# The Director General of RTE wants an increase in the licence fee ... seriously ????



## MrEarl (12 Jul 2017)

I just could not believe  this when I saw it....

There is absolutely no way that the fee should be increased at this time. 

RTE are in serious need of proper restructuring and while that process would appear to have commenced, it is far from complete and until such time as all work has been concluded and the final situation clear for all to see, no new money should be put into the broadcaster.

Thereafter, we all seriously need to look at whether or not RTE is fit for purpose.  I am 100% in favour of having a national broadcaster holding both a tv station and a radio station.  I further support the concept of TG4 (whether it be considered part of RTE, or entirely independent).  

But I do not support the national broadcasting company having two national broadcast tv channels and several terrestrial radio stations.   There is absolutely no need for RTE to be trying to compete with other entertainment channels, that is not the function of a state broadcaster.  There is simply no justification for it, in an age where numerous tv channels are available across all of Ireland, via satellite, digital transmission or cable - providing general entertainment, kids tv, news etc.  Paying vast sums of money to buy in content such as Eastenders, or Homeland is simply crazy, when BBC1 and Ch. 4 can be accessed across all of Ireland.

Likewise, holding several national radio stations is inappropriate at a time when we have multiple commercial stations available on the FM & AM spectrums, not to mention significantly more competition via digital transmissions.

When I first heard that RTE were going to sell some of their surplus land at Donnybrook I was delighted, as it was long long overdue. However, then I heard they were intending to rebuild the set for Fair City elsewhere in the RTE campus, because the current location is part of the land RTE are selling - this simply defies belief !   Why not build the set on far cheaper land elsewhere ? It's hardly like the modern world we live in would not enable the cast and crew to transport themselves and their equipment to an alternative location (with a much cheaper carrying cost than a plot in a prime Dublin location).

RTE needs to be broken up, with all non-core assets sold to the private sector.  Funds raised form these sales could easily be reinvested in other worthwhile national projects - be it broadband for rural Ireland, housing, hospitals etc.  Let us put our resources to best use and not continue to see funds tied up unnecessarily in a broadcasting company that we don't need. 

When all of the above has been done, then lets have a look at the payroll at RTE and see some justification for the salaries some of their staff are being paid.  I've heard the argument from RTE in times past about having to pay "the going rate" to get top talent etc. but that's wrong - we don't need top talent, we need capable people and RTE have lots of them, many of whom do not need to be paid €200k - €450k per year. 

Finally, after all of the above has been properly attended to, then and only then, lets have a genuine look at what needs to be paid by way of annual licence fee to run our fit for purpose national broadcaster.


----------



## dub_nerd (12 Jul 2017)

Excellent post Mr. Earl. However, turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Your concerns may resonate with the public at large, but how do you persuade the various empire builders in RTE and vested interests in government to listen to them? Water protests notwithstanding, Ireland is not good at organised dissent.


----------



## Logo (12 Jul 2017)

RTÉ Salaries (2016):

Ryan Tubridy: €495,000
Joe Duffy: €416,893
Marian Finucane: €295,000
Sean O’Rourke: €290,096
Miriam O’Callaghan: €280,445
Bryan Dobson: €195,816
George Lee: €179,031
Richard Crowley: €174,120
Colm Hayes: €169,992
Derek Mooney: €168,871
RTÉ claims that is has achieved cuts of 40pc in relation to the fees earned by the top ten paid personalities as compared to 2008.

(*Source [broken link removed]).


----------



## Ceist Beag (12 Jul 2017)

Whatever about those working full time, paying Marian Finucane €295K per year for a weekend shift is obscene. I know she earned nearly twice that for the same role previously so RTE will claim they have made a significant cut in her salary but it is still an outrageous amount of money for a few hours a week.


----------



## Logo (12 Jul 2017)

Ceist Beag said:


> paying Marian Finucane €295K per year for a weekend shift


Does Marian Finucane work at weekends? I've listened to RTÉ radio 1 around midday and she must be on permanent holiday with Brendan O'Carroll (aka Mrs. Brown) et al occupying her slot for the "in-depth interviews, human interest stories, consumer and lifestyle news as well as a lively panel discussion on issues of the week and newspaper reviews." Maybe I tuning at the wrong time?


----------



## michaelm (12 Jul 2017)

I agree with pretty much everything in MrEarl's post, although I'd scrap Fair City too and I'd rather see a slimmed down RTE being Ad free if doable.

The TV licence, in its current guise, has had its day.  There has to be a simpler, less antagonising, way to fund public service broadcasting.  Surely the €200m or so raised by the current licence can instead be raised by a levy on broadband/TV packages provided by Virgin, Sky, Eir and others.  10% of households dodge the licence fee anyway despite the constant stream of threatening (wasteful) adverts, Garda and court time is also wasted on this . . many don't pay the court fine and instead are escorted to prison and detained for a few hours . . also, I think the collecting agent (was An Post, now I'm not sure) gets something like an 8% cut . . the whole thing is crazy and wasteful.


----------



## MrEarl (12 Jul 2017)

This just gets better ....

See  here 

Now Ms. Forbes has also said she wants to have all cable companies charged for carrying the RTE channels .... if that happens, then the cable companies increase their charges and we end up paying for RTE twice (because we already pay for it, via the license fee ... in addition to having to sit through lots of tv adverts).  She has some cheek !

RTE needs to be radically downsized and redesigned so it's fit for purpose - then we can have a genuine look at costs and see if an increase in the license fee is justified.

Anyone know what RTE (or should I say "we") are paying Ms. Forbes btw ?


----------



## demoivre (12 Jul 2017)

Logo said:


> RTÉ Salaries (2016):
> 
> Ryan Tubridy: €495,000
> Joe Duffy: €416,893
> ...


 
There isn't a network in the world would be beating down the front door of any of these presenters if they got their P45s. Who'd stop watching Prime Time if O Callaghan wasn't presenting? Genuinely  ? Jokers running Are T E need to understand the concept of Opportunity Cost. Maybe Lee could explain it to them .


----------



## Logo (12 Jul 2017)

Either RTÉ or Dee is taking the pee because I've searched for DG's wages and can't find anything for 2017. Noel Curran (former RTÉ DG - 2011-2016) was paid a salary of €250,000 in 2011.

(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Curran)


----------



## peemac (12 Jul 2017)

What people don't seem to understand when they complain about the top salary earners in rte is that each and every programme they present are very profitable for rte. The late late show is rte's most profitable show.

The biggest net loss is live sport especially gaa and soccer.

On top of that rte are only allowed 6 minutes of adverts per hour - tv3 can have 12

Maybe a better option would be to increase the advert time to 9 minutes.


Funny how very few have an issue paying sky 29.50/month +++ for 15min of adverts and self promotion an hour and an awful lot of dross - most of which is free to air.


----------



## MrEarl (13 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> What people don't seem to understand when they complain about the top salary earners in rte is that each and every programme they present are very profitable for rte. The late late show is rte's most profitable show.....The biggest net loss is live sport especially gaa and soccer....



Hello,

Do you not think that RTE would maintain similar viewing figures on the likes of the Late Late Show if the had an alternative presenter, at say 33% of Tubs package, because I do ?  Let us not forget that RTE is on presenter No. 3 - No. 4 at this stage. 

I think the example of Prime Time is an even better one - would it lose significant viewing figures if O'Callaghan and McCullagh were not presenting it, because I seriously do not think so.  The list goes on, when it comes to RTE's home grown programmes......



peemac said:


> On top of that rte are only allowed 6 minutes of adverts per hour - tv3 can have 12
> 
> Maybe a better option would be to increase the advert time to 9 minutes.



That's a fair point to raise, but as someone who is forced to pay my annual licence fee, I do not beleive that I should have to put up with the same level of tv adverts.  However, if you told me I don't have to pay a licence fee anymore and instead, have to put up with 12 minutes of tv adverts per hour on RTE I would be fine about that - because I could opt out if I was not happy to watch the adverts.



peemac said:


> Funny how very few have an issue paying sky 29.50/month +++ for 15min of adverts and self promotion an hour and an awful lot of dross - most of which is free to air.



I think the benefit of being able to opt in or out of Sky's programming is an important issue and fundamental to all other points.  Do I think Sky is worth paying for - yes, but is it worth €29.50 for whatever package comes at that rate, I'm not sure (need you to help me out with the channel list please ).

I also struggle to believe that Sky are paying the same sort of money to their presenters, particularly those drawing in similar viewing numbers to the likes of RTE's Late Late Show etc.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Jul 2017)

Echoing the point of @michaelm
Why do we even have a TV licence?
Why isn't this funded out of general taxation and cut out all the nonsense of the overhead of collection\court time etc?
If having a national broadcaster is a worthy public aim, I don't see why it should be funded by TV licence fee...

And one small point... why do RTE need 4 people in the studio to talk about soccer, GAA and rugby games?
Once upon a time there was 1-2 commentating during the game, and 2-3 back in the studio.
Now there's 2 commentating, maybe 1 person pitch-side, and 4 back in the studio... who can hardly get a word in edgeways over each other!
Maybe they're all being paid the going rate (but doubtless more than back in the 80s when there were less of them), so let's cut back on quantity!


----------



## Leo (14 Jul 2017)

Well, An Post receive €12.5M to collect it, so the government is likely happy enough with that as it means they can say they're supporting the rural post offices.


----------



## MrEarl (14 Jul 2017)

Folks,

It's great to see the majority here in agreement regarding RTE - but can I suggest that you all let your local politicians know about your thoughts ?

It's only by speaking out, that we will ever start to see any sort of change.  Hopefully, we won't need to see the same extreme action needed to bring an end to silly spending at RTE, or to keep control over bin charges, as we saw with the water charge issue... but we do need to stand up for ourselves a lot more, if we ever want to see things change.

Personally, I've very little confidence in the current Minister with responsibility, he doesn't impress as knowing much about broadcasting or broadband (other than the principal that everyone should have it).... so I'd wager he could easily be influenced by RTE calling for a licence fee increase, particularly if they roll out the RTE orchestra and start playing their violins about having had to sell part of their property, make people redundant etc.

Some final food for thought.... if we sold RTE2, a few of the radio stations etc. how much could we raise and what could that money be used for (housing, hospitals, schools, delivering broadband to rural Ireland etc.) ?


----------



## MrEarl (14 Jul 2017)

Leo said:


> Well, An Post receive €12.5M to collect it, so the government is likely happy enough with that as it means they can say they're supporting the rural post offices.



I'm sure the Government could give An Post lots of other things to do, to help them generate funds, if they so wished.  

A topic for a separate thread, perhaps ?


----------



## Leo (14 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> A topic for a separate thread, perhaps ?



I think the lack of efficiency and cost of collection plays into the original case of why at the very least the fee should not be increased.


----------



## MrEarl (16 Jul 2017)

Very good point Leo.


----------



## Purple (18 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> What people don't seem to understand when they complain about the top salary earners in rte is that each and every programme they present are very profitable for rte. The late late show is rte's most profitable show.


When Pat Kenny left RTE radio and moved to Newstalk there was no real drop in listenership for his slot. Is it not reasonable to conclude that a presenter of reasonable skill backed up by the same production team do the same job?


----------



## MrEarl (18 Jul 2017)

That's a good point Purple.

We don't need our state owned public service broadcaster to have high profile and highly paid presenters.  Most people will do a good job, once they get decent training and decent support and a fair salary.  It's the same with any role - be it in RTE, or the local supermarket.

By way of an example, there's a lady called Katie Hannon starting to pop up more and more on politics and current affairs, be it on the news or Prime Time etc.  I'm sure she is only getting 30% - 40% of what RTE are paying Miriam O'Callaghan and she's every bit as good, if not better than Mirriam. There are more examples in RTE too, if we stop and think about it for a few minutes.

RTE clearly won't stop this nonsense unless someone actually puts a stop to it.  There's too much easy money and good living to be had in Donnybrook, so why would they ?  Essentially, it's the responsibility of the Minister for Communications on behalf of the population to mange RTE, so he's the man that we need to put pressure on - to do what exactly, eh his job !

If you don't want to write to him directly, then write (e-mail, phone or even drop in for a chat) to your local politicans and tell them you've had enough of RTE squandering money that could be far better spent elsewhere, for the benefit of the Irish population.  Tell them you want to see RTE resized and made fit for purpose again, as a national public service broadcaster and not a company trying to rival Sky or other commercial broadcasters, with multi tv and radio channels (not to mention a postal address in one of the most expensive parts of the country !).


----------



## cremeegg (18 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> We don't need our state owned public service broadcaster to have high profile and highly paid presenters.  Most people will do a good job, once they get decent training and decent support and a fair salary.  It's the same with any role - be it in RTE, or the local supermarket.



Most people are not capable of presenting a current affairs program, very few people are capable of doing it well.

Pat Kenny is superb. Miriam O Callaghan asks people how they are feeling. Sean O Rourke is good, he has as good a grasp as PK but is not as incisive. Marion despite certain annoying mannerisms is the best at the longer format interview.

They are all better than the UK equivalents. Paxman is a donkey who thinks the audience want to hear him braying. Dimbleby is good at getting others to speak but when he intervenes himself he is usually out of his depth.


----------



## peemac (18 Jul 2017)

Sean ORourke is probably better than PK for morning chat and is number 4 on the list. Rte were lucky to have a strong replacement who already had strong profile. 

Presenting is not easy. Even a look at uk with 60m people and the talent pool is very small.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> Presenting is not easy. Even a look at uk with 60m people and the talent pool is very small.



So small in fact that they have to recruit from here. Wogan. Norton, Holmes.


----------



## Logo (20 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> There is absolutely no way that the fee should be increased at this time.


I totally agree. The licence fee makes up 50% of the income of RTE and the cost of licence collection alone is totally inefficient.* It would be productive to change the fee to a public service broadcasting charge and apply it to every household. Maybe it's time to collect from those who don't pay rather than increasing the fee for those who do.

(* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland).


----------



## Purple (20 Jul 2017)

Logo said:


> I totally agree. The licence fee makes up 50% of the income of RTE and the cost of licence collection alone is totally inefficient.* It would be productive to change the fee to a public service broadcasting charge and apply it to every household. Maybe it's time to collect from those who don't pay rather than increasing the fee for those who do.
> 
> (* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland).


Collected the fee through post offices as a subsidy to those post offices, just like dog licences etc.
I pay my TV licence on-line. It should be slightly cheaper to pay it that way.


----------



## MrEarl (20 Jul 2017)

This just gets better and better....

 
RTÉ blames €17m jump in its deficit on having to cover landmark events


So the state owned, state funded (directly or indirectly as the case may be) broadcaster is moaning, claiming that the reason that it lost money last year was because it had to cover things of national interest !

Isn't the public service broadcaster supposed to be spending money to cover such things as the 1916 commemorations ... rather than squandering money on rebroadcasting shows such as Eastenders, or buying in stuff like Homeland for who knows how much, when we can all watch these programmes on other channels.

RTE in their wisdom think it's perfectly acceptable to:

buy in programming that can be seen elsewhere
pay some of their staff excessive salaries, far more than we pay our Taoiseach

continue to run their business from one of the most plush addresses in Ireland, when some if not most of the work done there could be done at cheaper locations

Then they have the neck to want a license fee increase 


How about this as an alternative way to address RTE's financial problems:

Everyone on a salary of over €100k gets cut back to €100k, regardless of what they have previously been paid.  If they don't like it, they can take a hike.

RTE stops buying in and rebroadcasting commercial tv programming which is readily available elsewhere
RTE offloads it's non-core services (both tv and radio) and leaves the commercial tv and radio markets to compete
RTE continues to provide services of national interest

With the same amount being generated from the license fee and a lower payroll, less expenditure on bought in commercial programming and a smaller selection of tv and radio stations to operate, I'd expect them to make a profit - not a loss.

We really need to start giving out hell about the stuff RTE has been getting away with - it's gone on for way too long and its our money that's paying for it !


----------



## Logo (20 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> Collected the fee through post offices


And how is the fee collected from those who fail to pay?


----------



## Delboy (20 Jul 2017)

Logo said:


> I totally agree. The licence fee makes up 50% of the income of RTE and the cost of licence collection alone is totally inefficient.* It would be productive to change the fee to a public service broadcasting charge and apply it to every household. Maybe it's time to collect from those who don't pay rather than increasing the fee for those who do.
> 
> (* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland).


Paul Murphy and friends say hello!


----------



## Purple (20 Jul 2017)

Logo said:


> And how is the fee collected from those who fail to pay?


The dreaded TV licence inspector!!


----------



## Logo (20 Jul 2017)

Delboy said:


> Paul Murphy and friends say hello!


RTÉ staff are overpaid and I expect that the aforementioned Paul Murphy would probably agree that the gravy train chugs on for yet another government-owned corporation.


----------



## peemac (20 Jul 2017)

Close 2fm - there's a big net saving.  

Maybe look at a broadcast charge? Apply it to property tax and have it paid same way too.

There's the collection charge saved + spongers paying + online watchers paying.  Add the 5m saving from 2fm and you can reduce the fee to €120. 

If only it were that simple.

And whilst they are at it add a waste / recycling service fee so that just cost of actual waste is charged.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jul 2017)

On Tuesday just gone at 930 RTE had a repeat of mrs browns boys "live".
At 1020 a repeat of a george lee documentary.
Chances that interested regular RTE viewer hadnt seen them ... slim.
At 1120 they had SSGB, shown earlier this year on BBC but new to anyone on Saorview.
Pretty poor scheduling if you ask me.


----------



## MrEarl (21 Jul 2017)

Hello,

I don't mind them repeating some of their home produced shows for a second time, off peak as it's possible some people didn't see the programmes first time around.  That said, with the likes of catch up tv and RTE+1 those numbers who want to see something but don't get to see it, are probably few and far between.

However, being asked to pay a licence fee and now a possible increase in that fee to fund RTE's continued attempts at being a commercial broadcaster, spending large sums on broadcast rights for various programmes we can watch elsewhere.... that is simply not acceptable.  It's not a commercial broadcaster, it's a state owned, licence fee funded broadcaster (generating additional income from advertising), that has been allowed to spiral out of control.

Then add into the mix, the fact that they won't even come clean on what they are paying their highest earners, but yet want us to trust them with a license fee hike ... seriously ?

Let RTE cut it's cloth, then publish it's revised figures based on all changes made and we'll see where it's finances are then.  If it genuinely needs money to provide the quality national interest service that I expect then I'm happy to pay a bit more, but if it wants more money without full disclosure and accepting the reality of it's situation first them I'm completely opposed to it and more likely to stop paying the license fee completely.


----------



## cremeegg (21 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> On Tuesday just gone at 930 RTE had a repeat of mrs browns boys "live".
> At 1020 a repeat of a george lee documentary.



Maybe I can send them a photocopy of the cheque I used to pay the licence fee last year.


----------



## Purple (24 Jul 2017)

cremeegg said:


> So small in fact that they have to recruit from here. Wogan. Norton, Holmes.


Holmes is from the UK.


----------



## Firefly (24 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> Maybe look at a broadcast charge? Apply it to property tax and have it paid same way too.



Not everyone needs to pay the property tax..


----------



## Purple (24 Jul 2017)

Firefly said:


> Not everyone needs to pay the property tax..


Working people spend less time watching TV so maybe it should be funded with a small reduction in welfare payments and state pensions.


----------



## peemac (24 Jul 2017)

Firefly said:


> Not everyone needs to pay the property tax..


But every domestic property is registered,  so easy way to impose charges the "I want everything free" people try to avoid.


----------



## Firefly (25 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> But every domestic property is registered,  so easy way to impose charges the "I want everything free" people try to avoid.



I don't believe people in social housing need to pay the property charge though. Not sure if they need to pay the tv license either to be honest.


----------



## MrEarl (25 Jul 2017)

Today's Indo...


*Cash-strapped RTÉ paid secret bonuses to bosses despite €20m deficit*



> The broadcaster now has 101 staff earning more than €100,000, excluding contracted stars like Ryan Tubridy, Ray D'Arcy and Marian Finucane.




It has also come to light that RTE do not pay their average female the same as their average male... well, perhaps the solution is to lower the salary of the average male out in RTE - solve two problems, the gender pay issue and the out of control payroll !


.


----------



## Purple (25 Jul 2017)

The average salary in RTE is €57,500.
The average basic wage (excluding pension contributions) in the ESB in 2011 was €85,000.
Considering their very attractive pensions that is an average package worth well over €100,000.
RTE are part financed by advertisers. Consumers pay the full cost of wages in the ESB, even if they are not ESB customers. 
While RTE is worth looking at we should remember that they, just like Irish Water, are but one example of a much bigger problem.


----------



## geri (25 Jul 2017)

peemac said:


> But every domestic property is registered,  so easy way to impose charges the "I want everything free" people try to avoid.


Renters do not pay the property tax.  The landlord does.


----------



## Leo (25 Jul 2017)

geri said:


> Renters do not pay the property tax.  The landlord does.



Well, they don't pay it directly!


----------



## thedaddyman (25 Jul 2017)

Has anyone ever done a study on which RTE stars are in effect, value for money? For example, if Ray D'Arcy is being paid €150k a year and his shows generate €300k in advertising revenue (and I've just made those numbers up), is he not a "profit making line " for RTE. ?

I know that might be a bit simplistic and RTE has a public broadcasting requirement that the likes of the commercial stations don't have but any competent cost accountant should be able to say where exactly are RTE losing money. For example, how much does the orchestra and choir cost and how much revenue do they generate?. Any business losing money will try and identify where it is losing and then take the necessary actions. RTE needs to decide what it actually is and what it needs to provide.


----------



## MrEarl (26 Jul 2017)

There are a couple of good points there.

Obviously, in the first instance identifying the main parts of RTE that are losing money would be important and thereafter, taking remedial action to deal with them.

The second point about RTE needing to decide on what it is and what it needs to provide is slightly off, only in so far as RTE should not be left to decide this for themselves as having already been left to their own devices, look what has happened.  RTE need to be told in no uncertain terms what they are and compelled to downsize and make themselves fit for purpose again.


----------



## blueband (26 Jul 2017)

The most fair and easy way to do it would be have RTE as a pay to view, those who want to watch RTE pay a monthly or yearly subscription to receive it, those of us don't want it don't pay and don't receive it.....simple
Cant see them going for that though!


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

geri said:


> Renters do not pay the property tax.  The landlord does.


I rent.
My landlord pays €600 a year on the house I live in.
In order to get that money he has to add it to my rent. He also has to add the USC he is charged on what I pay him. In effect I pay the tax with USC added.
If everybody paid their TV licence the cost could be lowered. It's the same as motor insurance; if people were honest it would cost less.


----------



## Leo (26 Jul 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> Has anyone ever done a study on which RTE stars are in effect, value for money? For example, if Ray D'Arcy is being paid €150k a year and his shows generate €300k in advertising revenue (and I've just made those numbers up), is he not a "profit making line " for RTE. ?



Didn't Pat Kenny make a big deal of the listener numbers he was getting on RTE and the advertising revenue that was pulling in? He seemed to think many of those listeners would follow him to Newstalk, bringing the advertising spend with them, but that simply didn't happen.  So based on that and other similar examples, none of the big hitters are value for money.


----------



## geri (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> I rent.
> My landlord pays €600 a year on the house I live in.
> In order to get that money he has to add it to my rent. He also has to add the USC he is charged on what I pay him. In effect I pay the tax with USC added.
> If everybody paid their TV licence the cost could be lowered. It's the same as motor insurance; if people were honest it would cost less.


I rent out two houses.  I pay the property tax.  Property tax is supposed to be for the benefit of the person living in the locality but I still have to pay it.  I havent increased the rent for this.  I would say many landlords  are doing the same as a result of the rent cap.  And now someone is suggesting we pay their TV licence as well!


----------



## Cowpat (26 Jul 2017)

geri said:


> And now someone is suggesting we pay their TV licence as well!


A landlord is only liable for the TV licence if they provide the tenant with a TV.


----------



## geri (26 Jul 2017)

Cowpat said:


> A landlord is only liable for the TV licence if they provide the tenant with a TV.


Yes, of course, but I was responding to a suggestion by peemac that a broadcasting charge be added into the the property tax to cover TV licence fee.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

It's not 1969 anymore, when a significant number of households didn't have TVs.

Either having a national broadcaster is a public good - in which case it should be funded out of general taxation; 
Or it is not. 

If it is not, there is no argument in favour of compelling everyone in the state with a TV to puchase a licence to access any TV facilities, and it should be funded like any other TV station, either through advertising or subscription model.

Putting it onto the property tax pre-supposes that every single household in the state (either as tenant or owner) is liable for it. 
In which case, it should be part of general taxation.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

If it is required it should be a direct charge.
The same goes for water and local services and everything else possible.
When people see that they are paying for things they are more likely to question costs and value for money. The more we put everything into the same pot the less likely we are to see the direct cost to us.
Imagine if every scheme the government comes up with was costed in your pay cheque;
Gross pay €xxxxx

Less
USC                             €xxxx
PRSI pension                €xxxx
Welfare payments         €xxxx
Under 6 GP cards          €xxxx
Over 70 GP cards          €xxxx
"Free" creche places      €xxxx
etc.

Every time the government brought in a new scheme we'd see the real cost


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> If it is required it should be a direct charge.
> The same goes for water and local services and everything else possible.
> When people see that they are paying for things they are more likely to question costs and value for money. The more we put everything into the same pot the less likely we are to see the direct cost to us.
> Imagine if every scheme the government comes up with was costed in your pay cheque;



I've seen the costs of collecting the TV licence and it's money down the drain...

Let's spend that €12.5 million wasted annually collecting the TV licence to implement your idea of breakdowns of costs of all centrally funded schemes - including the TV licence in that.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I've seen the costs of collecting the TV licence and it's money down the drain...
> 
> Let's spend that €12.5 million wasted annually collecting the TV licence to implement your idea of breakdowns of costs of all centrally funded schemes - including the TV licence in that.


Why not just get people to pay it online (like I do) and charge them am admin fee if they want to do it through the post office.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> Why not just get people to pay it online (like I do) and charge them am admin fee if they want to do it through the post office.



I was thinking more of the monies spent on chasing down the 10% who don't pay... won't pay. 
Doesn't seem like a good use of public money or court time.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I was thinking more of the monies spent on chasing down the 10% who don't pay... won't pay.
> Doesn't seem like a good use of public money or court time.


Whatever it costs to chase them down should be levied in additional fines. Simple.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> Whatever it costs to chase them down should be levied in additional fines. Simple.



From people whose fine is €5 a week? Who don't pay the fine? Who we then have to spend thousands on locking up in our already full prisons?
You can levy all you like... it's like getting blood from a stone.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> From people whose fine is €5 a week? Who don't pay the fine? Who we then have to spend thousands on locking up in our already full prisons?
> You can levy all you like... it's like getting blood from a stone.


If they owe €5 and it costs €1000 to get it from them then they should be charged €1005. Simple.
If they are a welfare recipient then take it off the top of their payments. If they are employed then take it out of their wages. If they are on a pension then take it out of their pension.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> If they owe €5 and it costs €1000 to get it from them then they should be charged €1005. Simple.
> If they are a welfare recipient then take it off the top of their payments. If they are employed then take it out of their wages. If they are on a pension then take it out of their pension.



How much do you think it costs to issue the fine, track down the person, keep track of missed payments etc etc???
I thought the point was to generate revenue. None of it sounds like a cost efficient way to operate.


----------



## MrEarl (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> If they owe €5 and it costs €1000 to get it from them then they should be charged €1005. Simple.
> If they are a welfare recipient then take it off the top of their payments. If they are employed then take it out of their wages. If they are on a pension then take it out of their pension.



In principal, I agree with those who are prosecuted being hit with the cost of taking legal action against them alongside the original licence fee.  However, that said, the route of the problem is the inefficient method of collecting the licence fee which could be partly dealt with, if applied when tv's were first purchased (i.e. if you buy a tv you must produce your current licence, or pay for the first year at the time of buying the tv and let the retailer forward it to the relevant authority so the licence can be issued).


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> In principal, I agree with those who are prosecuted being hit with the cost of taking legal action against them alongside the original licence fee.  However, that said, the route of the problem is the inefficient method of collecting the licence fee which could be partly dealt with, if applied when tv's were first purchased (i.e. if you buy a tv you must produce your current licence, or pay for the first year at the time of buying the tv and let the retailer forward it to the relevant authority so the licence can be issued).



Hmm, not sure about that approach... it's an inventive idea but it sounds like a lot of overhead keeping track of used licences versus addresses. The state doesn't even keep track of driving licences & motor tax that well.

Would we have a reciprocal arrangement with the UK - unless they move to the same licence fee model, what's to stop someone dodging the ROI licence fee by buying one up North?
What about selling on of second hand TVs?
Would this make the theft of TVs more attractive?
We already have sales of 'dodgy boxes', so people can get subscription TV for free... and blackmarket cigarettes... could this lead to an explosion of 'dodgy' TVs'?


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> How much do you think it costs to issue the fine, track down the person, keep track of missed payments etc etc???
> I thought the point was to generate revenue. None of it sounds like a cost efficient way to operate.


The point is to generate revenue, just like all taxes, and just like all taxes once they are in place the State has to make sure they are collected.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> The point is to generate revenue, just like all taxes, and just like all taxes once they are in place the State has to make sure they are collected.



Apparently, Lois XIV’S finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, declared that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."

This really doesn't seem to pass that test to me... There's a lot of plucking and a lot of hissing and not many feathers coming out.

The cost of collection should be a small percentage point of the revenue collected. 
If we include the court time tied up on TV licence evaders as well as the +10 million spent on collection... that's a lot of cost relative to the 150-200 million it brings in.
Then consider Some charges (e.g. ESB) have the advantage of limiting demand. 
I don't think the TV licence passes either of those tests.


----------



## Purple (26 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Apparently, Lois XIV’S finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, declared that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."
> 
> This really doesn't seem to pass that test to me... There's a lot of plucking and a lot of hissing and not many feathers coming out.
> 
> ...


The main cost of collecting it is the fact that you can do it through the Post Office and the Post Office charges a fee for handling it. It's just a subsidy for Post Offices (like the dog licence). Force people to do it online by charging a higher rate if you want to do it through the Post Office.
It's what they do in the passport office; the cheapest may for the State to produce a Passport is if you post in the application. That method costs the least. If you arrive in two days before you travel it costs a fortune for the State to get the passport made so they charge you a higher fee. The same thing should apply to TV licences.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> The main cost of collecting it is the fact that you can do it through the Post Office and the Post Office charges a fee for handling it. It's just a subsidy for Post Offices (like the dog licence). Force people to do it online by charging a higher rate if you want to do it through the Post Office. It's what they do in the passport office; the cheapest may for the State to produce a Passport is if you post in the application. That method costs the least. If you arrive in two days before you travel it costs a fortune for the State to get the passport made so they charge you a higher fee. The same thing should apply to TV licences.



We don't have enforcement agents going around trying to ferret out people in their own homes without passports though. 
And the passport is an individualised service, it's not annual... I don't think it's a similar situation.


----------



## thedaddyman (27 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> The main cost of collecting it is the fact that you can do it through the Post Office and the Post Office charges a fee for handling it. It's just a subsidy for Post Offices (like the dog licence). Force people to do it online by charging a higher rate if you want to do it through the Post Office.
> It's what they do in the passport office; the cheapest may for the State to produce a Passport is if you post in the application. That method costs the least. If you arrive in two days before you travel it costs a fortune for the State to get the passport made so they charge you a higher fee. The same thing should apply to TV licences.



you can get your tv licence on line, An Post provide the service. However forcing people to do it online by charging a higher rate if you walk into a Post Office would rightly be seen as another anti-rural policy given that half of rural Ireland has little or no broadband service and won't have it for many years.


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> We don't have enforcement agents going around trying to ferret out people in their own homes without passports though.
> And the passport is an individualised service, it's not annual... I don't think it's a similar situation.


You are not required by law to have a passport. You only need one if you wish to travel outside Ireland and the UK. You are required to have a TV licence if you have a TV. If you choose to pay for it in a way which costs the State more then you should be charged more.


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> you can get your tv licence on line, An Post provide the service. However forcing people to do it online by charging a higher rate if you walk into a Post Office would rightly be seen as another anti-rural policy given that half of rural Ireland has little or no broadband service and won't have it for many years.


There is already a massive subsidy of rural people by urban people. How much extra do you think they should get?
Anyway, you don't need broadband to open simple interactive forms. You can do it on your phone with a half decent signal.


----------



## Delboy (27 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> You are required to have a TV licence if you have a TV. If you choose to pay for it in a way which costs the State more then you should be charged more.


And that's why your not a politician!


----------



## jjm (27 Jul 2017)

"Purple, ]There is already a massive subsidy of rural people by urban people.


there is also a massive subsidy by urban people to other urban people you only have to look at where most of the water charges protesters/leaders came from to know that. I suspect  if you took the time to check you would have found out a higher % of rural people pay there TV licence and water charges


If you ever want to become a Politician you will have to compete for votes against the likes of Paul Murphy who like you finds someone else to blame , pay your way it is want to pay not how you pay that counts don't be like the penny looking down on the halfpenny and expecting someone to give you a clap on the back,


----------



## thedaddyman (27 Jul 2017)

Purple said:


> There is already a massive subsidy of rural people by urban people. How much extra do you think they should get?
> Anyway, you don't need broadband to open simple interactive forms. You can do it on your phone with a half decent signal.[/QUOTE
> 
> that's assuming you can get a half decent mobile signal which isn't always possible.
> ...


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2017)

thedaddyman said:


> I'm sure rural people will look at the lovely motorways, Luas extension, buses and free water that Dubliners get, most of which are funded through direct taxation and have a different view.



The cost per head of population of delivering services in rural areas is far higher than in Urban areas.

There is far more road per person in Leitrim than in Cork city.

Look at the allocation of money from property taxes; €5.06 per person in Dublin, €7.38 per person in Cork City, €169.43 per person in Monaghan and a whopping €260.47 per person in Leitrim. The figure for Leitrim actually constitutes a cut per person on the subsidy that they received through the Local Government Fund.

Rural broadband will also cost a fortune which will be paid for by the State. The vast majority of revenue is generated in urban areas; Dublin accounts for half the country’s GDP and the average worker in Cork generates  €105,000 in GDP (in Dublin it’s €96,000). This is due to number of multinationals in Cork.


There is no doubt that Urban Ireland massively subsidises Rural Ireland but that’s no unusual in the developed world and it is socially desirable. My question wasn’t that it shouldn’t happen, it was how much more to rural people expect to be subsidised by their urban neighbours.


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Jul 2017)

"I'm sure rural people will look at the lovely motorways, Luas extension, buses and free water that Dubliners get, most of which are funded through direct taxation and have a different view."

Is this a joke? Any rural person who thinks that mustn't have learned how to count properly in school, though that's probably a Dub's fault for not spending more on their education.

Should there be a joke motorway between two places with no one living in them like the joke train service in Clare?
Or between the capital and the rest of the country and major cities?

Last time I checked, it wasn't just Dubs on the motorways - besides, lots of the motorways have tolls and Dubs have to pay those tolls too or all along have I missed the 'free lane for Dubliners';
If Dubs stopped using the motorways to see the country then the rural tourist locations would join the chorus of rural whingers!
I suppose the motorways carry no goods, either from rural Ireland e.g. farm produce to the capital; or medicines from urban areas to rural Ireland? No?

And the Luas or buses either in Dublin City for that matter don't just carry people in Dublin jerseys ... and breaking news, you have to pay to use those services, even if you're a Dub.
A disgraceful situation I know. In our own city we really shouldn't have to pay to use our buses.
If we only allowed real Dubliners to own cars in the city, the real Dubs wouldn't need public transport so much as the road wouldn't be clogged with reg plates from the other 25 counties.
Dublin for the Dubliners I say, there should be entry fees for anyone entering the capital from outside and work permits needed for jobs here if you're born outside the Pale.


----------



## Firefly (27 Jul 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Apparently, Lois XIV’S finance minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, declared that "the art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing."
> 
> This really doesn't seem to pass that test to me... There's a lot of plucking and a lot of hissing and not many feathers coming out.



All I am hearing is a lot of hissing from the lucky pluckers in Montrose


----------



## MrEarl (27 Jul 2017)

Firefly said:


> All I am hearing is a lot of hissing from the lucky pluckers in Montrose



Yup, not a word out of our Minister for Communications though... he should be kicking a$$ out in Donnybrook !


----------



## MrEarl (27 Jul 2017)

This has the potential to bring RTE a little more under the microscope, although the lack of equal pay for different sexes is only one of the many things that needs fixing out in RTE !

RTÉ chief faces grilling by TDs on gender salary balance and finances

One of my first questions would be how much is Dee Forbes being paid ?


----------



## jjm (27 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> Yup, not a word out of our Minister for Communications though... he should be kicking a$$ out in Donnybrook !





MrEarl said:


> Yup, not a word out of our Minister for Communications though... he should be kicking a$$ out in Donnybrook !



Rabbit checked a few years ago to see if he could keep on plucking and the answer was no more feathers for plucking time to start selling the taxpayers silver instead.Ministers Kiss a$$ out in Donnybrook and the people out in  Donnybrook kiss a$$ back. Even the people who were expecting a feather in there cap for paying on line got plucked the same amount. The canny people from Leitrim  were allowed to keep a few feathers to feather there own nest .while the people from Dublin are trying to figure out a way of keeping the nests out in Donnybrook Well feathered .While the throw rotten eggs and Hiss at there country cousins While Joe keep them busy and feeling they are being listened to,


----------



## Delboy (27 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> This has the potential to bring RTE a little more under the microscope, although the lack of equal pay for different sexes is only one of the many things that needs fixing out in RTE !
> 
> RTÉ chief faces grilling by TDs on gender salary balance and finances
> 
> One of my first questions would be how much is Dee Forbes being paid ?


I think it's 250k per annum. Prob some sort of top ups after that which aren't publicised


----------



## jjm (27 Jul 2017)

jjm said:


> Rabbit checked a few years ago to see if he could keep on plucking and the answer was no more feathers for plucking time to start selling the taxpayers silver instead.Ministers Kiss a$$ out in Donnybrook and the people out in  Donnybrook kiss a$$ back. Even the people who were expecting a feather in there cap for paying on line got plucked the same amount. The canny people from Leitrim  were allowed to keep a few feathers to feather
> 
> 
> Purple said:
> ...


----------



## Purple (27 Jul 2017)

MrEarl said:


> This has the potential to bring RTE a little more under the microscope, although the lack of equal pay for different sexes is only one of the many things that needs fixing out in RTE !
> 
> RTÉ chief faces grilling by TDs on gender salary balance and finances
> 
> One of my first questions would be how much is Dee Forbes being paid ?


Sure she's balancing out the whole gender pay issue all by herself!
Great job Dee!!


----------



## MrEarl (27 Jul 2017)

Delboy said:


> I think it's 250k per annum. Prob some sort of top ups after that which aren't publicised



That's a serious basic salary, for a company that is making very heavy losses !

Do you know where you got that salary from (back in 2011, Noel Curran was apparently getting a basic salary of €250k per  this article) ?


----------



## Delboy (27 Jul 2017)

I'm probably confusing the 250k from what Curran was getting.
I'm after googling there the past half hour and cannot find anything on Forbes salary. So the chances are that she's on well more than that 250k


----------



## MrEarl (1 Aug 2017)

I suspect the same, having also tried to find it.

Ms. Forbes seems to have been in a good job with Discovery, so I doubt they got her in on a cheap rate.

Not overly surprised that we cannot find her remuneration package, no more than RTE won't publish the list of their high earners at the moment, as the odds are it would be bad press for them at a time when they are trying to play the poor mouth in desperate need of a licence fee increase.


----------



## MrEarl (1 Aug 2017)

2015 Salaries for RTE's Top 10 (broadcast) earners....

http://www.independent.ie/entertain...n-while-ray-darcy-was-paid-400k-35989583.html

I can't help but wonder why we spend €3m on this lot, when €1m would probably keep the lot of them...

There's a lot more of the payroll needs to be looked at though, can't help but feel that there are a hell of a lot of very well paid people out in RTE


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Aug 2017)

Suggestion on The Journal... sell the entire RTE site in Ballsbridge for €200 million + and decentralise RTE:
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/mov...ale-of-the-donnybrook-studio-3524634-Aug2017/


----------



## joer (2 Aug 2017)

I agree with the suggestion of not bringing up the female workers wages to meet the level of pay that the men receive. The mens wages should be brought DOWN to the level of the female wages in most cases anyway. The top earners both men and women are far too high.
If this was done there would be no need to increase the licence fee at all, which is too high at present , in my opinion.
After listing the top earners wages the Government should also list the people who are in arrears for their car parking and drinks etc.


----------



## Purple (2 Aug 2017)

I'll make the point again that while the top earners in RTE are on big money the average pay is €57k and RTE employ just under 2000 people.
The average pay in the ESB is €85,000 and they employ nearly 8000 people. 
This isn't just an RTE problem, in fact RTE are nowhere near the worst when it comes to high employee pay rates.
That about all the other semi-state's, former semi-state's which operate a monopoly or virtual monopoly and other Sate bodies, many of which we have never hear of?
Irish water lifted the lid on how the State is run, or more particularly how bodies delivering state provided services are run. 
There's over 100,000 people paid by the HSE. That's right; one in every 20 people why works in Ireland is paid by the HSE.

The waste and duplication in Irish water was staggering; 2000 people employed there that they said they didn't need or want. That's been cut but most of them have been "redistributed" back to the local authorities they came from so they can do bugger-all somewhere else. 
The bigger the organisation the more places there are to hide. How much dead wood is there in the HSE? 

I think we are having the wrong discussion again.


----------



## jjm (2 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> I'll make the point again that while the top earners in RTE are on big money the average pay is €57k and RTE employ just under 2000 people.
> The average pay in the ESB is €85,000 and they employ nearly 8000 people.
> This isn't just an RTE problem, in fact RTE are nowhere near the worst when it comes to high employee pay rates.
> That about all the other semi-state's, former semi-state's which operate a monopoly or virtual monopoly and other Sate bodies, many of which we have never hear of?
> ...



Purple I think some of your earlier postings on Irish water you were all for the bigger organisation .The problem with Irish water was the Government who set it up did things to Irish water that were more left wing than People Before Profit and SF put together.
If we had a Government made up of People Before Profit and SF we would not have allowed them to do to Irish water what the  last Government forced   Irish water to take on,After all it was supposed to be reform,


----------



## MrEarl (3 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> .....I think we are having the wrong discussion again.



No, we are not having the wrong discussion "again" ... we are having the right discussion about RTE, there just needs to be another one about the HSE, another about the ESB etc.

Start the new discussion threads, rather than repeating yourself here as there are some things in common with RTE, but other things different in respect of the likes of the HSE, but people need to get involved in these conversations, open their eyes, start speaking out against all of the things that are wrong in this country etc !


----------



## MrEarl (3 Aug 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> Suggestion on The Journal... sell the entire RTE site in Ballsbridge for €200 million + and decentralise RTE:
> http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/mov...ale-of-the-donnybrook-studio-3524634-Aug2017/



In some ways, this is a great suggestion but it's not entirely practical at the same time.

Sure, it makes a lot of sense to sell property in a very expensive location and relocate the staff and facilities to other cheaper locations.  But it also makes sense to divest from certain non core assets within RTE - we don't need two tv stations and a half dozen (or more) national radio stations.   Thats not what the public service broadcaster needs, we've lots of competition in the commercial world for both tv and radio, so no need for the state to provide commercial entertainment stations.  Then, lets see what's left and what can be run from different parts of the country without causing any technical problems - assuming parts of RTE can be run from outside Dublin, then the more of it that can be operated in other parts of Ireland without significant additional cost, the better !


----------



## Purple (3 Aug 2017)

jjm said:


> Purple I think some of your earlier postings on Irish water you were all for the bigger organisation .The problem with Irish water was the Government who set it up did things to Irish water that were more left wing than People Before Profit and SF put together.
> If we had a Government made up of People Before Profit and SF we would not have allowed them to do to Irish water what the  last Government forced   Irish water to take on,After all it was supposed to be reform,


It was set up just like every other public body. Therefore the waste and duplication was the same as every other public body.

As for RTE; a number of years ago the top earners were all contractors so RTE wasn't paying their pensions. 
That's a significant reduction in the total cost in the longer term. What is needed is clear information on the nature and term of the contracts of the top earners.


----------



## MrEarl (3 Aug 2017)

Finally, some sort of sign that RTE are not going to be given a blank cheque, while they continue to "enjoy the good life"....

RTÉ warned to cut costs before any funding rise


Although they still don't want to disclose any more on salaries than they absolutely had to ... 

Personally, I don't want to see every staff member's name beside their salary, but I do want to know things like how many staff members are being paid more than €100k per year and what their role is. 

I also want to know about the full list of benefits which come with being an RTE employee, for anyone earning €100k per year or more.

My feeling is that there are a lot of good, hard working people in RTE who earn their money and I've no problem with them being rewarded for that they do, but I also suspect there are a lot of people out in Donnybrook earning a lot more than they need to be getting to do their jobs - be it through direct salary, or overall remuneration packages.  

People earning above €100k pa at RTE should be few and far between...


----------



## Purple (4 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> People earning above €100k pa at RTE should be few and far between...


I'm sure there are very few people earning over €100,000 a year in RTE so that's not the issue. The issue is the number being paid over €100,000 a year.


----------



## MrEarl (8 Aug 2017)

Staff say refusal to publish more RTÉ salaries is 'a fob-off'


----------



## Purple (9 Aug 2017)

MrEarl said:


> Finally, some sort of sign that RTE are not going to be given a blank cheque, while they continue to "enjoy the good life"....
> 
> RTÉ warned to cut costs before any funding rise


It's a pity they don't say the same thing to the HSE.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> It's a pity they don't say the same thing to the HSE.



I think that the scary thing is that these organisations need to be told to get their costs under control... in the HSE's case I would say... we're not going to talk about more funding until you can shown you have costs under control - any new funding will be very for specific initiatives \ projects \ treatments only.

In RTE's case I would say, you're not getting more funding, cut your cloth accordingly and start thinking about how you can increase your revenue.


----------



## MrEarl (10 Aug 2017)

Purple said:


> It's a pity they don't say the same thing to the HSE.



While I think many would agree that there's a problem at the HSE, it's a far tougher one to deal with given it's the public health service.

Getting back to RTE, I'd agree with Odyssey06 at least until RTE is made fit for purpose again.  It's grown completely out of control with this silly belief that the are a commercial broadcaster.  While they may offer commercial advertising, thats simply to supplement revenue from the license fee and the state - but they are a public service broadcaster and not a state owned broadcaster set up to try and compete with Sky, Ch.4 etc.


----------

