4 ms·

I like Australia's system better. You pay a very minor tax yearly regardless of tv ownership and it funds a few government run TV channels and radio stations as

I like Australia's system better. You pay a very minor tax yearly regardless of tv ownership and it funds a few government run TV channels and radio stations as well as a news site. Despite the current governments best efforts, the ABC is still the only worthwhile news site in the country.

vestrigi 6y ago
Same in Germany but the tax is a fixed price of EUR 17.50 each month per household and no escape from it except for very few special cases (e.g. university students receiving financial support from the state). Personally I agree with a mandatory monthly cost but it is way too high, should be in proportion to household income and the people in the upper ranks of the broadcasting companies shouldn't earn absurdly high wages and pensions. Despite that I like to support proper journalism that is accessible to everyone and content that is often ad-free to watch/listen/read.
- lloeki 6y ago
  It’s 138eu here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#France The issue for me is mostly that I refuse to pay for the bucketloads of despicably low quality content they put out. A shame, because there’s Arte (TV) and FIP (radio) which have quality stuff, but they only get a fraction of it.
  - vestrigi 6y ago
    I guess that‘s always the case with the preferred content. I don‘t care about Schlager clap-along shows with enormous budgets but it‘s what a lot of people like. On the other hand most of the people won‘t care about my beloved Arte and late night shows.
- nicbou 6y ago
  The TV tax is a great idea, but it's twice as expensive as netflix. On the bright side, you get decent news channels, and Arte.
  - dsnr 6y ago
    I would say the tax makes no sense. It‘s a reminiscence of some times that are long gone. People pay a tax for a bloated system and TV channels that mostly pensioners use. The quality of the programs is very low. Also, few people know that the tax is also paid by companies, based on the number of employees and cars.

vestrigi 6y ago

Same in Germany but the tax is a fixed price of EUR 17.50 each month per household and no escape from it except for very few special cases (e.g. university students receiving financial support from the state). Personally I agree with a mandatory monthly cost but it is way too high, should be in proportion to household income and the people in the upper ranks of the broadcasting companies shouldn't earn absurdly high wages and pensions. Despite that I like to support proper journalism that is accessible to everyone and content that is often ad-free to watch/listen/read.

lloeki 6y ago
It’s 138eu here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#France The issue for me is mostly that I refuse to pay for the bucketloads of despicably low quality content they put out. A shame, because there’s Arte (TV) and FIP (radio) which have quality stuff, but they only get a fraction of it.
- vestrigi 6y ago
  I guess that‘s always the case with the preferred content. I don‘t care about Schlager clap-along shows with enormous budgets but it‘s what a lot of people like. On the other hand most of the people won‘t care about my beloved Arte and late night shows.
nicbou 6y ago
The TV tax is a great idea, but it's twice as expensive as netflix. On the bright side, you get decent news channels, and Arte.
- dsnr 6y ago
  I would say the tax makes no sense. It‘s a reminiscence of some times that are long gone. People pay a tax for a bloated system and TV channels that mostly pensioners use. The quality of the programs is very low. Also, few people know that the tax is also paid by companies, based on the number of employees and cars.