Irish Government about to give the biggest WTF redefinition of a "Television Set"



  • <font face="Times-Italic"><font face="Times-Bold">

    Head 51 - Interpretation

     Part A. Relating to definition of a television set

    </font> Part A. Relating to definition of a television set</font><font face="Times-Roman">

    "television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

    From the <font face="Times-Roman">General Scheme for the Broadcasting Bill 2006</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The has the biggest WTF redefinition of a "television set" ever... Basically defining any software capable of recieving a video stream as "television set", including WMP, Quicktime, Winamp and even any 3G capable moblie phone. This will force anyone with such to fork out bout an extra €150 per year, even if they don't use the item for streaming television broadcasts. In fact by the exact definition the software doesnt even need to stream, so in fact any software capable of displaying ANY video format is now a "television set".</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The funny thing is, is that the television licence is used to pay Irish TV Broadcasting companies for revenue they otherwise would not be able to collect (you'd be surprised how much of Ireland is still only on a Terestrial TV signal) and this is brought in even though NO Irish TV Broadcasting company broadcasts their content on the internet.</font>

    </font>



  • Thats normal things going on everywhere. also here in germany you will have to pay in 2007 for any internet/multimedia capable computer. and it doesnt matter if you have (broadband)internet or not. I think you would even have to pay for your wap+video mobile, since it could display video material from the interwebs.



  • These sorts of taxes on things you already own were one of the causes of the American Revolution. They should be faught at every level of government as hard as possible.



  • [quote user="Hitsuji"]<font face="Times-Italic"><font face="Times-Bold">

    Head 51 - Interpretation

     Part A. Relating to definition of a television set

    </font> Part A. Relating to definition of a television set</font><font face="Times-Roman">

    "television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

    From the <font face="Times-Roman">General Scheme for the Broadcasting Bill 2006</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The has the biggest WTF redefinition of a "television set" ever... Basically defining any software capable of recieving a video stream as "television set", including WMP, Quicktime, Winamp and even any 3G capable moblie phone. This will force anyone with such to fork out bout an extra €150 per year, even if they don't use the item for streaming television broadcasts. In fact by the exact definition the software doesnt even need to stream, so in fact any software capable of displaying ANY video format is now a "television set".</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The funny thing is, is that the television licence is used to pay Irish TV Broadcasting companies for revenue they otherwise would not be able to collect (you'd be surprised how much of Ireland is still only on a Terestrial TV signal) and this is brought in even though NO Irish TV Broadcasting company broadcasts their content on the internet.</font>

    </font>[/quote]

     

    The new definition of "Television set" is ambiguous at best.
    It all boils down to whether or not the government decide that "Sky by Broadband" counts as television.

    Where's the definition of television?
     



  • Some day my government are going to surprise me by not being incompetant when it comes to anything IT. First they want to make all ISPs keep all IP traffic records of all users for THREE YEARS, now they want me to fork out 150 euro per computer in my house .... FUCK THAT!

    There is an election in less than a year, i can't come soon enough to get rid of these moronic moneywasting incompetant fools.

    (I am fully aware the Irish people will, in all likelyhood, vote the idiots back in ala George W but I live in hope of being prooved wrong :)



  • [quote user="Hitsuji"]<font face="Times-Italic"><font face="Times-Bold">

    Head 51 - Interpretation

     Part A. Relating to definition of a television set

    </font> Part A. Relating to definition of a television set</font><font face="Times-Roman">

    "television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

    From the <font face="Times-Roman">General Scheme for the Broadcasting Bill 2006</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The has the biggest WTF redefinition of a "television set" ever... Basically defining any software capable of recieving a video stream as "television set", including WMP, Quicktime, Winamp and even any 3G capable moblie phone. This will force anyone with such to fork out bout an extra €150 per year, even if they don't use the item for streaming television broadcasts. In fact by the exact definition the software doesnt even need to stream, so in fact any software capable of displaying ANY video format is now a "television set".</font>

    <font face="Times-Roman">The funny thing is, is that the television licence is used to pay Irish TV Broadcasting companies for revenue they otherwise would not be able to collect (you'd be surprised how much of Ireland is still only on a Terestrial TV signal) and this is brought in even though NO Irish TV Broadcasting company broadcasts their content on the internet.</font>

    </font>[/quote]

    IANAL, but I interpret that passage rather differently.

    " <font face="Times-Roman">"television set" means any electronic
    apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts
    broadcast for general reception "</font>

    the key isue here is what they define as 'broadcast'. But if we assume that term means transmission via radio waves, then

    " <font><font face="Times-Roman">(whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) "</font></font>

    that just means you can't say something's not a TV because it only works when you plug the aerial in

    "<font><font face="Times-Roman">and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus. "</font></font>

    This is the area that appears to be being misinterpreted. I read it that that means that anything with functionality of a "television set" PLUS other functionality still counts as a "television set". This could be a TV-DVD combi, or a computer with a tuner card. Something that can be considered "part of" a "television set", such as mpeg playback software, or an aerial, is not itself a "television set". A computer WITHOUT a tuner card can only be considered a "television set" if the term "broadcast" includes transmission over the internet, which seems unlikely.



  • [quote user="Isuwen"]These sorts of taxes on things you already own were one of the causes of the American Revolution. They should be faught at every level of government as hard as possible.
    [/quote]

    Er, it was the fact that the colonies were taxed, and yet unrepresented in parliament, etc.  Hence the phrase "Taxation without representation".

    We're taxed on things we already own all the time in the US.  Property tax, estate tax...

    'sides.  TV licenses aren't so much a tax on the object as they are a tax on the broadcast service that those televisions receive.



  • We're taxed on things we already own all the time in the US.  Property tax, estate tax...
    Both of which offend me, and both of which I fight against.



  • [quote user="Isuwen"]

    We're taxed on things we already own all the time in the US.  Property tax, estate tax...
    Both of which offend me, and both of which I fight against.
    [/quote]

     Ya, I decided to fight property tax too, but my garbage stopped being picked up and the street lights not turned on in front of my house, etc etc..
    Property tax pays for items such as what I mentioned before, plus a thousand other things - paved streets, snow plowed (if required of course :) etc etc etc.  Now mind you, I still think the gov't wastes tonnes of money, but your statment that property tax offends you and you want to fight is a WTF in itself. 

     Now estate tax, I'm with you on that one. 



  • [quote user="m0ffx"]

    IANAL, but I interpret that passage rather differently.

    " <font face="Times-Roman">"television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasts broadcast for general reception "</font>

    the key isue here is what they define as 'broadcast'. But if we assume that term means transmission via radio waves, then

    " <font size="+0"><font face="Times-Roman">(whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) "</font></font>

    that just means you can't say something's not a TV because it only works when you plug the aerial in

    [/quote]

    Hang on a minute. I'm not sure that broadcast is only via radio waves, but even if it is, any VDU can concievably receive and display broadcasts broadcast for general reception. The fact that my LCD monitor requires a tuner and decoder to allow me to watch TV on it is covered.

    IANAL, but this seems to me to be a tax on anything that can display moving pictures on the fly.

    It's arguable that this is the kind of law that, were a member of the Commonwealth to attempt to enforce it, may just constitute an act of treason.



  • In Germany we have a similar "forced tax", we have to pay for every radio or TV-Set which is capable of receiving the "public legal" senders.
    Next year they even want to braodcast these crap senders over the internet so they can charge for computers and handys, too. So you even have to pay if you don't have broadband internet to watch this shit.

    Thus I will claim child support, not because I actually have children, but because I have the apparatus to make them! Plenty of them!

    And with my shovel and some stones I could build a house so I want government-funds for that, too!



  • [quote user="kswanton"]

     Now estate tax, I'm with you on that one. 

    [/quote]

    Really? 
    You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so
    greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    You did know, I presume, that estates under that size aren't taxed at all.

    Or did you buy into the stupid Republican "death tax" propaganda?

     



  • [quote user="Thanny"][quote user="kswanton"]

     Now estate tax, I'm with you on that one. 

    [/quote]

    Really? 
    You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so
    greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    You did know, I presume, that estates under that size aren't taxed at all.

    Or did you buy into the stupid Republican "death tax" propaganda?

     

    [/quote]

    Most people who inherit "2 million dollars" do not inherit that much cash, but e.g. a business or a real estate. If there is a tax of, say, 200K on that heritage,
    chances are that the only way to pay that is to sell the heritage. In other words, family property is turned into cash, small companies are swallowed by larger ones, people lose their jobs. IMO this is sad and short-sighted, especially in case of family-owned enterprises.

     



  • [quote user="Thanny"]Really? 
    You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so
    greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it? [/quote]

     

    Yes. I would not want to pay taxes on it. Call that greedy if you will.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon
     



  • [quote user="Thanny"]

    Really?  You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    Are you saying that you want to pay taxes?  Last time I checked, most people want to pay the least amount of taxes possible.



  •  

    Really? 
    You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so
    greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

     

    You have to be kidding! Only someone from the left would think that the government has the right to tax something that has already been taxed and then call the taxee greedy. 

     



  • [quote user="Jojosh_the_Pi"][quote user="Thanny"]

    Really?  You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    Are you saying that you want to pay taxes?  Last time I checked, most people want to pay the least amount of taxes possible.
    [/quote]


    I quite like living in a society with public services and so forth, yes. Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland...

    That said, the TV license here (Ireland) irritates me a bit. It's okay in the UK, where the BBC has no ads and produces some of the world's best TV content, but here we have ads and RTE produces mindless drivel. (IIRC, though, you don't, at least now, have to pay the TV license if you don't use RTE).


  • [quote user="rsynnott"][quote user="Jojosh_the_Pi"][quote user="Thanny"]

    Really?  You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    Are you saying that you want to pay taxes?  Last time I checked, most people want to pay the least amount of taxes possible.
    [/quote]


    I quite like living in a society with public services and so forth, yes. Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland...[/quote]

     

    Strawman.

    No one is saying that the government doesn't need money. If you want to explain why a tax should be placed on inheritance, then do so. If all you want to do is state the obvious (laws need to be enforced? really! what a shocker...), then don't bother.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon
     



  • [quote user="Thanny"]

    You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    It's all in your perspective. You mean that if someone were to leave me two million dollars, my government would be so greedy that they'd insist on getting a piece of it?

    It's also important to remember that we're not just talking about cash here. My parents own a house worth well over a million dollars; by the time they die, it will probably be worth significantly more than two million. The estate tax would essentially force me to sell some of the property or take out a loan at interest so I could pay the taxes. Exactly what part of that is fair?



  • [quote user="Richard Nixon"]

    No one is saying that the government doesn't need money. If you want to explain why a tax should be placed on inheritance, then do so. If all you want to do is state the obvious (laws need to be enforced? really! what a shocker...), then don't bother. 

    [/quote]

    The original purpose of the estate tax was to prevent people from establishing hereditary power structures like the feudal estates back in Europe.  The original version also had a very nice clause whereby the tax rate was 50%, but you could choose to pay that 50% to the government, or to charity.  The US got a large number of public parks out of that clause.



  • The real WTF is the concept of a "TV license".



  • [quote user="Richard Nixon"][quote user="rsynnott"][quote user="Jojosh_the_Pi"][quote user="Thanny"]

    Really?  You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    Are you saying that you want to pay taxes?  Last time I checked, most people want to pay the least amount of taxes possible.
    [/quote]


    I quite like living in a society with public services and so forth, yes. Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland...[/quote]

     

    Strawman.

    No one is saying that the government doesn't need money. If you want to explain why a tax should be placed on inheritance, then do so. If all you want to do is state the obvious (laws need to be enforced? really! what a shocker...), then don't bother.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon
     

    [/quote]

    It's not a strawman. It's a false dichotomy.
    "Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland." The two are not related. Paying tax on an inheretance which has already been taxed and will be taxed again or not paying it have nothing to do with whether or not society crumbles.



  • [quote user="Autodidact"]

    The real WTF is the concept of a "TV license".

    [/quote]Seeing as we get good programmes and no adverts in return, I don't think it's a bad deal.



  • [quote user="wing"][quote user="Richard Nixon"][quote user="rsynnott"][quote user="Jojosh_the_Pi"][quote user="Thanny"]

    Really?  You mean if you were set to inherit 2 million dollars, you'd be so greedy that you wouldn't want to pay any tax on it?

    [/quote]

    Are you saying that you want to pay taxes?  Last time I checked, most people want to pay the least amount of taxes possible.
    [/quote]


    I quite like living in a society with public services and so forth, yes. Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland...[/quote]

     

    Strawman.

    No one is saying that the government doesn't need money. If you want to explain why a tax should be placed on inheritance, then do so. If all you want to do is state the obvious (laws need to be enforced? really! what a shocker...), then don't bother.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon
     

    [/quote]

    It's not a strawman. It's a false dichotomy.
    "Given a choice between that and paying no tax but living in a lawless wasteland." The two are not related. Paying tax on an inheretance which has already been taxed and will be taxed again or not paying it have nothing to do with whether or not society crumbles.

    [/quote]

     

    It is a strawman. No one suggested that the government should not be able to collect any tax whatsoever. That was not the argument at all.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon 



  • [quote user="Richard Nixon"] 

    It is a strawman. No one suggested that the government should not be able to collect any tax whatsoever. That was not the argument at all.

     

    sincerely,

    Richard Nixon 

    [/quote]


    I'm suggesting it.  We Montana Mounted Militiamen are safe in our redoubtable mountain fortress, and resent having to pay tax to a so-called "government" from which we require no services.



Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.