• Sweden edition
 
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated.
Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4   Reply to this topic

TV licence fees

The Prime Minister

Ivor stephé
post 6.Nov.2013, 02:54 PM
Post #46
Joined: 20.Aug.2013

I am surprised that under Radiotjansts "interpretations", a pair of human eyes havent been classed as a way to receive or view state TV.
Go to the top of the page
+
Rick Methven
post 6.Nov.2013, 08:36 PM
Post #47
Location: Linköping
Joined: 30.Nov.2005

QUOTE (Ivor stephé @ 6.Nov.2013, 02:54 PM) *
I am surprised that under Radiotjansts "interpretations", a pair of human eyes havent been classed as a way to receive or view state TV.

Ivor bullshit
We can definately all say:

If wit was shit you have been constipated for the whole of your life.

Back to the siubject
Whatever the form of funding, fee or general tax, it is better to have a true public broadcasting arm, not subject to political or commercial influence than to have broadcasting being controlled by the self interest of the like of Murdoch and his Fox news.

Go to the top of the page
+
Ivor stephé
post 7.Nov.2013, 12:40 PM
Post #48
Joined: 20.Aug.2013

True public broadcasting in its very definition wouldn't be done so through a corporation.
And even if those who believe in state broadcasts, nothing is to say they have to be closed down.

I cant think of anything more democratic in regards to giving people choice in choosing to pay for a service. Rather than having free information (such as the internet) being held to ransom to ensure that the funding for state broadcasted information control remains in place.

Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 27.Nov.2013, 06:26 PM
Post #49
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

QUOTE (The Green Turtle @ 6.Nov.2013, 03:30 PM) *
The logical conclusion to that then is, I and my partner don't use the education system so can I choose to opt out of paying those taxes???


No, because education is covered by a general tax, while the TV license is covered by a fee.

You don't have to pay the TV license if you don't watch the TV. You have to pay tax towards education no matter what.

Stop trying to class people who don't watch TV as tax dodgers.
Go to the top of the page
+
Ivor stephé
post 28.Nov.2013, 09:59 AM
Post #50
Joined: 20.Aug.2013

I don't know if anyone remembers, but a man took Radiotjanst to court and won after he proved his computer was incapable of watching TV.

Now Radiotjanst are appealing the verdict and trying to back date fee's.

I wonder how much money is spent by Radiotjanst trying to influence law for their own gain?

http://www.metro.se/nyheter/radiotjanst-ov...;rqlsRuLtS97ZI/
Go to the top of the page
+
Abe L
post 28.Nov.2013, 01:22 PM
Post #51
Joined: 20.Jul.2011

There is simply no way to defend the tv license fees. The best solution is NOT to absorb it into the existing ridiculous tax scheme but to simply make the people who view the content pay for it. It's 2013 for god's sake, put the channels behind a box and have a login for the website. If it can not survive on it's user base then it probably shouldn't exist.

It can first off be downsized to less channels and if a single channel can't survive they can rent time on commercial channels all the way to the point of not existing. You can not force people who don't use it to pay to make it last.

You simply can not force people to pay for a non essential service if they do not want it or use it. I hope the guy that sued them will take it to EU court which will in return hopefully force Sweden to abolish the current system and set a precedent for the rest of Europe.

The current model is broken and needs to go, Radiotjanst's stasi-like actions are disgusting and there is a growing amount of resistance towards it.

Public broadcasting was probably cool to have in the 50-60's but in 2013 it has been superseded by commercial channels and can only be perceived as a tool to keep brainwashing the public if governments enforce it in the way that Sweden does. We're not living in communist Russia in China, it has to go.
Go to the top of the page
+
dave.smith
post 28.Nov.2013, 01:26 PM
Post #52
Joined: 12.Jan.2007

Just pay the license FFS!
Go to the top of the page
+
Ivor stephé
post 28.Nov.2013, 01:47 PM
Post #53
Joined: 20.Aug.2013

QUOTE (dave.smith @ 28.Nov.2013, 01:26 PM) *
Just pay the license FFS!


Its not a license or a tax.

Its a fee.
The government went to get lengths to change the definition.
Go to the top of the page
+
Ivor stephé
post 29.Nov.2013, 11:11 AM
Post #54
Joined: 20.Aug.2013

Interesting to see politicians are not paying for a TV fee and are objecting to the way it is implemented.

http://www.metro.se/nyheter/sd-toppar-de-e...;KXnPB6Nmmjqek/
Go to the top of the page
+
llllXllll
post 2.Dec.2013, 07:49 AM
Post #55
Joined: 2.Dec.2013

you only have to pay for a reciever..
i took the reciever out of my "tv" took pics as evidence,
had a small battle with the tv peeps, they found it hard to believe someone doesnt watch tv..
they agreed i dont have to pay them, then 2 weeks later they phone my wife.. asking her to pay..l0l..
i sent a very strongly worded letter and they apologised.
the laws are online for all to read, reciever is the key word
Go to the top of the page
+
Garry Jones
post 7.Dec.2013, 10:53 PM
Post #56
Joined: 20.Feb.2005

I think SVT is needed. If there was a disaster or a war that wiped out the Internet and commercial channels the state would find a way to keep broadcasting from an underground bunker. I think its fair that we adults pay and that the poor students can dodge it by moving around a lot and playing a game of cat and mouse with the authorities.

If they make any changes I think we should all pay a %age of our annual income before tax and get a tax relief on what we pay. On my salarly I'd gladly pay 8000-10000 a year as long as the unemployed, the sick and the poor didn't have to pay at all.

However we are not there yet so as for the "My computer is not a TV" argument. Problem is to define when a TV is a TV and when it is a computer. You can bet your bottom dollar that the next round of TV's would be sold as computers so viewers could be told they could evade the licence. My smart TV has a mouse and keyboard attached through USB and lots of apps I have downloaded. It has its own browser and I use it to watch SVT Play. I am in fact using it more as a computer than a TV. In a couple of years the boundary between TV and computer will be invisible. Therefore I understand the reasoning behind the fee if you are only watching on a computer.

Go to the top of the page
+

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

712
jobs available
Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions
Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions is an innovative business company which provides valuable assistance with the Swedish Authorities, Swedish language practice and general communications. Call 073-100 47 81 or visit:
www.swedishdowntown.com