6 ms·

Sweden To Charge TV Tax For Anyone With A Computer or Tablet

33 points by timgluz 14y ago

drucken 14y ago
How is the tax actually/to be charged though?
- pgsandstrom 14y ago
  The same way it was for television. Radiotjänsten personal goes door to door and asks if there is a receiver in the house. They might also try to listen for suspicious sound, peek into the living room or threaten, to get you to confess that you should pay the fee. Then you receive a yearly bill.
- ukdm 14y ago
  If I'm understanding it correctly, there's already a TV license in place that households pay. This update just means if your house doesn't have a TV, and instead consumes all media on a tablet or similar device, you still need to pay the fee, where as before you could argue you didn't need to pay it for lack of a TV.
  - anderspetersson 14y ago
    Correct. Communism at its finest.
- j-g-faustus 14y ago
  You used to have to show ID and provide an address when you bought a TV, then it would go into a "these households have a TV" database, and you would receive a yearly bill. The extension is that it no longer applies only to TVs, but to PCs and tablets as well.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
patrickg 14y ago
We have this tax in Germany as well. They just don't call it a tax, but every household and company has to pay 216 Euro/year. They used to bind it to having a computer/radio/tv/mobile phone (with radio/internet) but now you even have to pay if you don't own any of those.
- klez 14y ago
  Same here in Italy. Here they tax for any apparatus that is meant or adaptable to receive tv or radio signals. So basically anything with a graphical display.
unkoman 14y ago
It's not a tax. It's a fee, required to pay by law to fund independent channels of opinion free from government and/or private funded influence. 200 eur a year is quite cheap for what you get. http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/ http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/
- MrCheese 14y ago
  Unless you have no interest in watching the programs. Then it's horribly expensive
  - rmk2 14y ago
    The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend on advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence. This in turn leads to you being able to profit from this even if you do not watch the programs and/or listen to the radio, simply because this injects a different kind of media into the media landscape which in turn other media interact with (newspapers, websites, blogs etc. etc.). Whether this works in practise is up for debate and subject to opinion, but I do think that the general idea is commendable.
    - josteink 14y ago
      > The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend on advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence. Instead you get a media-station which is entirely dependent on continued blessing from the government. So much better. That severely limits how impartial it gets to be, and the similar system we have in Norway has consistently proven to provide media-coverage leaning further to the left than the general population does. It's not a disaster by any means, but I wouldn't argue it's "impartial" either. And I can definitely see why some people would chose not to fund it if given the option.
      - rmk2 14y ago
        Again, I see the overall goal as having a balanced media system. I wrote in a reply further down about the same thing. A balanced system does not mean each element has to be balanced (or "impartial"). A government-funded media station still counteracts a commercially funded media outlet on a much more fundamental functional basis than just political ideology. Both public and private media are in my opinion necessary parts of an overall functioning and thus independent media system. This system, like every complex system, is only able to achieve "impartiality" from a certain point of observation, in this case that of the comparing listener/reader/viewer basing judgement on multiple outlets.
derda 14y ago
Germany had this for some years. The fee is almost the same as in Sweden. I feel ripped off by this, its a remainder of a time when TV-Broadcasting was still so expensive that only public founded institutions could provide it. These ages are long gone. Until beginning of this year it was actually relatively easy to avoid paying it. You just did never answer one of their letters and took care who you opened the door. Now its tax-like for every household. What disgusts me most there is almost no control over the budgets they just collect whatever they want. The politicians that are assigned to the advisory board do nothing, cause they fear bad publicity by the channels (and also want to secure some well paying jobs for friends).
- j_jochem 14y ago
  Personally, what angers me most about our system in Germany is that we have to pay the GEZ public television fee for internet devices, but only selected content is available for streaming online. When I want to watch an old Tatort, I still have to shell out 20 EUR for a DVD box.
- Svip 14y ago
  We also have it hear in Denmark. It's called »medielicens« and technically not a tax, but a licence fee (BBC subscribers will understand). It is also required even if you do not use any of DR's services (DR being 'Danish Broadcasting'), but own any form of media device. Most people I know do not pay it, however.
  - OrdojanAndrius 14y ago
    Wait what? How do you not pay it? Just throw out the bills they send you?
    - mmmm 14y ago
      "Oh why hello, thanks for calling, no, sorry, I do not own a TV, computer or tablet - I often spend time at my friends home and uses his computer and TV." This is how people avoid it in Sweden. However, the stores are obliged to report in when you purchase a TV, but all of these things can be avoided by simple lies ("I gave the TV to my friend for his birthday"), and many do so.
zacharyvoase 14y ago
You must pay for the right to receive electromagnetic waves which are passing through your body 24/7, whether you like it or not. Seems legit.
- awestroke 14y ago
  Swede here. The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political influence, and also free from ads. It is like a tax for something most people benefit greatly from. It has nothing to do with the medium it is broadcasted through.
  - jskonhovd 14y ago
    "radio and television that is free from political influence". Sorry, I believe your opinion is incorrect. Any form of non-trivial media has some sort bias.
  - runeks 14y ago
    > The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political influence [...] The public TV stations depend more on politicians than any commercial media company, because it's the politicians that write the laws that dictate how much money they get, or if they should even receive any money in the first place.
  - joonix 14y ago
    So just take it out of general government revenues (raise them if necessary). Trying to tax only those who use the service (which is probably 99.9% of people) is ridiculous. It just creates more bureaucracy and is a waste of time for everyone involved.
samwillis 14y ago
I think it is only a matter of time before the UK moves to something like this. We have TV licensees to fund the BBC but with more and more of the content that they produce being available on-line though iPlayer things will have to change. I believe the BBC's charter is up for renegotiation in about four years and it would be the perfect time to make the change.
- andyking 14y ago
  I got rid of my TV licence when it came up for renewal at Christmas, and just watch on-demand content via iPlayer now. (Well, that was all I did before, but I've removed the little-used TV receiver from my house now.) I can see them charging for computers in the future - but how would it work? Would they suddenly charge every office, for instance? We have an office with no TV but full of computers. None are used for TV viewing, live or otherwise. You just don't watch TV at work. It sounds like it could make them a lot of extra money!
  - aidos 14y ago
    I thought they already technically did. Don't you need to have a license to watch iplayer in an office? Ah, found a link, you don't need it for on demand, just live streaming, but stil... http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/...
- dspence 14y ago
  I actually think this is pretty reasonable - everybody I know consumes BBC content in some form (most of them without paying the license fee) and it's a small price to pay for the presence of an impartial news source.
  - aidos 14y ago
    I agree with this. 9 years ago when I moved to the UK (from New Zealand) I didn't quite understand the paying for the license thing. Now I realise that the BBC provides so much useful content that I'm more than happy to pay for it.
maurits 14y ago
The Swiss do the same ("Billag") to the tune of 460 CHF per year for radio and tv. I basically see it as a tax for a public system as there seems absolutely no way of wiggling your way out of it. E.g even if you don't have kids, you will also pay for public schooling.
LatvjuAvs 14y ago
You are forced to fund a propaganda box. Dear god. And some people consider this a norm(and even a good thing). Of course entity that is dependent on public funding will protect its image, will fight for its long lasting survivability and lobby to enforce its funding by law. ze irony.
- takluyver 14y ago
  On the other hand: TV programs break off every 15 minutes (or more) for various corporations to assault your eyes and ears with messages crafted to make you want to buy their rubbish. And many people consider this a norm. Of course, an entity that is dependent on these commercial interests won't want to upset them too much, in case they take their advertising elsewhere. Brit here: having a publicly funded broadcaster (that's required to act impartially) in addition to commercial media is very much a good thing.
  - noarchy 14y ago
    All of that advertising still boils down to choice. I can refuse to purchase the goods that they're constantly peddling. The system is voluntary. Meanwhile, I cannot refuse the taxes/fees that the government decides to levy. In my own country (Canada), I am taxed for CBC whether I wish to watch/listen or not.
    - LatvjuAvs 14y ago
      Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our enforcers". Sadly, choice of 3 men overwrites choice of 3 million. Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between sheep also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on governing body.
      - noarchy 14y ago
        >Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our enforcers". That's really the essence of everything that the government does. >Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between sheep also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on governing body. I think that people still tend to trust their governing body, though it obviously never trusts its own population. In countries with elections, the sacrament of voting is still observed by large numbers of people. But I think that apathy and pessimism is growing, but I see that as a good thing; you can see there is a concern, when governments begin to discuss or even enact mandatory voting laws. Then the sacrament becomes more than "duty", it becomes another act of coercion, like most of what government does.
hiddenfeatures 14y ago
Welcome to the club, dear Swedes! The average German household will pay 215,76 Euro (~290 USD) for "receiving" (whether you have a device or not) government-run TV and radio programs. In contrast, the same household will pay 786,56 Euro (~1050 USD) for National Defence. Obviously watching football (the real one, my American friends) is almost as important as living in a free country
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  > football (the real one, my American friends [1]) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4msKdfMtGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4msKdfMtGY
guylhem 14y ago
You don't want to watch TV ? We don't care. We will make you, whether you want it or not. And we will charge you for the privilege - having to subsidize the things you dislike, what a cool idea. (I guess I would have to give up my computers if I lived in Sweden) EDIT: Downvoted already? Whatever. I will not willingly subsidize government propaganda.
- noarchy 14y ago
  There are those who really believe that because something is funded by taxes, that it will be impartial. By this thinking, the old Radio Moscow was perfectly legit. After all, it was free of corporate influence, and the need to cater to advertisers. I wouldn't doubt that some of the same people would like Pravda-style, government-funded newspapers.
kristofferR 14y ago
Norwegian here, our National Broadcaster is planning to introduce the same here. Here's a story from today about it (in Norwegian): http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-lisens-pa-mobiler-og-PC-er-7099723.html http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-lisens-p... I'm fine with a TV-license fee, but if they're going to charge it for everyone who owns either a tablet, cellphone, computer or TV (which is basically 99,9% of households) they might just abandon their massive fee bureacracy and get the money through the government budget instead. It'll save a lot of money, especially if everyone is basically forced into paying it (regardless if they actually own a television set or not) anyway.
- chestnut-tree 14y ago
  How do Norwegians feel about the cost of their licence fee? Are people generally happy with the quality of output and services provided by the publicly-funded broadcaster? I'm in the UK, and the BBC licence fee is approx 175 euros. Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark all have more expensive license fees. Obviously, the UK has a much larger population than Norway, Sweden or Denmark so the BBC gets more revenue. Generally speaking, there is broad support for the BBC license fee. Given the BBC's long history, many people in the UK see them as a cultural institution rather just a broadcaster - which may sound strange to people outside the UK. Of course there are plenty of people who dislike the BBC in the UK. And then there are lots of people who like the BBC but are irritated by many of its programmes or behaviour.
sageikosa 14y ago
Sweden: socialism. Check!
paulhauggis 14y ago
Enjoy your taxes Sweden. I hope it's worth it.
yobo 14y ago
Just a sidenote. The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the government cannot change how much money SVT should receive. This means that journalists are not controlled by neither politicians or companies. This means that we have real journalism and free media. And I find that awesome =)
- runeks 14y ago
  > The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the government cannot change how much money SVT should receive. What do you mean? Politicians can change any law they wish. Unless it's in violation of the constitution. And I don't think withdrawing mandatory financial support to public broadcasting is prohibited in many constitutions.
  - yobo 14y ago
    They cannot do that during one period. They can only suggest such change and then the next elected government can approve it. This way the people will always be able to vote against such government. And I really doubt any party would suggest any drastic change on this topic.
glomph 14y ago
Does this not turn it into a poll tax?

33 points by timgluz 14y ago

drucken 14y ago

How is the tax actually/to be charged though?

pgsandstrom 14y ago
The same way it was for television. Radiotjänsten personal goes door to door and asks if there is a receiver in the house. They might also try to listen for suspicious sound, peek into the living room or threaten, to get you to confess that you should pay the fee. Then you receive a yearly bill.
ukdm 14y ago
If I'm understanding it correctly, there's already a TV license in place that households pay. This update just means if your house doesn't have a TV, and instead consumes all media on a tablet or similar device, you still need to pay the fee, where as before you could argue you didn't need to pay it for lack of a TV.
- anderspetersson 14y ago
  Correct. Communism at its finest.
j-g-faustus 14y ago
You used to have to show ID and provide an address when you bought a TV, then it would go into a "these households have a TV" database, and you would receive a yearly bill. The extension is that it no longer applies only to TVs, but to PCs and tablets as well.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

patrickg 14y ago

We have this tax in Germany as well. They just don't call it a tax, but every household and company has to pay 216 Euro/year. They used to bind it to having a computer/radio/tv/mobile phone (with radio/internet) but now you even have to pay if you don't own any of those.

klez 14y ago
Same here in Italy. Here they tax for any apparatus that is meant or adaptable to receive tv or radio signals. So basically anything with a graphical display.

unkoman 14y ago

It's not a tax. It's a fee, required to pay by law to fund independent channels of opinion free from government and/or private funded influence. 200 eur a year is quite cheap for what you get. http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/ http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/

MrCheese 14y ago
Unless you have no interest in watching the programs. Then it's horribly expensive
- rmk2 14y ago
  The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend on advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence. This in turn leads to you being able to profit from this even if you do not watch the programs and/or listen to the radio, simply because this injects a different kind of media into the media landscape which in turn other media interact with (newspapers, websites, blogs etc. etc.). Whether this works in practise is up for debate and subject to opinion, but I do think that the general idea is commendable.
  - josteink 14y ago
    > The point is that you in theory (!!!) get media this way that do not depend on advertisement and are thus more independent from industry influence. Instead you get a media-station which is entirely dependent on continued blessing from the government. So much better. That severely limits how impartial it gets to be, and the similar system we have in Norway has consistently proven to provide media-coverage leaning further to the left than the general population does. It's not a disaster by any means, but I wouldn't argue it's "impartial" either. And I can definitely see why some people would chose not to fund it if given the option.
    - rmk2 14y ago
      Again, I see the overall goal as having a balanced media system. I wrote in a reply further down about the same thing. A balanced system does not mean each element has to be balanced (or "impartial"). A government-funded media station still counteracts a commercially funded media outlet on a much more fundamental functional basis than just political ideology. Both public and private media are in my opinion necessary parts of an overall functioning and thus independent media system. This system, like every complex system, is only able to achieve "impartiality" from a certain point of observation, in this case that of the comparing listener/reader/viewer basing judgement on multiple outlets.

derda 14y ago

Germany had this for some years. The fee is almost the same as in Sweden. I feel ripped off by this, its a remainder of a time when TV-Broadcasting was still so expensive that only public founded institutions could provide it. These ages are long gone. Until beginning of this year it was actually relatively easy to avoid paying it. You just did never answer one of their letters and took care who you opened the door. Now its tax-like for every household. What disgusts me most there is almost no control over the budgets they just collect whatever they want. The politicians that are assigned to the advisory board do nothing, cause they fear bad publicity by the channels (and also want to secure some well paying jobs for friends).

j_jochem 14y ago
Personally, what angers me most about our system in Germany is that we have to pay the GEZ public television fee for internet devices, but only selected content is available for streaming online. When I want to watch an old Tatort, I still have to shell out 20 EUR for a DVD box.
Svip 14y ago
We also have it hear in Denmark. It's called »medielicens« and technically not a tax, but a licence fee (BBC subscribers will understand). It is also required even if you do not use any of DR's services (DR being 'Danish Broadcasting'), but own any form of media device. Most people I know do not pay it, however.
- OrdojanAndrius 14y ago
  Wait what? How do you not pay it? Just throw out the bills they send you?
  - mmmm 14y ago
    "Oh why hello, thanks for calling, no, sorry, I do not own a TV, computer or tablet - I often spend time at my friends home and uses his computer and TV." This is how people avoid it in Sweden. However, the stores are obliged to report in when you purchase a TV, but all of these things can be avoided by simple lies ("I gave the TV to my friend for his birthday"), and many do so.

zacharyvoase 14y ago

You must pay for the right to receive electromagnetic waves which are passing through your body 24/7, whether you like it or not. Seems legit.

awestroke 14y ago
Swede here. The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political influence, and also free from ads. It is like a tax for something most people benefit greatly from. It has nothing to do with the medium it is broadcasted through.
- jskonhovd 14y ago
  "radio and television that is free from political influence". Sorry, I believe your opinion is incorrect. Any form of non-trivial media has some sort bias.
- runeks 14y ago
  > The money goes towards radio and television that is free from political influence [...] The public TV stations depend more on politicians than any commercial media company, because it's the politicians that write the laws that dictate how much money they get, or if they should even receive any money in the first place.
- joonix 14y ago
  So just take it out of general government revenues (raise them if necessary). Trying to tax only those who use the service (which is probably 99.9% of people) is ridiculous. It just creates more bureaucracy and is a waste of time for everyone involved.

samwillis 14y ago

I think it is only a matter of time before the UK moves to something like this. We have TV licensees to fund the BBC but with more and more of the content that they produce being available on-line though iPlayer things will have to change. I believe the BBC's charter is up for renegotiation in about four years and it would be the perfect time to make the change.

andyking 14y ago
I got rid of my TV licence when it came up for renewal at Christmas, and just watch on-demand content via iPlayer now. (Well, that was all I did before, but I've removed the little-used TV receiver from my house now.) I can see them charging for computers in the future - but how would it work? Would they suddenly charge every office, for instance? We have an office with no TV but full of computers. None are used for TV viewing, live or otherwise. You just don't watch TV at work. It sounds like it could make them a lot of extra money!
- aidos 14y ago
  I thought they already technically did. Don't you need to have a license to watch iplayer in an office? Ah, found a link, you don't need it for on demand, just live streaming, but stil... http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/...
dspence 14y ago
I actually think this is pretty reasonable - everybody I know consumes BBC content in some form (most of them without paying the license fee) and it's a small price to pay for the presence of an impartial news source.
- aidos 14y ago
  I agree with this. 9 years ago when I moved to the UK (from New Zealand) I didn't quite understand the paying for the license thing. Now I realise that the BBC provides so much useful content that I'm more than happy to pay for it.

maurits 14y ago

The Swiss do the same ("Billag") to the tune of 460 CHF per year for radio and tv. I basically see it as a tax for a public system as there seems absolutely no way of wiggling your way out of it. E.g even if you don't have kids, you will also pay for public schooling.

LatvjuAvs 14y ago

You are forced to fund a propaganda box. Dear god. And some people consider this a norm(and even a good thing). Of course entity that is dependent on public funding will protect its image, will fight for its long lasting survivability and lobby to enforce its funding by law. ze irony.

takluyver 14y ago
On the other hand: TV programs break off every 15 minutes (or more) for various corporations to assault your eyes and ears with messages crafted to make you want to buy their rubbish. And many people consider this a norm. Of course, an entity that is dependent on these commercial interests won't want to upset them too much, in case they take their advertising elsewhere. Brit here: having a publicly funded broadcaster (that's required to act impartially) in addition to commercial media is very much a good thing.
- noarchy 14y ago
  All of that advertising still boils down to choice. I can refuse to purchase the goods that they're constantly peddling. The system is voluntary. Meanwhile, I cannot refuse the taxes/fees that the government decides to levy. In my own country (Canada), I am taxed for CBC whether I wish to watch/listen or not.
  - LatvjuAvs 14y ago
    Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our enforcers". Sadly, choice of 3 men overwrites choice of 3 million. Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between sheep also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on governing body.
    - noarchy 14y ago
      >Essentially it boils down to "we as a government can't trust you, so we have to enforce these laws and you must comply or else you will face our enforcers". That's really the essence of everything that the government does. >Trust is lacking, not only between governing body and sheep, but between sheep also, when sheep will start trusting each other, it will reflect on governing body. I think that people still tend to trust their governing body, though it obviously never trusts its own population. In countries with elections, the sacrament of voting is still observed by large numbers of people. But I think that apathy and pessimism is growing, but I see that as a good thing; you can see there is a concern, when governments begin to discuss or even enact mandatory voting laws. Then the sacrament becomes more than "duty", it becomes another act of coercion, like most of what government does.

hiddenfeatures 14y ago

Welcome to the club, dear Swedes! The average German household will pay 215,76 Euro (~290 USD) for "receiving" (whether you have a device or not) government-run TV and radio programs. In contrast, the same household will pay 786,56 Euro (~1050 USD) for National Defence. Obviously watching football (the real one, my American friends) is almost as important as living in a free country

mylittlepony 14y ago
> football (the real one, my American friends [1]) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4msKdfMtGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4msKdfMtGY

guylhem 14y ago

You don't want to watch TV ? We don't care. We will make you, whether you want it or not. And we will charge you for the privilege - having to subsidize the things you dislike, what a cool idea. (I guess I would have to give up my computers if I lived in Sweden) EDIT: Downvoted already? Whatever. I will not willingly subsidize government propaganda.

noarchy 14y ago
There are those who really believe that because something is funded by taxes, that it will be impartial. By this thinking, the old Radio Moscow was perfectly legit. After all, it was free of corporate influence, and the need to cater to advertisers. I wouldn't doubt that some of the same people would like Pravda-style, government-funded newspapers.

kristofferR 14y ago

Norwegian here, our National Broadcaster is planning to introduce the same here. Here's a story from today about it (in Norwegian): http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-lisens-pa-mobiler-og-PC-er-7099723.html http://www.aftenposten.no/digital/Norge-vurderer-TV-lisens-p... I'm fine with a TV-license fee, but if they're going to charge it for everyone who owns either a tablet, cellphone, computer or TV (which is basically 99,9% of households) they might just abandon their massive fee bureacracy and get the money through the government budget instead. It'll save a lot of money, especially if everyone is basically forced into paying it (regardless if they actually own a television set or not) anyway.

chestnut-tree 14y ago
How do Norwegians feel about the cost of their licence fee? Are people generally happy with the quality of output and services provided by the publicly-funded broadcaster? I'm in the UK, and the BBC licence fee is approx 175 euros. Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark all have more expensive license fees. Obviously, the UK has a much larger population than Norway, Sweden or Denmark so the BBC gets more revenue. Generally speaking, there is broad support for the BBC license fee. Given the BBC's long history, many people in the UK see them as a cultural institution rather just a broadcaster - which may sound strange to people outside the UK. Of course there are plenty of people who dislike the BBC in the UK. And then there are lots of people who like the BBC but are irritated by many of its programmes or behaviour.

sageikosa 14y ago

Sweden: socialism. Check!

paulhauggis 14y ago

Enjoy your taxes Sweden. I hope it's worth it.

yobo 14y ago

Just a sidenote. The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the government cannot change how much money SVT should receive. This means that journalists are not controlled by neither politicians or companies. This means that we have real journalism and free media. And I find that awesome =)

runeks 14y ago
> The fact that it's a fee instead of tax means that the government cannot change how much money SVT should receive. What do you mean? Politicians can change any law they wish. Unless it's in violation of the constitution. And I don't think withdrawing mandatory financial support to public broadcasting is prohibited in many constitutions.
- yobo 14y ago
  They cannot do that during one period. They can only suggest such change and then the next elected government can approve it. This way the people will always be able to vote against such government. And I really doubt any party would suggest any drastic change on this topic.

glomph 14y ago

Does this not turn it into a poll tax?