4 ms·

In my country one has to pay to the regime for using/owning "radio/tv receiver". That's why I am happy to have more devices without unblocked analog FM. It mean

by ch4ck 10y ago

In my country one has to pay to the regime for using/owning "radio/tv receiver". That's why I am happy to have more devices without unblocked analog FM. It means for me more choice without having to pay for the brainwashing/propaganda.

mnsc 10y ago
Hittade muffaren!
Xylakant 10y ago
if you're referring to Germany, you're obliged to pay anyways - whether you own a device or not (it's per household/company since a while). It doesn't matter how many devices you own though. And you're not paying "the regime", you're paying an independent institution. It's not a tax by design though it may feel like one. The government never gets to touch the money. Now, there's a ton of things that are wrong with our nominally independent radio/tv stations, but if I look around and see how things go in other states on this little planet (hello fox news), I don't have any idea that works better in principle. I'll take the german system over any alternative so far offered (though the BBC is a close contender)
- kosmos1337 10y ago
  ch4ck might have meant Poland, since there is a similar requirement here. However, the sentiment towards it is extremely negative because the new government (which is viewed very unfavorably by many) has decided to increase the monthly contribution, crack down on non-payers and tie the payment to your electricity bill. This also creates an issue for people and institutions who pay multiple electricity bills and thus are unfairly burdened by this new tax.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  An unusual but arguably correct perspective is that "independent institutions" that pair extreme media influence on all other institutions, politicians, and democratic outcomes with the power of raising a privileged tax (they don't share their tax revenue with any other branch of government) ... are the regime.
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Here's the problem with this tax (or however it's called): you're basically paying for some third party actions that you have no control over. Someone emits some electromagnetic radiation that you may or may not care about, but for some odd reason you have to pay for that. That feels... wrong. Can't remember any other tax-like charges where one has to pay for something artificial that they could be completely unrelated to, yet don't have any control over.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    If you remove the abstractions down to "someone emits some electromagnetic radiation" then yeah it makes no sense. Just like saying "someone out there is mixing hydrocarbons with rocks and dumping it on the ground that you may or may not care about". Most people would rather discuss it in terms of "funding an independent source of media" and "building road infrastructure to move goods and services".
    - fwn 10y ago
      Depending on a single revenue source is the exact opposite of being independent; which is why they are always that outraged if someone proposes some reduction in funding. They are 100% dependent on parliament will. (...whether this is something you want your media to be, I don't know. It's a very German thing.) But of course it's not only financially. The German Rundfunkrat is basically designed to be the very essence of what other cultures might dispraise as corporatism. - Despite it's justification as some cross section of society. I'm not necessarily against the idea but the institutional design of German state media is arguably very bad.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      I'm not sure comparing radio with roads is correct. For roads, maybe somewhere it's the same, but there are also funding ways that work differently. If you use the road (have a vehicle) you (probably, depends on where you are) pay the tax, either directly or included with the fuel price. If you don't drive a vehicle but use the roads indirectly (because the services you use, use that roads) you pay indirectly - trough your funding of those services and their respective use of vehicles. E.g. you buy stuff in a grocery store, the store pays to a transportation company, the transportation company pays taxes for their trucks - everyone's paying for what they actually use. So, it still feels fundamentally different from the broadcast taxes to me.
- briandear 10y ago
  So an "independent institution" gets to use the power of government rifles to force you to pay tribute for a product you might never use. If it's independent, then why is the government working as their collection agency? How independent is it really? If your collections infrastructure can get cut off by the government at any time, where's the incentive to stay truly independent? I would offer that most organizations won't bite the hand that feeds them. >> It's not a tax by design though it may feel like one. If I'm forced to pay money to the government for a public "good," it's either a tax or extortion -- there's no other way to define it. It doesn't matter if the cause is "worthy" or not -- it's a tax. Why not let the people that consume the product pay for the product? Imagine if the government forced everyone to buy a Spotify subscription. It's the same exact thing.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > Why not let the people that consume the product pay for the product? Yeah, why not let the unemployed pay for the welfare! Or why not let the kids pay for the public schools!

by ch4ck 10y ago

mnsc 10y ago

Hittade muffaren!

Xylakant 10y ago

if you're referring to Germany, you're obliged to pay anyways - whether you own a device or not (it's per household/company since a while). It doesn't matter how many devices you own though. And you're not paying "the regime", you're paying an independent institution. It's not a tax by design though it may feel like one. The government never gets to touch the money. Now, there's a ton of things that are wrong with our nominally independent radio/tv stations, but if I look around and see how things go in other states on this little planet (hello fox news), I don't have any idea that works better in principle. I'll take the german system over any alternative so far offered (though the BBC is a close contender)

kosmos1337 10y ago
ch4ck might have meant Poland, since there is a similar requirement here. However, the sentiment towards it is extremely negative because the new government (which is viewed very unfavorably by many) has decided to increase the monthly contribution, crack down on non-payers and tie the payment to your electricity bill. This also creates an issue for people and institutions who pay multiple electricity bills and thus are unfairly burdened by this new tax.
cronjobber 10y ago
An unusual but arguably correct perspective is that "independent institutions" that pair extreme media influence on all other institutions, politicians, and democratic outcomes with the power of raising a privileged tax (they don't share their tax revenue with any other branch of government) ... are the regime.
drdaeman 10y ago
Here's the problem with this tax (or however it's called): you're basically paying for some third party actions that you have no control over. Someone emits some electromagnetic radiation that you may or may not care about, but for some odd reason you have to pay for that. That feels... wrong. Can't remember any other tax-like charges where one has to pay for something artificial that they could be completely unrelated to, yet don't have any control over.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  If you remove the abstractions down to "someone emits some electromagnetic radiation" then yeah it makes no sense. Just like saying "someone out there is mixing hydrocarbons with rocks and dumping it on the ground that you may or may not care about". Most people would rather discuss it in terms of "funding an independent source of media" and "building road infrastructure to move goods and services".
  - fwn 10y ago
    Depending on a single revenue source is the exact opposite of being independent; which is why they are always that outraged if someone proposes some reduction in funding. They are 100% dependent on parliament will. (...whether this is something you want your media to be, I don't know. It's a very German thing.) But of course it's not only financially. The German Rundfunkrat is basically designed to be the very essence of what other cultures might dispraise as corporatism. - Despite it's justification as some cross section of society. I'm not necessarily against the idea but the institutional design of German state media is arguably very bad.
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    I'm not sure comparing radio with roads is correct. For roads, maybe somewhere it's the same, but there are also funding ways that work differently. If you use the road (have a vehicle) you (probably, depends on where you are) pay the tax, either directly or included with the fuel price. If you don't drive a vehicle but use the roads indirectly (because the services you use, use that roads) you pay indirectly - trough your funding of those services and their respective use of vehicles. E.g. you buy stuff in a grocery store, the store pays to a transportation company, the transportation company pays taxes for their trucks - everyone's paying for what they actually use. So, it still feels fundamentally different from the broadcast taxes to me.
briandear 10y ago
So an "independent institution" gets to use the power of government rifles to force you to pay tribute for a product you might never use. If it's independent, then why is the government working as their collection agency? How independent is it really? If your collections infrastructure can get cut off by the government at any time, where's the incentive to stay truly independent? I would offer that most organizations won't bite the hand that feeds them. >> It's not a tax by design though it may feel like one. If I'm forced to pay money to the government for a public "good," it's either a tax or extortion -- there's no other way to define it. It doesn't matter if the cause is "worthy" or not -- it's a tax. Why not let the people that consume the product pay for the product? Imagine if the government forced everyone to buy a Spotify subscription. It's the same exact thing.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Why not let the people that consume the product pay for the product? Yeah, why not let the unemployed pay for the welfare! Or why not let the kids pay for the public schools!