TV licence soon required for PCs, laptops, and tablets?

I love Sean nos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Where does this figure come from?

Your Face

Not sure they can risk another tax backlash.

Bob24

OU812 wrote: »

They'll still have the same amount of dodgers whether they call it broadcasting fee or licence fee.

Clearly the goal of this plan is not to go after cheaters. They want to widen the pool of people who need to pay to include people who are law abiding be don't have a TV so are currently not paying. Basically rather that going after the cheats who watch TV and refuse to pay, they find it easier to go after so honest people who potentially never watch TV but are honest and will pay if told they have to do so.

jonon9

The sooner rte closes its doors the better.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OU812

Bob24 wrote: »

Clearly the goal of this plan is not to go after cheaters. They want to widen the pool of people who need to pay to include people who are law abiding be don't have a TV so are currently not paying. Basically rather that going after the cheats who watch TV and refuse to pay, they find it easier to go after so honest people who potentially never watch TV but are honest and will pay if told they have to do so.

And by using the electricity bill to collect, they'll eliminate the cheaters as they'll have no way (almost) of charging a device without consuming electricity.

They'd immediately have almost 100% compliance, which should in turn allow them to lower the charge to €120 a year (€10 a month) without impacting the take - like that would EVER happen!!

Bob24

Your Face wrote: »

Not sure they can risk another tax backlash.

I think politically they are safe. The main reason water charges became so toxic for the government is that as opposed to most previous changes they were affecting pretty much everyone in the country rather than hitting just one subset of the population at a time (which both helped the creation of a united front, and made some people who are used never to pay anything angry).

This proposal is much smaller in scope as it would only impact people who currently don't own a TV and don't have their licence paid through social welfare programmes.

I love Sean nos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hardly a trustworthy source then.

Your Face

Bob24 wrote: »

I think politically they are safe. The main reason water charges became so toxic for the government is that as opposed to most previous changes they were affecting pretty much everyone in the country rather than hitting just one subset of the population at a time (which both helped the creation of a united front, and made some people who are used never to pay anything angry).

This proposal is much smaller in scope as it would only impact people who currently don't own a TV and don't have their licence paid through social welfare programmes.

I wonder though, could the backlash be reasoned around the fact they will only raise an extra 5 million a year.

ChikiChiki

I've known this was in scope for a while. However is it being accelerated because of the head of RTE's comments last week?

They can fcuk right off. They're not relevant for much longer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

OU812 wrote: »

And by using the electricity bill to collect, they'll eliminate the cheaters as they'll have no way (almost) of charging a device without consuming electricity.

They'd immediately have almost 100% compliance, which should in turn allow them to lower the charge to €120 a year (€10 a month) without impacting the take - like that would EVER happen!!

Yes but if you do that doesn't it become an electricity levy rather than TV licence? (i.e. not really the same thing any-more as someone who genuinely doesn't have any device capable of displaying TV broadcast would have to pay)

Also if the point is to make sure everyone household pays it no matter what, what not simply asking Revenue to take care of collecting it rather than getting all electricity providers involved (Revenue already has collection capabilities as well as a database of all premises in the county which they built-up to administer the LTP).

K.Flyer

Your Face wrote: »

I wonder though, could the backlash be reasoned around the fact they will only raise an extra 5 million a year.

Sure that would hardly pay for a few presenters and the directors wages. :rolleyes:
Seriously, they can fcuk right off if they think they will line their pockets with my money for a service that I don't use.

TheDoc

This has been attempted numerous times before, and then there is such viscous backlash that it gets "kicked into touch".

I pay my TV license as I'm somewhat "whatever" about it and I don't want the hassle for €160. Should the new measure be €160 covering all devices, then no major problem since I already pay my license. I don't like it nor agree with it, as I don't avail of any RTE services, I just don't want the hassle really of being chased for it.

And I'm sure we have the same old conversations about RTE being a waste and what have you, which it is, but that is not really something the government would entertain. They will keep taxing us to prop up that broadcaster so as not to have to deal with the job losses that would happen if it was a private entity, which it would have gone under years ago.

As for the political effects, the Minister is an independent so I cannot impact him directly as he's not from my constituency. But should he align himself with a party, or if his ties are still strong to FG, I'll be sure to remember this as a personal issue come elections. Did the same with that fool Sherlock from Labor with his whole debacle a few years ago that whilst the impacts were very much blown out of proportion by many opposing it, the TD's blatant disregard for the subject matter and just wanting to get his name on a bill, ensured I excluded Labor from consideration and my influence reached to a few others.

That's the only time it matters and when you can actually influence these things. It's just another case of an old organisation unable to react and adapt to the changes in technology, and wanting to ensure margins and remain and the gravy train continues, as opposed to adapting

The mere fact Rte get state funding while running advertisements and product placements is just laughable anyway, as if the TV license wasn't already a massive two fingers to the tax payer.

TheQuietFella

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How can they prove what size of your screen. Many people have multiple
devices in their homes and if a knock came to your door you could just
show them the smallest device!

Bob24

TheQuietFella wrote: »

How can they prove what size of your screen. Many people have multiple
devices in their homes and if a knock came to your door you could just
show them the smallest device!

Currently you can already not let them in and/or avoid showing them your TV and there is not much they can do about it. So from there perspective there is not much of a change.

I love Sean nos

Leaving the TV aspect aside for a moment, this could have an impact of people having work devices in the home. My work supplies me with a laptop. I bring this home with me as it facilitates me working unusual hours and sometimes doing out of hours work supporting deployments, etc. If this comes in, I'll be passing the bill to work to pay. If they don't, then the laptop will stay in the office.

If this bill ever comes to pass and if it ever covered phones, I'd do the same.

jacksie66

jacksie66 wrote: »

A joke. So I already paid tax to the government when I bought my laptop, phone or tablet. I pay tax on the electricity I use to charge it. I pay tax on my Internet so that I can watch content. And now they want an extra 160 to pay for a TV network I never watch and to pay some worthless TV presenters salary.
They can rightly shag off..

You forgot the tax you paid on your income.

murpho999

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Leaving the TV aspect aside for a moment, this could have an impact of people having work devices in the home. My work supplies me with a laptop. I bring this home with me as it facilitates me working unusual hours and sometimes doing out of hours work supporting deployments, etc. If this comes in, I'll be passing the bill to work to pay. If they don't, then the laptop will stay in the office.

If this bill ever comes to pass and if it ever covered phones, I'd do the same.

How could this ever be enforced?

Do you think An Post are going to come into your house searching for laptops.

It's a ridiculous proposal.

I would say a €10 levy on all devices at time of purchase , would probably bring more money in than the licence fee.

extra gravy

Do they not realise you can cast or hook up your less than 11 inch tablet to a monitor and stream away to your heart's content. Shower of gob****es, pity they wouldn't spend their time dealing with the real issues affecting the country instead of trying to fleece us taxpayers even more.

I love Sean nos

murpho999 wrote: »

How could this ever be enforced?

Do you think An Post are going to come into your house searching for laptops.

It's a ridiculous proposal.

I would say a €10 levy on all devices at time of purchase , would probably bring more money in than the licence fee.

Hello Northern Ireland shopping.

Billy86

TheQuietFella wrote: »

How can they prove what size of your screen. Many people have multiple
devices in their homes and if a knock came to your door you could just
show them the smallest device!

And what about projectors as well? I have a PC that I've turned into a media/game center essentially, should be moving abroad in a while and taking it with me, and rather than getting a TV I've looked into projectors - you can get some for €100-200 in Ireland (first hand) about the size of a VHS cover (some as small as a smartphone) and many of them are very good quality even up to 100 inches and beyond. If that catches on as a trend, will they try to tax them too?

The same with the next piece of technology to come along, and so on and so on as we're getting towards the point where media will be accessible on many devices. E.g. if smart watches or even commonplace items come with a projector function (talking down the line here but when you have projectors this size already out there we're probably not far off), do we just apply TV tax basically everything from watches to glasses, to whatever else in time will conceivably be able to broadcast anything?



Also, I'm assuming it does but does TV licence apply to radios for people who have one but no TV?

murpho999

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Hello Northern Ireland shopping.

It would cost you more than that to get up to the North and back.

It's just one idea, there must be loads of ways to get rid of the TV licence and collect money.

It would eliminate need for collectors, inspectors, administration, court costs etc.

pilly

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Aah, well that's totally different to the number of households that actually don't own a TV.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

NeVeR

Why are we forced to pay for this stupid service.

If they think it's such a great service make the a paid subscription service and see how many people sign up.

I can't remember the last time I watched and listened to an RTE service. Just shut the place down.. there TV shows are sh!t.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pilly

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Ah I've no doubt there are people who don't have one. Just doubt the figure is as high as 32,500 houses.

Personally I think it would be a pity to see a decline in television sets where it's replaced by everyone on their own rooms on other devices.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ChikiChiki

Irish Water Part 2 in the making with this one. Doesn't seem very well thought out. What about expats temporarily returning home with devices?

Why do they always chase more money instead of restructuring and implementing efficiencies. That goes for everything the govt is involved with.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It really is amazing how some industries still are up to speed with the lessons learned by the music and private film/TV industries over the last 15 years.

Side note: piracy has apparently rapidly since Netflix, Spotify, etc came about - funny how people will pay for a good service at a good price point like that, eh? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/

No. At present, you have to pay the licence fee only if you have a TV set. Radios don't count.

Interesting how they're only applying it to their TV stuff then, not that radio only users would bring much extra in as there would be very few and my guess is the majority would be more on the elderly side. But it just adds even further to the inconsistency.

I can't see things going well for RTE over the next 15-20 years though to be honest - given the choice of fighting for every last taxpayers Euro and going bust in the process, or building up a positive public image on the back of home grown produce (ala BBC)... well... I think we all know which route RTE would prefer to go down.

Rossi IRL

Its a joke. RTE should be made stand on its own feet.

Why are we forced to pay for RTE, its just not right.

They should be able to make enough money through advertisements to run itself.

mac.in

Let RTE become a pay channel and people pay subscription charges if they wish to access RTE. Then, the reality of the RTE requirement amongst the people would come into picture. Subsequently, RTE shall frame its strategies for its survival.

Sleeper12

This won't work at all.
If you have to take your work laptop home then your employer will pay for the licence. This will make the fee tax deductible. End result is they'll take in less than they are at the moment.
It's not thought out at all

Sleeper12

pilly wrote:

Ah I've no doubt there are people who don't have one. Just doubt the figure is as high as 32,500 houses.

You'd be surprised by the amount of young people who don't own a TV at all. I see a lot of using pcs or laptops.

expectationlost

how do they prove it?

andekwarhola

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This won't work at all.
If you have to take your work laptop home then your employer will pay for the licence. This will make the fee tax deductible. End result is they'll take in less than they are at the moment.
It's not thought out at all

Probably levy the cost directly on to devices at point of sale.

pilly

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You'd be surprised by the amount of young people who don't own a TV at all. I see a lot of using pcs or laptops.

Maybe so, if it is the case I think it's a shame. Make it such a solitary exercise and it can't be great for the eyes either.

Sleeper12

andekwarhola wrote:

Probably levy the cost directly on to devices at point of sale.

If the average life span of a laptop is 5 years & they are going to charge 200 per year that adds 1000 euro to the retail price. That's not going to work

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then its a property tax, and would be simpler and more efficient to collect as that.

filbert the fox

murpho999 wrote: »

No,they don't won't to double the licence fee, the DG was misquoted.

Either way a licence fee on tablets over a certain size is totally unenforceable.

They need to come up with a new way of collecting this revenue.

Never mind that that fee on devices is unenforceable - the One in Five who currently break the law for non possession of a licence - what's being done about them?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

JDxtra

Shut down all TV and radio stations except RTE 1 and RTE Radio 1. Get rid of Fair City. Have all news, current affairs and sport on the remaining TV and radio channel. Charge €75/year.

Zillah

We should definitely have and pay for a public news broadcasting service. We want and need journalism free from economic pressures to avoid undue influence or the need for lowest common denominator click-farming.

So cancel everything RTE do other than the news service, slash the license fee to about 20%, and have a very well run well funded news service. Personally I'm not sure how it is even legal to have a state funded competitor poisoning the market for private broadcasters like TV3.

Did you know Ryan Tubridy gets paid half a million euro every year? Makes me physically sick.

I did some math:
If you sent someone door to door, spending five minutes at each house, and convinced every single homeowner to dig into their pockets and hand over 160 euro cash, and did this non-stop for an eight hour shift every day, to gather enough to cover Tubridy's salary it would take you thirty two days without a day off to do it.

filbert the fox

Zillah wrote: »

We should definitely have and pay for a public news broadcasting service. We want and need journalism free from economic pressures to avoid undue influence or the need for lowest common denominator click-farming.

So cancel everything RTE do other than the news service, slash the license fee to about 20%, and have a very well run well funded news service. Personally I'm not sure how it is even legal to have a state funded competitor poisoning the market for private broadcasters like TV3.

Did you know Ryan Tubridy gets paid half a million euro every year? Makes me physically sick.

I did some math:
If you sent someone door to door, spending five minutes at each house, and convinced every single homeowner to dig into their pockets and hand over 160 euro cash, and did this non-stop for an eight hour shift every day, to gather enough to cover Tubridy's salary it would take you thirty two days without a day off to do it.

leave the poor fella alone - sure he's workin' all the hours providence can give....sure there's not a pick on him - doesn't even have time to eat.

.....and sure doesn't the Revenue get 52% back....

_Kaiser_

Zillah wrote: »

We should definitely have and pay for a public news broadcasting service. We want and need journalism free from economic pressures to avoid undue influence or the need for lowest common denominator click-farming.

Agreed but that's not RTE I'm afraid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bob24

Zillah wrote: »

We want and need journalism free from economic pressures to avoid undue influence or the need for lowest common denominator click-farming.

Freeing them for financial pressure is one possible mean to achieve it, but I think the end goal is much broader: we should expect a national broadcaster to be as unbiased as possible in its reporting, and to represent the various ways of thinking in Irish society.

The problem is that because RTE is free from financial pressure and has guaranteed income, there is noting forcing it to deliver that end goal. And as with every organisation since there is nothing pushing it otherwise it tends towards only one give bias and ideology and that strong core of editorial staff who all broadly have the same political opinions is both unrepresentative of society as a whole and preventing any change as it will make it very hard for someone who things differently to be accepted.

This problem is not unique to RTE and exists with public broadcasters in a number of other countries.

Bob24

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am not saying it is working (and there are other reasons why RTE is biased), but I think one purpose of having a TV licence ring-fenced to fund broadcasting rather than using general taxation is meant to be a way to insulate the likes of RTE from political pressure (i.e. it makes it more difficult for the government to quietly change the money allocated to RTE in the budget each years as a way to pressure them into being complaisant).