4 ms·

I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax. There are so many little things, whether its TV licenses, overp

I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax. There are so many little things, whether its TV licenses, overpriced interactions with the DNV equivalent, overpriced tolls that were promised to be eliminated. The list goes on. Fortunately most European countries have an awesome statistics office that gives visibility into government wastage. Unfortunately, the the social democracies historically(?) stuffed their public sectors in lieu of full employment policies, and bureaucracy is an existential threat over here.

antibuddy 6y ago
A tax would be fairer than the actual system is. You have to pay a fixed amount regardless of your income. (At least in Germany and the UK)
- OJFord 6y ago
  That's not really 'fairer' in any absolute sense, and a tax needn't be a rate, nevermind one w.r.t. income, but it could be, or even progressive. I'd probably argue 'fair' would be per usage, or per television. The latter would even be easier to implement - just slap a duty on sales as with alcohol and tobacco. (Actually, that would be great, the defining characteristic would presumably be the presence of a tuner (or network in today's age?), so it would create a market for television-like panels without tuners or consequently without being 'smart', I'd hope.)
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    Here in Germany every internet capable device is considered for the license, so your system would fail there as well (being unfairer). It would obviously fairer if they made a paywall, but also defeat the purpose (they don't fulfill anyway).
jontutcher 6y ago
> I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax. The BBC is license-fee funded rather than tax funded so that (in theory at least) they don't have to rely directly on the government for funding - private citizens directly fund the corporation. This goes some way to ensuring more independence, and fairer news output. In reality, the government holds the BBC to ransom every eight years when the royal charter they operate under is re-written. There will always be claims of political bias on both sides.

antibuddy 6y ago

A tax would be fairer than the actual system is. You have to pay a fixed amount regardless of your income. (At least in Germany and the UK)

OJFord 6y ago
That's not really 'fairer' in any absolute sense, and a tax needn't be a rate, nevermind one w.r.t. income, but it could be, or even progressive. I'd probably argue 'fair' would be per usage, or per television. The latter would even be easier to implement - just slap a duty on sales as with alcohol and tobacco. (Actually, that would be great, the defining characteristic would presumably be the presence of a tuner (or network in today's age?), so it would create a market for television-like panels without tuners or consequently without being 'smart', I'd hope.)
- antibuddy 6y ago
  Here in Germany every internet capable device is considered for the license, so your system would fail there as well (being unfairer). It would obviously fairer if they made a paywall, but also defeat the purpose (they don't fulfill anyway).

jontutcher 6y ago

> I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax. The BBC is license-fee funded rather than tax funded so that (in theory at least) they don't have to rely directly on the government for funding - private citizens directly fund the corporation. This goes some way to ensuring more independence, and fairer news output. In reality, the government holds the BBC to ransom every eight years when the royal charter they operate under is re-written. There will always be claims of political bias on both sides.