Broadcast Charge (Why not add to Household charge)

[QED]

Of course it would be best not to have to pay this at all (or to at least get better value for how it is spent), but the fact is that it is the law that it has to be paid.

The present collection system seems very inefficient for what is a relatively small sum per transaction. Would it not make sense to add say €100 to annual cost of everyone's household charge (& second home charge if this is still seperate).

- All of the payment options are already in place.
- Compliance rates would rise.
- Cost per household could be reduced because of lower running costs, higher compliance rates and probably less people getting exemptions.
- No need for Inspectors.
- It would be very easy to transfer €100 X number of payments to a seperate Government Department if required.
- Revenue rather than the Post Office would be responsible for collection.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Great idea.

Makes a huge amount of sense.

Very difficult for people to evade the broadcast charge.

There seems to be a movement towards complexity in taxes and charges. Why not have a simple income tax system and get rid of USC, prsi, health levies,etc? Much easier to understand and administer.

Brendan

 

[Lightning]

Would it not make sense to add say €100 to annual cost of everyone's household charge (& second home charge if this is still seperate).

Do you mean add it to everyone's property tax rather than household charge? The household charge is gone.

The problem is that property tax is payable by the landlord but the broadcasting charge is payable by the tenant. As there are different liable parties it makes it difficult to net the payment.

 

[Protocol]

Why not have a simple income tax system and get rid of USC, prsi, health levies,etc? Much easier to understand and administer.

Brendan

Note that abolishing PRSI would mean abolishing the social insurance system.

This is not something to be taken lightly.

How would we then determine eligibility for welfare benefits?

I presume you mean move to a totally means-tested system?

This would mean radical reform of State Pensions.

People paying PRSI for decades may lose eligibility for State Pensions??

 

[Protocol]

Of course it would be best not to have to pay this at all (or to at least get better value for how it is spent), but the fact is that it is the law that it has to be paid.

The present collection system seems very inefficient for what is a relatively small sum per transaction. Would it not make sense to add say €100 to annual cost of everyone's household charge (& second home charge if this is still seperate).

- All of the payment options are already in place.
- Compliance rates would rise.
- Cost per household could be reduced because of lower running costs, higher compliance rates and probably less people getting exemptions.
- No need for Inspectors.
- It would be very easy to transfer €100 X number of payments to a seperate Government Department if required.
- Revenue rather than the Post Office would be responsible for collection.

My suggestion is to merge the following:

LPT (goes to Co. Co.)
Car tax (goes to Co. Co.)
TV licence
Water charges

Some sort of scheme where I would pay, say 100 pm.

Then at end of year I could settle up, if used more/less water, or if switched to bigger/smaller car


Example

LPT = 225
Car tax = 270
TV licence = 160
Water charges = 200

Total = 855.

Allow me to pay 75 per month DD or 75 through payslip.

 

[Frank]

Brendan's idea of simplifying the taxes makes sense.

USC PRSI and all the other charges mentioned are a tax by any other name.

Stop treating us like fools and just call it 90% tax.

Car tax and VRT should be split across fuel.
No need to issue or check for road tax money saved on admin.
All those yellow reg's wouldn't be a problem.
Natural tendency towards frugal cars, use more fuel pay more tax.

The broadcast charge put it on income tax too. again less administration high compliance and just give RTE the free money to overpay Joe Duffy and his mates.