This is actually pretty common and almost everywhere in Europe. I will never stop being surprised by how little my fellow British people know about other countries.
TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
151–160 of 562 posts
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A German explained to me once that the forced payment by non-watchers is justified as it benefits society as a whole. Do they really believe these things? This is the Kool-Aid you have to drink as a society, in order not to go crazy when you pay for things you never use and benefit from. If you ever move out, make sure to let them know, otherwise they will keep hunting you for ever.
I firmly believe this, especially in recent times. Those mandatory fees finance the "public" radio and TV stations, which have a set budget and can freely operate within the budget. They are not depending on advertisement revenue (they have a limited amount of that too) and are not working to create a profit. As a consequence, they do have a certain degree of independence and overall can afford into a lot of good qua…
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#153> The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring those households which view broadcast television to purchase a licence for the privilege. I know at least three countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) which do the same (edit: according the Wikipedia [0], such a fee exists in basically every European country, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Namibia). In Germany, the situation changed a few years…
> In Germany, the situation changed a few years ago, every household has to pay now, even if they don't own a television or radio. This was literally the first piece of mail I got when I moved to Germany: a letter demanding I pay for the TV networks I don't watch. I didn't even own a TV by that point, nor would have understood much of what was being said! A German explained to me once that the forced payment by non-w…
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#154> The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring those households which view broadcast television to purchase a licence for the privilege. I know at least three countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) which do the same (edit: according the Wikipedia [0], such a fee exists in basically every European country, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Namibia). In Germany, the situation changed a few years…
Basically 2.5% starting from income after 14000€ and maxes out at 163€ collected.
https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/newsroom/visual_aids_for_pre...
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#155Until the mid 2000's they also hired free agents that were paid a commission for every "black sheep" they got to register. Of course these people regularly overstepped their mandate and found creative ways to intrude people's homes, some would e.g. pose as TV technicians and ask if they could have a look at the cable as the neighbors reported some problems, only to reveal themselves as the GEZ guy once they were inside and saw the unregistered TV set. Of course all of that was illegal, and in 2007 (I think) the system was finally changed so that a given household would pay a fixed fee instead of a fee that depended on the number of receiving devices they had, which made using the "collection mafia" unnecessary. Still, the GEZ is by far the most hated agency in Germany and the subscription fees (around 18.5 € / month) are among the most hated taxes people pay. Some people go as far as voting for an ultra right-wing party (AfD) only because they promise to do away with this fee should they come into power. Personally I don't mind paying for it, though I'd prefer to be able to pay more selectively for services I use. Then again, less than 20 € / month in additional tax for a single household isn't anything to really get worked up over.
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not listened to the radio in 10+ years - my audio consumption is all from Podcasts, which IMHO blows any radio out of the water. It's not live but I don't need it to be.
I think the key benefit of a narrow selection of live programming is the idea that a lot of people listen to the same things. The discussions that follow a program, between people who watched or listened to it (which could be a significant chunk of your friends or coworkers) is to me at least as important as the content itself. With podcasts and streaming I often find the discussion starts and ends with "yes I listen…
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The trick is to watch the smaller "third programmes" or the programmes with special focus, not the big two (ARD and ZDF). To be fair, The Big One is actually just all "third programmes" with some additional programming such as news.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Take a look at the first column of https://www.tvinfo.de/tv-programm/ard Pretty much nothing in there is also shown at any third programme. The programmes are almost completely distinct. Evening news are actually the one part where the third programmes show the same as the ARD.
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A German explained to me once that the forced payment by non-watchers is justified as it benefits society as a whole. Do they really believe these things? This is the Kool-Aid you have to drink as a society, in order not to go crazy when you pay for things you never use and benefit from. If you ever move out, make sure to let them know, otherwise they will keep hunting you for ever.
I firmly believe this, especially in recent times. Those mandatory fees finance the "public" radio and TV stations, which have a set budget and can freely operate within the budget. They are not depending on advertisement revenue (they have a limited amount of that too) and are not working to create a profit. As a consequence, they do have a certain degree of independence and overall can afford into a lot of good qua…
* Increased bureaucracy (why not add a 0.1% to an existing tax?)
* Regressive taxation (you pay the same amount regardless of your income; if you used the income tax, you would distribute it more fairly)
* No market shaping (you could instead fund it with a tax on, say, TV ads for high-calories sodas, or whatever as a society you decide should not be forbidden but discouraged)
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#159Why not just tax TV sales? That's much easier to enforce, and has ultimately almost the same effect.
What was/is? existing is that every for every TV sales, you had to give your name to the shop, which would transmit it to the taxman.
Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
#160The situation was (is) the same in Germany: There is a fee of about 20EUR/month per household in order to fund the public service broadcasting. And in the last century, these "TV detector vans" also have been a thing in Germany. While the detecting technology can work in theory, it will perform poorly in practice. Think of any dense settling, such as apartment blocks. It will be kind of impossible to determine the ex…
They had fee collectors in Germany in the 90s. When I was at university it was common knowledge that you do not have to let them in if they come to your home. A friend's roommate let them in anyways, which cost him 400 DM (that would now be about 500€).