Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…6791112…31

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    alastair wrote: »
    Just using some common sense. Pat has proven to be an able negotiator, and it's rather unlikely he's opted for a worse deal than the one he was on. And RTE are clearly very bitter that they've lost him.


    I am sure RTE have a few others in D4 who may fill his boots, no not Tubridy.
    Kenny is nearly 66, so he has a few years left in him yet. We are still entertained with Gay Byrne despite his retirement:o


  • Options
    #243
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    I am sure RTE have a few others in D4 who may fill his boots, no not Tubridy.

    Myles Dungan or Philip Boucher-Hayes seem like a good place to start.


  • Options
    #244
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    alastair wrote: »
    Myles Dungan or Philip Boucher-Hayes seem like a good place to start.

    Yes, possibly.

    Kenny will be an asset to Newstalk. I have always liked his radio work, but not on TV.


  • Options
    #245
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Yes, possibly.
    Kenny will be an asset to Newstalk. I have always liked his radio work, but not on TV.

    I agree with you there. I think RTE are going to lose out on advertising. His radio programme was always a good one. There is little else of it's type on any other station. I can't think of who could fill his shoes.


  • Options
    #246
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Just assuming it since as far as I know none of the private media companies operate on a contractor basis they are all employed directly, could be wrong though
    It is sufficient for a contractor (as a legal personality or as a sole trader) to be able to convince Revenue that he is not an ordinary employee (e.g. by exercising managerial discretion in the undertaking of his work, and not being bound by the obligations of ordinary employees).

    There is no bar to this happening in the private sector. In fact, I would say this "private contractor" manner of tax avoidance is almost uniquely a private sector phenomenon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    alastair wrote: »
    The new licencing system won't cost you a cent more than the current TV licence costs.

    What makes you so sure, alastair?


  • Options
    #248
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    darkhorse wrote: »
    What makes you so sure, alastair?

    Because we've been told that already.


  • Options
    #249
    Banjo String
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    alastair wrote: »
    Because we've been told that already.

    Fool me once....




  • Options
    #250
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    alastair wrote: »
    Because we've been told that already.

    By who, asastair?


  • Options
    #251
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    darkhorse wrote: »
    By who, asastair?

    Pat Rabbitte.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html
    Announcing major changes to the way public service broadcasting is funded Communications Minister Pat Rabbitte today gave a commitment the new charge will not exceed the current €160 a year licence fee.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    It's called tax, same with prsi, pensions levies etc, usc etc etc etc, I get why we need these 'charges', but to try and pretend they are all ringfenced in different little paddocks of money is just stupid.

    What gets me is the lack of respect they have for the general population, we promised we wouldn't increase in tax rates and we haven't, however those horrid troika people are making us impose certain non discretionary charges on home ownership, water, broadcasting etc etc. Why don't they just decrease cut-off bands or decrease Tax credits and be done with it.


  • Options
    #253
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    alastair wrote: »
    Pat Rabbitte.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html[/QUOTE]

    That makes me feel very re-assured.

    Cue 2015. But you told the public that it wouldn't be any more than the TV licence
    Sure isn't that something that you tend to say.


  • Options
    #254
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Glenbhoy wrote: »
    It's called tax, same with prsi, pensions levies etc, usc etc etc etc, I get why we need these 'charges', but to try and pretend they are all ringfenced in different little paddocks of money is just stupid.

    What gets me is the lack of respect they have for the general population, we promised we wouldn't increase in tax rates and we haven't, however those horrid troika people are making us impose certain non discretionary charges on home ownership, water, broadcasting etc etc. Why don't they just decrease cut-off bands or decrease Tax credits and be done with it.

    The TV licence is ringfenced for one purpose only though - broadcasting subsidy. Just as the LPT, commercial rates, and a few others are. There's no pretence in that regard.

    The TV licence was here long before the Troika, as was property taxation (in the form of domestic rates). And there's perfectly good reasons to spread the scope of taxation beyond income tax - if security of revenue, and encouraging job creation are your goals.


  • Options
    #255
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    darkhorse wrote: »
    alastair wrote: »
    Pat Rabbitte.
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html[/QUOTE]

    That makes me feel very re-assured.

    Cue 2015. But you told the public that it wouldn't be any more than the TV licence
    Sure isn't that something that you tend to say.

    You asked, and I told you. Have fun with the crystal ball.


  • Options
    #256
    robertxxx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭robertxxx


    Why can't rte just f.u.ck the f.u.ck off! Who needed's them?


  • Options
    #257
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    alastair wrote: »
    Because we've been told that already.

    So, if you do NOT own a TV, you won't have to pay more under the new proposed broadcasting charge system?

    How do you make that out?


  • Options
    #258
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    View wrote: »
    So, if you do NOT own a TV, you won't have to pay more under the new proposed broadcasting charge system?

    How do you make that out?

    Did I say that?


  • Options
    #259
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    alastair wrote: »
    Did I say that?

    Yes, you did:
    alastair wrote: »
    The new licencing system won't cost you a cent more than the current TV licence costs.


  • Options
    #260
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    View wrote: »
    Yes, you did:

    Yes - in response to someone who already owns a TV. Not really the same thing at all, is it?

    Do you own a TV?


  • Options
    #261
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    I always understood that the RTE website was a commercially funded enterprise, like the RTE guide. It doesn't make sense then that the broadcasting charge should apply to those that view the website since it isn't license funded.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Glenbhoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,853 ✭✭✭Glenbhoy


    alastair wrote: »
    The TV licence is ringfenced for one purpose only though - broadcasting subsidy. Just as the LPT, commercial rates, and a few others are. There's no pretence in that regard.

    The TV licence was here long before the Troika, as was property taxation (in the form of domestic rates). And there's perfectly good reasons to spread the scope of taxation beyond income tax - if security of revenue, and encouraging job creation are your goals.

    I don't disagree with broadening the tax base, certainly makes sense, but we're not talking about taxes are we, these are obligatory charges for services (even where such services may or may not be consumed or even accessible)

    I don't accept your first point though, when a country has a 12bn current deficit nothing is ringfenced. Next you'll be telling me that prsi goes into a pot to pay pensions and benefits!!!


  • Options
    #263
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    alastair wrote: »
    Do you own a TV?

    No. I don't own one by choice. You can buy or rent a lot of movies for the cost of the annual TV license fee.
    alastair wrote: »
    Yes - in response to someone who already owns a TV. Not really the same thing at all, is it?

    Well it is because it clearly isn't a case that the change will cost us no more than the current system. People who own TVs and pay their license fee will lose the option to get rid of them and not have to pay a license fee.

    The law-abiding are to be penalised because the state can't bother to enforce its rules on the small minority who flout the law.


  • Options
    #264
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    View wrote: »


    The law-abiding are to be penalised because the state can't bother to enforce its rules on the small minority who flout the law.
    TV licence fee evasion level 16%, says Rabbitte

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/tv-licence-fee-evasion-level-16-says-rabbitte-1.1406948

    That is a good few. Better off paying for RTE if you want it, IMO, like a subscription on Sky or somewhere. Might be a lot cheaper and let RTE get its revenue from adverts and fees it would be paid from Sky or whoever. Such might make RTE slimmer and efficient, dynamic and accountable to its paymasters.


  • Options
    #265
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    View wrote: »
    No. I don't own one by choice. You can buy or rent a lot of movies for the cost of the annual TV license fee.



    Well it is because it clearly isn't a case that the change will cost us no more than the current system. People who own TVs and pay their license fee will lose the option to get rid of them and not have to pay a license fee.

    The law-abiding are to be penalised because the state can't bother to enforce its rules on the small minority who flout the law.

    There's rather more on the telly than movies. Not too many of them on the radio either.

    If you don't own a telly, and you're a householder it'll cost you more alright. But public broadcasting is something that merits support as a social benefit.


  • Options
    #266
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/tv-licence-fee-evasion-level-16-says-rabbitte-1.1406948

    That is a good few. Better off paying for RTE if you want it, IMO, like a subscription on Sky or somewhere. Might be a lot cheaper and let RTE get its revenue from adverts and fees it would be paid from Sky or whoever. Such might make RTE slimmer and efficient, dynamic and accountable to its paymasters.

    Have you noticed any commercial TV channels being accountable to their paymasters in a manner that you clearly believe RTE aren't? How would radio work in a subscription scenario? How about minority programming like TG4?


  • Options
    #267
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/tv-licence-fee-evasion-level-16-says-rabbitte-1.1406948

    That is a good few.

    The rate of evasion for any tax ot law depends on the level of enforcement of it. Any sort of serious crack down would half that figure.

    You don't even need a crack down to do so - do like the Swiss do whereby a Cable TV operator (and I presume Satellite TV service) must charge the license fee on a monthly pro-rata basis just like they must charge VAT. That won't hurt the law abiding (as they already pay) but will hit the evaders if they subscribe to either of the above (and Ireland has very high penetration rates for both of these).

    After all, we have a fair rate of road tax evasion - should we now levy that charge on all adults (even if they don't own cars) in order to avoid the hassle of enforcing the law on road tax evaders?


  • Options
    #268
    darkhorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭darkhorse


    SamHall wrote: »
    Just when I thought they couldnt get any more closer to a dictatorship these clowns in Govt have decided that they will start charging each household on the country a 'broadcasting charge', and that it will apply regardless of whether you have a television, computer or any other device that can pick up public information.:confused:

    (Even applies to pwople who have none of the above)
    [/QUOTE]

    You are right here, Sam. The thing is, why are they calling it a "broadcasting charge", when it is clearly an internet tax?


  • Options
    #269
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    darkhorse wrote: »
    You are right here, Sam. The thing is, why are they calling it a "broadcasting charge", when it is clearly an internet tax?

    The name been given to the charge refers to what it is to be used for (public service broadcasting), not what it levied on (households).
    I suppose they could call it a household charge - they'd get to reuse some letterheads. :pac:


  • Options
    #270
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    alastair wrote: »
    Have you noticed any commercial TV channels being accountable to their paymasters in a manner that you clearly believe RTE aren't? How would radio work in a subscription scenario? How about minority programming like TG4?

    RTE can do no wrong? There are plenty of independent radio stations. Who says we need RTE radio as well? If there is not enough demand for the likes of TG4 by subscription then it would go, simple economics.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    RTE can do no wrong? There are plenty of independent radio stations. Who says we need RTE radio as well? If there is not enough demand for the likes of TG4 by subscription then it would go, simple economics.

    Try to focus on the points I'm making - not putting words in people's mouths, eh? There may well be plenty of independent radio stations (who also benefit from the TV licence natch!), but how many operate on a subscription basis? There would not be enough demand for a subscription Irish language channel, so yes - it would go. 'Simple economics' provide for simple, and often simply poor, outcomes.


Advertisement