The post stuff comes cheap to An Post. I'm sure they pay regular commercial rates for billboards and press ads though. Do you have similar problems with the gamut of other public info campaigns that run in commercial media?

Viper_JB

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There was a figure of 16% non-compliance given yesterday....

I wonder if that 16% is anyone who doesn't have a license assuming that everyone in the country who doesn't have a license are using TV's, or is it actually taking into account those who do not need a license currently...

Leroy42

16.7% evasion, therefore I am expecting a 16.7% reduction in my €160 bill as this is not designed to be a new tax but to simply create a better system than is currently in place.

Now, what to spend my 26.72 that I have been paying the last few years to subsidise evaders on??

alastair

Leroy42 wrote: »

16.7% evasion, therefore I am expecting a 16.7% reduction in my €160 bill as this is not designed to be a new tax but to simply create a better system than is currently in place.

Now, what to spend my 26.72 that I have been paying the last few years to subsidise evaders on??

Given that they've made very clear that the €160 charge would remain unchanged, I'm not sure why you would expect anything of the sort?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's a semi-state, and has commercial activity that you don't support.

Yes I do when they are running at a deficit of 70 odd million,

Sure -But costs a far cry from the millions you suggested.

Says who? Can you find figures?

They've had that review. The recommendation is that they have a percentage of advertising taken away from them, to be replaced with a bumped government subvention - the ad revenue to be moved sideways to commercial broadcasters.

The commercial broadcasters are far from happy with the new arrangement.

The RTE Guide is published irrespective of whether the TV licence ads are in it or not - so it doesn't cost anything to print the ads. Again they probably place them in empty commercial ad slots.

Do graphic designers work for free now?
Paper over the cracks all you want, but knowing how these semi states and state owned companies operate I would wager a bet that there is all sorts of 'creative accountancy' going on.

The post stuff comes cheap to An Post. I'm sure they pay regular commercial rates for billboards and press ads though.

Until we know exactly how much they offset in their accounts we DON'T know how much it costs us.

Do you have similar problems with the gamut of other public info campaigns that run in commercial media?

Yes I do as it happens. The print bill in the HSE for instance and it's effectiveness being one example.

Godge

Royal Legend wrote: »

or, they only worked 4 days per week :rolleyes:

20% failure rate is a poor figure in my opinion, so because yet again more civil servants are incompetent, we have to pay to ensure the exchequer gets its pound of flesh

Its the same with the water rates, we have not got the intelligence to fix the leaks, so we will charge people for the loss of the water due to the leaks.

All hail Pat Rabbitte the great trade union man and voice of the people :cool:

TV licence inspectors are not civil servants. They are employees of An Post, a commercial entity, and I don't think they are even classed as public servants.

Phoebas wrote: »

I agree it is a high failure rate.
If they give collection of the broadcast tax to the Revenue they'll get that number down.

Now Revenue officials are civil servants.

It is ironic that in having a dig at civil servants, lack of knowledge turns the discussion into praise for civil servants.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I do when they are running at a deficit of 70 odd million,

That's a deficit that hasn't cost you a cent to date, and one which they have a financial plan to clear in short order.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Says who? Can you find figures?

Can you point to anything that would suggest it's a credible figure?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The commercial broadcasters are far from happy with the new arrangement.

Nevertheless - it's the outcome of the review you said was needed.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Do graphic designers work for free now?
Paper over the cracks all you want, but knowing how these semi states and state owned companies operate I would wager a bet that there is all sorts of 'creative accountancy' going on.

The artwork for the ads are already on the magazines system - they just require linking and slotting in. It's about 30 seconds work. Good luck with the 'creative accounting' theories, but they're your supposition.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Until we know exactly how much they offset in their accounts we DON'T know how much it costs us..

Clearly not the millions you claimed however.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I do as it happens. The print bill in the HSE for instance and it's effectiveness being one example.

At least you're consistent then.

spank_inferno

Alastair... how much of our poll tax / lisence fee goes to you?

Reason I query is that no one without "skin in the game" would go to such effort to defend RTE for what seems like hundreds of posts... all on your own.

that must have cost you many hours of your time by now.

just wondering why?

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is needed is root and branch review of what public service boadcasting is and what it can be in the future in an Irish context. This is not about keeping RTE trundling along the way it has been.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where? You are telling me that 500 less people and 800 million less (since Rabbitte got into his bolt hole) to squander has affected change in RTE? That the missing 'productivity' of that number of people is noticable? Where? What in John Logie Baird's name where they doing?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sort the business model out first, then look for the money to run it. It's basic economic sense, which our leaders STILL haven't grasped.

Happyman42 wrote: »

We also need a clear and transparent inquiry into what 'public service broadcasting' actually is. Then come up with a mechanism to pay for that. Not the stupid cart before the horse way things are done here.
RTE in it's current form has no god given right to survive.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The taxpayer owns RTE. A fact they seem to forget.
There are costs no matter how you try hide them.
We need transparency here, on how effective or ineffective it is in bringing in revenue and fullfilling their remit to PSB.
Again, a full and exhaustive review is needed before you come up with a strategy to pay for it. That is the sensible thing to do.

It is great to see someone who seems to have loads of ideas on how to cure the ills of public service broadcasting. I linked earlier to a report carried out by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland on public service broadcasting, see again the post below.

Godge wrote: »

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

I have been looking again at the site and notice that the BAI have launched a public consultation phase on their strategy.

http://www.bai.ie/?p=3780

People have until 22nd October to make their submissions. It would be great if some of the experts arguing here about the nature of public service broadcasting and the role of RTE would post a copy of any submission that they make to the public consultation.

Something other than hot air from the discussion would be great.

alastair

spank_inferno wrote: »

Alastair... how much of our poll tax / lisence fee goes to you?

Reason I query is that no one without "skin in the game" would go to such effort to defend RTE for what seems like hundreds of posts... all on your own.

that must have cost you many hours of your time by now.

just wondering why?

Isn't there a mod warning on shill claims?

I don't benefit from LPT or TV licence payments. I'm liable for both.

Just like a bit of clarity, rather than ill-informed whinging.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

That's a deficit that hasn't cost you a cent to date, and one which they have a financial plan to clear in short order.

The abscence of a proper, functioning and actually useful PBS I would consider a 'cost'. I also consider it a 'cost' to prop up another failed state service.
I'm sure those who are paid excessive salaries to run this deficient service would disagree though.

Can you point to anything that would suggest it's a credible figure?

No, it seemingly isn't something us shareholders are deemed fit to see.

Nevertheless - it's the outcome of the review you said was needed.

Wasn't a very good review then.

The artwork for the ads are already on the magazines system - they just require linking and slotting in. It's about 30 seconds work. Good luck with the 'creative accounting' theories, but they're your supposition.

It HAS a cost, is the point. Nobody I know in An Post or RTE works for nothing.
And silly me, of course nobody in government or in semi state or state agencies has ever been guilty of 'creative accounting'.

Clearly not the millions you claimed however.

You have the figures then...please link or post.
The making of ads can run into huge figures, the cost of placing them too.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The abscence of a proper, functioning and actually useful PBS I would consider a 'cost'. I also consider it a 'cost' to prop up another failed state service.
I'm sure those who are paid excessive salaries to run this deficient service would disagree though.

You're not propping up a failed state service though. RTE continues to operate, and their debts haven't been passed on to you.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, it seemingly isn't something us shareholders are deemed fit to see.

Or you would rather make up figures rather than check properly?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Wasn't a very good review then.

It's a set of findings you seemingly didn't know about only a few posts ago, so I'll take that review with a pinch of salt.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It HAS a cost, is the point. Nobody I know in An Post or RTE works for nothing.
And silly me, of course nobody in government or in semi state or state agencies has ever been guilty of 'creative accounting'.

Hmm - full time salaried artworker, 30 seconds of their time - that's a lots of ad placements to clock up the serious money you're talking about. Again - I'm not really interested in entertaining your pet theories on 'creative accounting'.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have the figures then...please link or post.
The making of ads can run into huge figures, the cost of placing them too.

The ads were created internally by RTE. The placement of them in an RTE magazine costs effectively nothing.

Banjo String

Long read.


Worthwhile though.

RTE kindly provided me with this “independent” report, written by big guns PwC, the same “independent” consultants who pronounced the Irish banks adequately capitalised in late 2008, the very same PwC that has been independent auditors to Bank of Ireland throughout the banking crash, the same PwC whose earnings from auditing a single Irish bank have exceeded €100m in recent years.

Happily for PwC, their banking clients have been delighted with them, their independent auditors, in recent years. RTE must be equally delighted with their favourable findings.

Aware that PwC certainly knows how to charge a king’s ransom for these independent services, before I tackled the report I asked RTE how much it cost.

No dice. RTE refused to say. According to a spokesman, it was a “commercially sensitive” matter. A request for the figure had already been refused to another journalist.

By whom?

By RTE’s very own ‘Freedom of Information Officer’ – RTE’s shield against journalists prying into its financial affairs. Quite a good wheeze when your own frontline staff are so skilled at insisting on transparency from others spending public money.

Quelle surprise. When you do hypocrisy, you might as well do it properly.

RTE commissioned the report into itself. It will pay PwC the secret fee with taxpayers’ money. Was PwC, I wondered, asked to do something useful, like to discover why RTE lost €16.8m last year, or to suggest remedies, even to advise on savings?

Not at all. Nothing so practical. PwC was asked to tell the station chiefs what economic impact RTE had on the economy. It sounded like a totally pointless exercise. It was.

And guess what? PwC’s “independent” estimate of economic impact was music to the ears of those who commissioned it. It states that RTE “contributed €384m to national output”. Which presumably means that, somehow, it spent that much somewhere in the economy.

It triumphantly estimated that RTE “supported approximately 3,550 full-time equivalent jobs across the country”. Whatever that really means. Shades of the claims of Enterprise Ireland.

It helpfully found that RTE supports a “vibrant” acting community. It spent €49m on independent commission activities. It even funds indigenous sporting organisations.

It revealed that RTE enjoys high levels of public support, with 75 per cent of the Irish population declaring they were “proud” of the RTE brand.

Despite competition from the BBC, RTE was still commanding a huge audience. It was “trusted”. It had proved its “effectiveness” as a public service broadcaster.

PwC’s superlatives would make arch-rival KPMG blush.

And from what sources, I wondered, did PwC draw its selective information?

According to the small print in the report, it relied “primarily upon secondary data from [er] RTE”. Ho Hum.

This was beginning to look a little bit too cosy.

The report never once mentions that RTE is a financial basket case. It never addresses waste, overlap, over-staffing in middle management or commercial imperatives. It never suggests any remedy to RTE’s chronic financial crisis. Instead, it is sympathetic with a brave victim of the recession, bemoaning the loss of revenue from the licence fee and RTE’s consequent dependence on commercial income. It applauds RTE for its cutbacks, maintaining that “the scale of this reduction is almost unique in the Irish semi-state sector”.

The report is shameless RTE propaganda. Its authors even had the gall to seek endorsements from those to whom RTE gives business galore. Celebrities such as the GAA’s director-general Paraic Duffy and Football Association of Ireland chief John Delaney are wheeled out as big fans of the station.

http://www.shaneross.ie/exposing-double-standards-at-rte/

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

You're not propping up a failed state service though. RTE continues to operate, and their debts haven't been passed on to you.

Yes we are propping it up, what other business would be allowed or able to run at those deficits?
I think you may have swallowed the guff coming from RTE themselves, 'we contribute 350 million to the national coffers' (not sure of the exact figure they where triumphing on more 'in house' created nonsense)

EDIT: I see SamHall has posted the exact figure '384 million' above.

Or you would rather make up figures rather than check properly?

I can't find them, try as I might. Can you?

It's a set of findings you seemingly didn't know about only a few posts ago, so I'll take that review with a pinch of salt.

I was aware of them, what I called for was a 'proper' review not a self serving one.

Hmm - full time salaried artworker, 30 seconds of their time - that's a lots of ad placements to clock up the serious money you're talking about. Again - I'm not really interested in entertaining your pet theories on 'creative accounting'.

You said it 'full time salaried artworker', who might be doing something more productive with his/her time.

The ads were created internally by RTE. The placement of them in an RTE magazine costs effectively nothing.

I was refering to the filmed ad campaigns...produced in-house maybe, but not made for free. And we don't know if a 'cost' was extracted from the licence subvention to pay for airing them. But I just bet.......

creedp

SamHall wrote: »

Long read.


Worthwhile though.




http://www.shaneross.ie/exposing-double-standards-at-rte/

Wonder why there isn't a sustained outcry over the 'independence' and integrity of the leading Auditing/consultancy firms in this country

Leroy42

But if the total tax take goes up by 16.7% (due to overall compliance) that is a 16.7% rise in the amount available.

Does that simply go to RTE? An in addition to the compliance increase, since it is a yearly tax, the cost of the advertising and collection (as it will be up tot he taxpayer to file) will be greatly reduced meaning that even more money exists.

As an aside, with all these additional self return taxes coming in isn't it time we moved to a US based system of everyone having to make a return each year. While it actually exists for many in PAYE only employment the revenue do not require a return but surely this is the easiest way to collect all things such as medical claims, back to school, property tax etc.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes we are propping it up, what other business would be allowed or able to run at those deficits?
I think you may have swallowed the guff coming from RTE themselves, 'we contribute 350 million to the national coffers' (not sure of the exact figure they where triumphing on more 'in house' created nonsense)

Any business that can get bridging loans on the basis of their financial plan. RTE were quite financially secure up until recently.

No guff required to see that their financial position hasn't cost you anything.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I can't find them, try as I might. Can you?.

I'm not looking - it's your claim after all.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was aware of them, what I called for was a 'proper' review not a self serving one..

I'm not talking about the PWC document.
Here's the link for you again:
http://www.bai.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/20130619_BAI-Recommendations-to-Minister-with-Addendum_FINAL_CC.pdf

Happyman42 wrote: »

You said it 'full time salaried artworker', who might be doing something more productive with his/her time.

That 30 seconds per issue? That's nearly a full half hour a year, out of a 30 grand salary!

Happyman42 wrote: »

I was refering to the filmed ad campaigns...produced in-house maybe, but not made for free.

How do you know they weren't?