Refusing to pay TV license fees (Rundfunkbeitrag)

[Cammiede 1,300]

What is really the point in arguing this? This has all been raised in court.

 

Either pay or don’t, but don’t think you suddenly came up with a viable solution that no one else has thought of and that all of the politicians and judges are suddenly going to stand up and applaud. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Cammiede said:

What is really the point in arguing this? This has all been raised in court.

 

Either pay or don’t, but don’t think you suddenly came up with a viable solution that no one else has thought of and that all of the politicians and judges are suddenly going to stand up and applaud. 

 

What he said 

[zwiebel 48]

I know of many people without televisions who occasionally rent online with Amazon or have a Netflix account. It really doesn't matter how large the percentage is, that system is fair. It puts money towards what is used and not towards the subvention of what many users would deem as bad programming, sports that would never watch even if tortured, and so forth.  

Why are people so resistant to a system which is simply laid out:  if you use it, you pay, if you don't, you don't.  I can't understand why you would want anyone to pay for a luxury item like television when loads of people do opt out either consciously, for lack of time, or for reasons of living in areas of the country where they spend their money on the arts, music, etc.

[zwiebel 48]

I think this thread of over 60 pages shows the point of arguing this. Many historical instances come to mind of issues raised in court that were wrongly judged and later raised again and reversed. That's hardly an argument.  It's a logical fallacy, in fact--argumentum ab auctoritate.

The pay for service model is certainly the best solution where everyone would be happy. I see no reasons not to have such a model in Germany unless the end goal here is to extort money from the many who do not watch television at all in a move to elide the fact that viewership does not merit the budgets.

 

[lisa13 12,245]

28 minutes ago, zwiebel said:

the end goal here is to extort money from

 

EVERYONE

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, zwiebel said:

Why are people so resistant to a system which is simply laid out:  if you use it, you pay, if you don't, you don't.

 

The BBC has responsibility for issuing TV licences and collecting the licence fee. It holds contracts with a range of providers who support the collection of the licence fee. The two largest by value are with Capita and Proximity. The BBC paid Capita £59 million in 2015–16, with Proximity’s contract costs forming the majority of the £16 million that the BBC spent on TV licence communications and letter campaigns in the same year.

 

Ask them

 

We are worried by the current level of licence fee evasion as every percentage point reduction in the national evasion rate would give the BBC around £40.5 million of extra revenue, which means that the total cost of evasion is estimated to be between £251 million and £291 million. The BBC and Capita do not have a current realistic target for licence fee evasion

 

As for the current system in Germany , Why are people so resistant to a system which is simply laid out? The system assumes that the vast majority use it in one form or another ( as is highly likely ) - einfacher geht`s nicht 

 

[Krieg 14,926]

21 hours ago, zwiebel said:

Why are people so resistant to a system which is simply laid out:  if you use it, you pay, if you don't, you don't.  

 

Imaging extending your clever idea to all services the population needs.  Like hospitals, schools, police, firemen, roads, etc.

 

I will be the ultimate free markets society.

[zwiebelfisch 7,067]

1 hour ago, Krieg said:

 

Imaging extending your clever idea to all services the population needs.  Like hospitals, schools, police, firemen, roads, etc.

 

I will be the ultimate free markets society.

 

Its called Ancap, and was for a time trendy with the Ayn Rand and internet toughguy crowd.  Seems to have gone out of fashion now.

[Kommentarlos 983]

On 5/20/2014, 1:28:06, Editor Bob said:

There are numerous counter arguments. One of them is as follows:

Publicly-funded broadcasting services made sense, to a certain extent, back in the 20th century. In recent decades however, the internet has superseded TV and radio. Nowadays people no longer need public TV and radio services in order to stay informed, connected, and "culturally protected" (whatever that means). Indeed, with the advent of social networking and independent news sites the general populace is now much better informed and connected than ever before. The younger generation in particular spend far more time social networking and sharing news via their smart phone than they do sat on the couch watching TV. And over the coming years the trend will continue to grow. Therefore public broadcasting is an anachronism that deserves to be phased out.

 

I have not really been following this thread as I did not agree with EB's original position / view of the future (selected quote from a much larger post). I also pay my TV license so did not need his helpful information on what to do when GEZ comes calling. 

 

Since we seem to have latterly wandered off into a philosophical discussion, I thought it was timely to revisit this original point from 2014. I am happy to support a publicly funded and publicly accountable national news service on national TV for all. I think it is important for the public good. The whole Facebook/Cambridge Analytics/Fake News/(Alleged) Russian Interventions antics do nothing to change my point of view. If the price of maintaining this asset to society is that I have to spend some more money on Tatort, Bares für Rares and Ein Abend mit Carmen Nebel to keep the concept going, then fine. Spendy league sports events not so much. I don't really need to get my news from someone's Twitter feed. Private publishers are in the pockets of their own vested interest groups and highly influenced by their advertisers. Breitbart News anyone?

 

I guess that is what is meant by "informed, connected and culturally protected". Just who is editing the information you consume. 

[pappnase 2,572]

Quote

The younger generation in particular spend far more time social networking and sharing news via their smart phone than they do sat on the couch watching TV. And over the coming years the trend will continue to grow. Therefore public broadcasting is an anachronism that deserves to be phased out.

I would somewhat agree with this, but the key point would be how quickly to phase it out.

I would say that you could look at a survey like this one which shows that 98% of users under 40 had internet access in 2017.

Therefore for users under 40 we are already at the point where online services provide all the services we need.

 

However for users over 70, more than 50% don't have this access. These people may well rely on TV or Radio to stay informed, connected, and "culturally protected".

So I guess as internet penetration increases and older users drop out of the population, we could phase out public broadcasters, but we are not there yet.

 

Certainly although I never watch German TV there is real value in it's existence as something which my 90 year old Father-in -law with mild dementia can sit in front of to occupy him for a few hours whilst "Omi" goes out and gets the shopping done.

 

I suppose that over the next decade more and more people will feel like EB and that eventually a politician will pay attention and do away with it, but until they do it's the law of the land and IMO we should just pay.

 

[The Vindictive 85]

On 12/2/2018, 11:26:28, LeCheese said:

 

The BBC has responsibility for issuing TV licences and collecting the licence fee. It holds contracts with a range of providers who support the collection of the licence fee. The two largest by value are with Capita and Proximity. The BBC paid Capita £59 million in 2015–16, with Proximity’s contract costs forming the majority of the £16 million that the BBC spent on TV licence communications and letter campaigns in the same year.

 

Ask them

 

We are worried by the current level of licence fee evasion as every percentage point reduction in the national evasion rate would give the BBC around £40.5 million of extra revenue, which means that the total cost of evasion is estimated to be between £251 million and £291 million. The BBC and Capita do not have a current realistic target for licence fee evasion

 

As for the current system in Germany , Why are people so resistant to a system which is simply laid out? The system assumes that the vast majority use it in one form or another ( as is highly likely ) - einfacher geht`s nicht 

 

 

The BBC produce the TV show "Peaky Blinders". Shit, I can even pay for that if you force me. As for German TV,...Aaahhh, well the less said the better.

[El Jeffo 42,120]

European Court of Justice rules that Germany's broadcasting fee is legal (link goes to article stub at Spiegel Online).

 

The fee is not a forbidden state subsidy and does not violate EU law, said the justices in Luxembourg.

 

[Krieg 14,926]

On 12/5/2018, 5:07:00, The Vindictive said:

 

The BBC produce the TV show "Peaky Blinders". Shit, I can even pay for that if you force me. As for German TV,...Aaahhh, well the less said the better.

 

German TV has 4 Blocks.  Pretty awesome show.  However it was not produced by public TV, I am just trying to find a very good show in the same vein, thou they are set 100 years apart and Peaky Blinders is basically Sons Of Anarchy without bikes and with cool hats.

[msnys 9]

hi all,

 

i am currently in between locations and I have left my current address and will move in to a new address in about 2 months. As this tv tax is currently being posted under my name, is it possible for me to email and explain to them that I have left the current address and do not wish to receive the tax request under my name anymore? will I need to show them some proof that I have left the address like the notice email to my landlord or other documents?

 

Thank you.

 

[zwiebel 48]

On 03/12/2018, 08:12:17, Krieg said:

 

Imaging extending your clever idea to all services the population needs.  Like hospitals, schools, police, firemen, roads, etc.

 

I will be the ultimate free markets society.

Who said extending this to all areas of society?  These are luxury items, not basic needs.  Many of us don't have time to watch television and have worked throughout the holidays. It's a logical fallacy what you make out here--a straw man to be precise. Because I am pointing out the pay-for model for television consumption has nothing to do with free markets and privatising all public services. That's just silly.

[JCrichton 55]

The original idea behind this tax (which is not a German exclusive thing) is to give mass media journalism an independent source of funding that would help them to stay out of direct monetary influence of politics or big business. Basically, to avoid the TV and newspapers becoming a tool of propaganda for the ruling party or big corporations. This, in theory, benefits everyone even those who don’t watch the TV.

The other question is of course if the reality correlates with the theory.

[2B_orNot2B 8,451]

On Montag, 17. Dezember 2018, msnys said:

hi all,

 

i am currently in between locations and I have left my current address and will move in to a new address in about 2 months. As this tv tax is currently being posted under my name, is it possible for me to email and explain to them that I have left the current address and do not wish to receive the tax request under my name anymore? will I need to show them some proof that I have left the address like the notice email to my landlord or other documents?

 

Thank you.

 

 

They will most likely ignore any such e-mail request.

 

The only forms of proof they generally can and will accept in order to make any change of status to an individual record are a copy of an official record (e.g. a new Meldebecheinigung issued on 'ummeldung' after a move) along with a signed copy of the individuals application to change their record and sent to them via snail mail or fax.

 

Der Rundfunkbeitrag - Informationen in EN, F, ES, RU, TR, Arabic

If you download the PDF in the language of your choice and read the relevant section/s or linked webpage/s you can verify what their acceptable procedure in a case like yours is.

 

2B

[psychonaut 44]

5 hours ago, 2B_orNot2B said:

Der Rundfunkbeitrag - Informationen in EN, F, ES, RU, TR, Arabic

If you download the PDF in the language of your choice and read the relevant section/s or linked webpage/s you can verify what their acceptable procedure in a case like yours is.

 

"Die von Ihnen aufgerufene Seite wurde nicht gefunden."  Got a working link?

[2B_orNot2B 8,451]

6 minutes ago, psychonaut said:

 

"Die von Ihnen aufgerufene Seite wurde nicht gefunden."  Got a working link?

 

Sorry, I thought I'd already ditched all the dead links from my bookmarks.

 

Try following the links in one of these updated ones instead.

 

Der Rundfunkbeitrag - Englisch

 

Der Rundfunkbeitrag - Information in Other Languages

 

2B

[Krieg 14,926]

On 29/12/2018, 12:27:58, zwiebel said:

Who said extending this to all areas of society?  These are luxury items, not basic needs.  Many of us don't have time to watch television and have worked throughout the holidays. It's a logical fallacy what you make out here--a straw man to be precise. Because I am pointing out the pay-for model for television consumption has nothing to do with free markets and privatising all public services. That's just silly.

 

 

Getting informed around the what's happening around you is a "luxury item".   I see.