5 ms·

All taxes like this are hidden flat taxes. Also money is fungible, so if you are a Canadian you should ask would i accept a general increase in taxes to fund “l

All taxes like this are hidden flat taxes. Also money is fungible, so if you are a Canadian you should ask would i accept a general increase in taxes to fund “local news or diverse content” Answer is probably no

Loughla 2y ago
Why is the answer probably no? I think it's an interesting opportunity to see things I don't normally get to see. And I'm privileged enough that this isn't the end of my lifestyle with the increased cost that will occur. So why not?
- brigadier132 2y ago
  1. For most people money is a thing that they gain by literally converting their lifespan into it via work. So if we take it from people it should be for things of importance 2. There is a finite amount of money and there are things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer? Subsidizing childcare? Dunno two easy ones off the top of my head
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >it should be for things of importance Local news is important. >things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer? This is a fallacy. The people making local news shows aren't the same people that are curing cancer, and the people curing cancer aren't going to stop to go make local news shows because of this.
    - voisin 2y ago
      We’re not talking about the people. We’re talking about where tax dollars get directed.
  - glitcher 2y ago
    Many people will know quite personally the struggle you describe, but I think there's an implicit assumption in it that reliable news sources will always remain available with or without direct monetary support from the population. I'll admit that "reliable" is a loaded word here, but what happens if the only news available becomes a hyper sensationalized engagement at all costs over facts dumpster fire? Freedom of the press was an important enough idea to make it into the US first amendment, but just like freedom the press isn't free.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  Becauae every time they have a chance to oay for it but also hace a free option they choose the free option.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
esrauch 2y ago
> Also money is fungible Money is fungible but a tax on a specific thing is not fungible to a 'general increase in taxes', raising tax on gasoline its not the same as raising income tax, because the proportion of tax paid is based on gasoline consumption not income. This tax effectively amounts to an import tax, since the big streaming content is all American companies (Netflix, Disney, Amazon, HBO). It's a protectionist tax to keep up local production just like a tax on imported cars or on foreign owned property is.
unpopularopp 2y ago
>would i accept a general increase in taxes to fund “local news or diverse content”. Answer is probably no I'm not canadian but I'm actively trying to avoid american entertainment content more and more. Americans are probably not aware of the extent of american cultural imperialism but it's _insane_
- musicale 2y ago
  Who is this "Taylor Swift" people keep telling me about? I've heard some people use VPNs just so they can watch US Netflix.
- MadSudaca 2y ago
  Genuinely curious about what you mean by american cultural imperialism, could you elaborate? I’m interpreting it as a complaint against the pervasiveness of American culture abroad.
TurningCanadian 2y ago
There's a crisis in local news. It's an essential service that the free market has largely stopped providing -- the number of journalists following local politics has been decimated, and sometimes in a literal sense. Without someone with the time to follow that stuff corruption flourishes, and getting rid of local government is not an option. We need some sort of fix so it's nice to see someone trying.
- hylaride 2y ago
  I don't think the solution is to subsidize it, though. It'll ultimately end up flowing back to Bell/Rogers.
  - TurningCanadian 2y ago
    I haven't seen anyone put any other alternatives up for debate. I know Poilievre has talked about defunding the CBC, but I don't know of anything he has proposed that would result in more local journalists. Do you have an alternative in mind? We need some way to get $ into journalists' pockets while also having some accountability. Increased CBC funding? It's probably better to have a diverse set (i.e. not just one being subsidized) of news outlets, so the Liberal plan here makes more sense to me, though there's also an argument for not spreading things too thin across lots of tiny outlets. Instead of taxing the streamers, require they provide local content directly? I think that this proposal is doing that indirectly. The streamers get taxed, but could pick up some $ from the CRTC if they start producing more local content. Instead of taxing the streamers, tax people directly? That'd probably be less popular than taxing the streamers, so good luck with that.
    - hylaride 2y ago
      There's a danger in "We need to do something, this is something, therefore we should do it". Government subsidies flow to those who know the system. If what you want is journalists being paid by those people who know the system (probably postmedia, rogers, and bell), then this may be the solution you're looking for. However, it'll likely make it even harder for different viewpoints to compete, not only against big companies alone, but ones that get subsidies. In the UK there's some ground-up work being done with some local newspapers becoming charities ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/15/glimmer-of-hope-for-local-news-as-surrey-publication-given-charitable-status https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/15/glimmer-of-hop... ). This, plus some very specific tax advantages, could provide news viewpoints of all stripes and not be beholden to funding conditions that may or may not make sense for the news source. It's just one example, but it's not tied to funding that can be easily manipulated by governments of the day. Subsidized organizations also often tend to get lazy.
footy 2y ago
I'm Canadian and my answer is not no.
dfxm12 2y ago
You don't have to subscribe to Netflix or Spotify. If you don't, you're either probably consuming more local media & getting local ad rates up or you weren't watching TV/listening to the radio anyway...

Loughla 2y ago

Why is the answer probably no? I think it's an interesting opportunity to see things I don't normally get to see. And I'm privileged enough that this isn't the end of my lifestyle with the increased cost that will occur. So why not?

brigadier132 2y ago
1. For most people money is a thing that they gain by literally converting their lifespan into it via work. So if we take it from people it should be for things of importance 2. There is a finite amount of money and there are things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer? Subsidizing childcare? Dunno two easy ones off the top of my head
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >it should be for things of importance Local news is important. >things more important than tv. Maybe curing cancer? This is a fallacy. The people making local news shows aren't the same people that are curing cancer, and the people curing cancer aren't going to stop to go make local news shows because of this.
  - voisin 2y ago
    We’re not talking about the people. We’re talking about where tax dollars get directed.
- glitcher 2y ago
  Many people will know quite personally the struggle you describe, but I think there's an implicit assumption in it that reliable news sources will always remain available with or without direct monetary support from the population. I'll admit that "reliable" is a loaded word here, but what happens if the only news available becomes a hyper sensationalized engagement at all costs over facts dumpster fire? Freedom of the press was an important enough idea to make it into the US first amendment, but just like freedom the press isn't free.
snapplebobapple 2y ago
Becauae every time they have a chance to oay for it but also hace a free option they choose the free option.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

esrauch 2y ago

> Also money is fungible Money is fungible but a tax on a specific thing is not fungible to a 'general increase in taxes', raising tax on gasoline its not the same as raising income tax, because the proportion of tax paid is based on gasoline consumption not income. This tax effectively amounts to an import tax, since the big streaming content is all American companies (Netflix, Disney, Amazon, HBO). It's a protectionist tax to keep up local production just like a tax on imported cars or on foreign owned property is.

unpopularopp 2y ago

>would i accept a general increase in taxes to fund “local news or diverse content”. Answer is probably no I'm not canadian but I'm actively trying to avoid american entertainment content more and more. Americans are probably not aware of the extent of american cultural imperialism but it's _insane_

musicale 2y ago
Who is this "Taylor Swift" people keep telling me about? I've heard some people use VPNs just so they can watch US Netflix.
MadSudaca 2y ago
Genuinely curious about what you mean by american cultural imperialism, could you elaborate? I’m interpreting it as a complaint against the pervasiveness of American culture abroad.

TurningCanadian 2y ago

There's a crisis in local news. It's an essential service that the free market has largely stopped providing -- the number of journalists following local politics has been decimated, and sometimes in a literal sense. Without someone with the time to follow that stuff corruption flourishes, and getting rid of local government is not an option. We need some sort of fix so it's nice to see someone trying.

hylaride 2y ago
I don't think the solution is to subsidize it, though. It'll ultimately end up flowing back to Bell/Rogers.
- TurningCanadian 2y ago
  I haven't seen anyone put any other alternatives up for debate. I know Poilievre has talked about defunding the CBC, but I don't know of anything he has proposed that would result in more local journalists. Do you have an alternative in mind? We need some way to get $ into journalists' pockets while also having some accountability. Increased CBC funding? It's probably better to have a diverse set (i.e. not just one being subsidized) of news outlets, so the Liberal plan here makes more sense to me, though there's also an argument for not spreading things too thin across lots of tiny outlets. Instead of taxing the streamers, require they provide local content directly? I think that this proposal is doing that indirectly. The streamers get taxed, but could pick up some $ from the CRTC if they start producing more local content. Instead of taxing the streamers, tax people directly? That'd probably be less popular than taxing the streamers, so good luck with that.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    There's a danger in "We need to do something, this is something, therefore we should do it". Government subsidies flow to those who know the system. If what you want is journalists being paid by those people who know the system (probably postmedia, rogers, and bell), then this may be the solution you're looking for. However, it'll likely make it even harder for different viewpoints to compete, not only against big companies alone, but ones that get subsidies. In the UK there's some ground-up work being done with some local newspapers becoming charities ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/15/glimmer-of-hope-for-local-news-as-surrey-publication-given-charitable-status https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/15/glimmer-of-hop... ). This, plus some very specific tax advantages, could provide news viewpoints of all stripes and not be beholden to funding conditions that may or may not make sense for the news source. It's just one example, but it's not tied to funding that can be easily manipulated by governments of the day. Subsidized organizations also often tend to get lazy.

footy 2y ago

I'm Canadian and my answer is not no.

dfxm12 2y ago

You don't have to subscribe to Netflix or Spotify. If you don't, you're either probably consuming more local media & getting local ad rates up or you weren't watching TV/listening to the radio anyway...