Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Tv licence system to be changed in Ireland


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-08-2013, 09:56
Maggie_King
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 133

The Irish government are replacing their tv licence with a household media charge that all homes will have to pay, even if they don't have any device. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463...asting-charge/ Should the UK do the same ?
Maggie_King is online now   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-08-2013, 10:06
BMR
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,240
Well you are basically just replacing one flat rate charge with another. It does eliminate the 'I don't watch telly mate' type excuses, so evasion might be lower. It will be interesting to see how they collect/enforce it.

I still think funding from general taxation is better.
BMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:07
stud u like
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Sunny Side Of The Street
Posts: 38,109
Why should all homes pay this tax? Not everyone wants or needs to watch television.

I watch very little television. Whole months go by without watching it.

Television should be pay as you view. That way those who have a higher demand for it pay more and those who find it boring pay less or nothing.
stud u like is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:17
BMR
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,240

Television should be pay as you view. That way those who have a higher demand for it pay more and those who find it boring pay less or nothing.
This is going to clobber pensioners and families though. It would also favour the better off (who can afford other lesiure persuits) and the healthy.

I'm not in favour of this, personally. If funding from general taxation is a nono, then I'd keep things as they are.
BMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:17
DariaM
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,009
The BBC will always reject any notion that the License Fee should be removed, and will always impose the delusion that the BBC remains "solely and uniquely financed by the license fee".However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV - and could easily survive without any license fee.
DariaM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:20
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,204
So students will be expected to stump up up to 150EUR (around 130) each? That could provide some interesting discussions for universities...

The BBC will always reject any notion that the License Fee should be removed, and will always impose the delusion that the BBC remains "solely and uniquely financed by the license fee".However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV - and could easily survive without any license fee.
Bullshit. BBC Worldwide got the BBC 156m this year (down around 9% from usual, but that's still only 170m).

If you think the BBC could do what it does on a budget of roughly 100m you might wish to reaffirm what the BBC actually does. The BBC currently has a revenue of 5,102.3 m a year and is struggling. Without the licence fee it would receive 1 446.m a year. (Including from BBCW and other ventures. Although it's losing a significant amount of grants for certain things, so that figure will decrease soon) All the efficiency cuts and interns in the world would probably struggle to do that much for less than 200m a year...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:22
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,204
The BBC will always reject any notion that the License Fee should be removed, and will always impose the delusion that the BBC remains "solely and uniquely financed by the license fee".However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV - and could easily survive without any license fee.
Difficult to argue with such a well presented and financially analytical statement
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 10:37
cyril-furr
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: By a river - in Iceni country
Posts: 1,428
The BBC will always reject any notion that the License Fee should be removed, and will always impose the delusion that the BBC remains "solely and uniquely financed by the license fee".However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV - and could easily survive without any license fee.
At a de-bloated small PBS level of perhaps one TV channel & one radio channel, yes, the finances without a TVL are there - but I do not believe the BBC has any wish to be smaller, over the years in fact, it has expanded into the internet too.

The Corporation whilst talking loads about change, has in fact changed very little at heart, apart from more money going to higher management & less to the lower ranks & even less on programmes - hence all the repeats.
I liken the future of BBC to an inflating balloon, it has got larger & larger, but sooner or later it will burst & implode.
cyril-furr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 11:13
kidspud
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,204
At a de-bloated small PBS level of perhaps one TV channel & one radio channel, yes, the finances without a TVL are there - but I do not believe the BBC has any wish to be smaller, over the years in fact, it has expanded into the internet too.

The Corporation whilst talking loads about change, has in fact changed very little at heart, apart from more money going to higher management & less to the lower ranks & even less on programmes - hence all the repeats.
I liken the future of BBC to an inflating balloon, it has got larger & larger, but sooner or later it will burst & implode.
Now that is an interesting piece of analysis. Is it true that more money now goes on higher management and less on programmes being made?
kidspud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 12:03
irishfeen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Co.Cork, Ireland.
Posts: 5,893
Interesting to note that TV3 will still not be getting any slice of the new charge.
irishfeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 12:45
DragonQ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 4,285
Seems better than the current UK system but not having exemptions for students is so retarded. There is no way that students can afford to pay for stuff like this, and even if they could, it's paid for out of government money anyway so what's the point? There's a reason students don't pay Council Tax.

If they really want to charge students then for University Halls one "licence fee" per building, which is included in rent, makes sense and is affordable. It'd almost certainly generate more money than now, considering most students don't pay their licence fees even if they sneakily watch iPlayer Live or whatever. For private properties, it should be one per household as it is for everyone else.

Essentially the same reasoning applies to pensioners, which is why, as I've said numerous times, paying for a PSB out of general taxation makes more sense.
DragonQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 14:50
Howard_Hockey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 144
If it happened in the UK and it were a direct "earmarked" tax I'd object on the grounds of paying for a service I am not using - if I didn't use it (case for European Courts, perhaps?).

If it's not a specific tax for a specific purpose, in a way that education, defence, NHS isn't (we all put in whether we use them or not) then the BBC should come out of general taxation, or, at a push, council taxation.

A flat fee per household doesn't take into account
(a) how many live there
(b) the incomes of those living there
(c) how often the service is used (if at all).

Personally, I'd go towards a pay-tv system where the government puts in a percentage (say 50%), and if you want the BBC then you have to use a top-up card and pay the other 50%. You would be able to get the other channels (ITV etc) without this card. Most TV's and boxes now have slots for cards and such like. Plus an add-on tax for all new TV sales on top of VAT, which goes directly to public service broadcasters.
Howard_Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 15:10
Spdub2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 181
This is going to clobber pensioners .
Pensioners already get a free licence

but not having exemptions for students is so retarded. There is no way that students can afford to pay for stuff like thi
There's no current exemption so why would they introduce one now
Spdub2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 15:51
Dan's Dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,996
The BBC ..... could easily survive without any license fee.
Any chance of your publishing a balance sheet here that supports your argument?
Dan's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 15:55
Dan's Dad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,996
Pensioners already get a free licence
I reach state retirement age in three days time - - -

then I have a ten year wait until I would qualify for the 'free' TV Licence;

but then its not really free, it's paid for by all the lovely tax-payers, of which I remain one!
Dan's Dad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 16:32
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,204
There's no current exemption so why would they introduce one now
Yes, but at the moment they have the option to opt out and not watch TV. Under this scheme they'd have to pay regardless...
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 16:39
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 58,558
.However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV
As you appear to be well-informed on these matters, could you quote the income that the BBC actually receives from those sources please (and no, I am not talking about the income that BBC Worldwide receives, I am talking about the income from BBC Worldwide profits that are passed back to the BBC).
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 16:55
Gary_LandyFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,654
The BBC will always reject any notion that the License Fee should be removed, and will always impose the delusion that the BBC remains "solely and uniquely financed by the license fee".However, the BBC has a Global Income Feed from the sale of merchandising (CD/DVD/BluRay, books) and media through Subscription TV - and could easily survive without any license fee.
Firstly, it is Licence with a C not License with an S.

Secondly, whilst the BBC would no doubt exist in some form without being funded by the money levied from the TV Licence, the programming they currently provide would change.

The BBC currently creates programming that is not commercially viable, if the BBC had to become a Commercial broadcaster, this type of programming would no longer be created.

Also if the BBC has not got as much money to create programmes, they aren't going to be able to sell them around the world via BBC Worldwide, so that income would drop.
Gary_LandyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 16:59
Gary_LandyFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,654
At a de-bloated small PBS level of perhaps one TV channel & one radio channel, yes, the finances without a TVL are there - but I do not believe the BBC has any wish to be smaller, over the years in fact, it has expanded into the internet too.

The Corporation whilst talking loads about change, has in fact changed very little at heart, apart from more money going to higher management & less to the lower ranks & even less on programmes - hence all the repeats.
I liken the future of BBC to an inflating balloon, it has got larger & larger, but sooner or later it will burst & implode.
Yeah thats what needs to happen, turn a respectable broadcaster (to most, I know some won't agree) into a channel that has to beg for money...
Gary_LandyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 17:03
Gary_LandyFan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,654
If it happened in the UK and it were a direct "earmarked" tax I'd object on the grounds of paying for a service I am not using - if I didn't use it (case for European Courts, perhaps?).

If it's not a specific tax for a specific purpose, in a way that education, defence, NHS isn't (we all put in whether we use them or not) then the BBC should come out of general taxation, or, at a push, council taxation.

A flat fee per household doesn't take into account
(a) how many live there
(b) the incomes of those living there
(c) how often the service is used (if at all).

Personally, I'd go towards a pay-tv system where the government puts in a percentage (say 50%), and if you want the BBC then you have to use a top-up card and pay the other 50%. You would be able to get the other channels (ITV etc) without this card. Most TV's and boxes now have slots for cards and such like. Plus an add-on tax for all new TV sales on top of VAT, which goes directly to public service broadcasters.
But you, like may others beforehand, wrongfully think that the TV Licence just covers the BBC.

The TV Licence covers ALL TV CHANNELS. Tomorrow the government could decide to stop using the TV Licence money to fund the BBC, but the TV Licence would not disappear because of this.
This, and the notion that the BBC should go down the subscription route are fantasies cooked up by people with an anti-BBC agenda.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the BBC going subscription is never going to happen.

You mention a card, I would support that idea as long as without one you could not watch ANY TV channel, and that everyone got their equipment replaced like-for-like with equipment that would accept viewing cards at no expense for themselves.
Gary_LandyFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 17:44
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,204
As you appear to be well-informed on these matters, could you quote the income that the BBC actually receives from those sources please (and no, I am not talking about the income that BBC Worldwide receives, I am talking about the income from BBC Worldwide profits that are passed back to the BBC).
You didn't directly ask me, but, in response to DariaM, I posted the information earlier. However, I didn't source it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/wor...ualreview.html
According to the BBC's annual review BBC Worldwide returned to the BBC 156m in 2012.

This is a general overview of the BBC's finances, but it's quite technical, and lists income by source, as well as operating costs for each source:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualrep...ts-2012-13.pdf
theonlyweeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 18:23
BMR
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,240
Tomorrow the government could decide to stop using the TV Licence money to fund the BBC, but the TV Licence would not disappear because of this.
There would be an outcry if they did this. It isn't going to happen.
BMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 18:46
Howard_Hockey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 144
But you, like may others beforehand, wrongfully think that the TV Licence just covers the BBC.

The TV Licence covers ALL TV CHANNELS. Tomorrow the government could decide to stop using the TV Licence money to fund the BBC, but the TV Licence would not disappear because of this.
This, and the notion that the BBC should go down the subscription route are fantasies cooked up by people with an anti-BBC agenda.

Anyone with half a brain can see that the BBC going subscription is never going to happen.

You mention a card, I would support that idea as long as without one you could not watch ANY TV channel, and that everyone got their equipment replaced like-for-like with equipment that would accept viewing cards at no expense for themselves.
First line explains that it is the only direct earmarked tax. The vast majority goes to the BBC, now is that incorrect?
As it is earmarked, yes you need to pay it to cover all your viewing, but imo that shouldn't be the case. You should be able to watch non-funded channels without any licence or sub - unless those channels demand a sub.
I like the BBC, and don't have an anti-Aunty agenda. I'm trying to help it get it's money - and keep the fee down. By only allowing access by using a card (maybe just the current fee, maybe you could sub weekly so if you are out of the country you don't have to pay for what you don't use) then the BBC doesn't suffer from viewers watching but not paying the fee.
If the government stopped funding the BBC but continued to charge us the licence there would be a public outcry, and that simply wouldn't happen.
The licence fee paid and a card recieved, to me, is a subscription.
Howard_Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 19:36
noise747
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 17,475
The Irish government are replacing their tv licence with a household media charge that all homes will have to pay, even if they don't have any device. http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0717/463...asting-charge/ Should the UK do the same ?
How are they going to police that? If someone don't watch TV or any broadcast what so ever then they should not pay for it.


i would rather take the chance than pay for it if this country ever done that.
noise747 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2013, 20:41
zz9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 9,169
First line explains that it is the only direct earmarked tax. The vast majority goes to the BBC, now is that incorrect?
As it is earmarked, yes you need to pay it to cover all your viewing, but imo that shouldn't be the case. You should be able to watch non-funded channels without any licence or sub - unless those channels demand a sub.
I like the BBC, and don't have an anti-Aunty agenda. I'm trying to help it get it's money - and keep the fee down. By only allowing access by using a card (maybe just the current fee, maybe you could sub weekly so if you are out of the country you don't have to pay for what you don't use) then the BBC doesn't suffer from viewers watching but not paying the fee.
If the government stopped funding the BBC but continued to charge us the licence there would be a public outcry, and that simply wouldn't happen.
The licence fee paid and a card recieved, to me, is a subscription.
of all the other countries that have a TV licence none allows people to opt out by only watching other broadcasters. That would be like allowing people to opt out of paying for the NHS if they have BUPA.
The key point of a public service is that it is available to all. We don't demand people show their NHS card to prove they have paid their NHS tax before treating them.

And if the argument is "the NHS saves lives! The BBC isn't as important" then what about all the other services I am forced to pay for whether or not I use them or how much I use them? Schools? rubbish collection? Street cleaning? Parks? Train and bus subsidies? Subsidies for art galleries, opera and ballet (which cost far far more per user than the BBC) and so on? These are all public services that benefit society as a whole. None of them allow people to opt out. Why should funding for the national broadcaster? No other country allows that.
zz9 is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:37.