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

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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
geri said:
Renters do not pay the property tax. The landlord does.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
A landlord is only liable for the TV licence if they provide the tenant with a TV.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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;
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Whatever it costs to chase them down should be levied in additional fines. Simple.
 
Purple said:
Whatever it costs to chase them down should be levied in additional fines. Simple.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top