(edit title) Swedens new TV tax (No opt out) Looks to be going ahead? Options

[byke]

As of late there has been a fair amount of reporting regarding the suggestion that the government will be changing the way that state TV generates revenue to pay for 5 channels and 48 radio stations ?

Presently residents have the option to "opt out" if they can show they don't have or use a "TV Receiver".
But under the new proposed changes that seem to be gaining momentum, A state wide tax on individuals would be introduced in a way to both boost revenue revenue from those evading the fee, But also ensure that residents can no longer opt out.

Whats your views on this?
Does the state really need 5 TV channels to ensure independence?
Is this not a little excess for a nation of only 9 million? To which an ever growing percentage is not catered for.

And obviously this right to opt out being removed and replaced by an additional tax wont make all people happy.

Viasat, one of Swedens leading providers of private content have just extended its deal with a group of American providers to extent content for Sweden. Now I know some of you may be pro or against such content, But given this private sector is a direct reflection of consumer choice - Does this not say something in regards to independence (such as free choice?) along with what consumers are looking for in content?.

Should a tax really be implemented in the name of independence, when at the same time it removes personal choice?

[Yorkshireman]

The tax is not being implemented in the name of independance, it is being implemented as it makes complete economic sense.

Today there is a requirement that one pays for a TV license, however collection rates are not as high as it could be because people just don't pay. So, there is an collection agency that spends a lot of money trying to identify and collect license monies from those that do not pay. It makes perfect sense that since almost everyone now has a device than can receive broadcasts, that one uses the Tax Office to collect the taxes rather than a seperate body that is effectively collecting a tax! Of-course the sad thing is that those in Kiruna will lose their jobs

The additional theory is that more monies will be collected through the tax, and additionally saved by not paying for Radiotjänst services, that can be directed towards programming.

The tax added to annual declarations has been implemented in Finland for a while, and works fine.

[axiom]

I actually support the tax as opposed to a license fee, it broadens the collection base and takes care of the people who never pay any despite owning a tv as they "never watch svt".

The fee is not "tv watching fee" it is a fee for keeping a public service media outlet operational and believe it or not almost every country does this, either directly or indirectly.

Perhaps other countries will follow suit.

[byke]

While tax may not be collected in the name of independence, what the tax is used to fund is.

And irrespective of overhead costs relating to the collection of "TV fee's" - is this a burden that everyone should be charged, irrespective of if they wish to use such services?

Finland :
is a completely different country and its comparison to Sweden bears no relation.
The rate of immigration, ethnic diversity and population numbers serving its people and its needs are very much different to the needs of those in Sweden. Holland, who also shares a close geographical and historical relationship has very lax laws on drugs - but I cant see that as any justification relating to laws in Sweden either.

Kiruna :
Ok, so lets say we give sympathy to these employees of a collection agency in Kiruna.
The cost of their employment, pales insignificance in relation to the cost of those who pay for a TV fee. If residents were forced to pay a tax for 1 year while these northern folk look for a new job, and the tax was only used to cover their benefits it will still pale insignificance to that of the proposed across the board taxes. Better still, if the collection of cash for these channels is causing such issues, shouldnt this cost be passed on to consumers? Why should everyday people who dont want to pay for such services be lumbered for it?

Violators :
Should violators who use public services without paying for them be held accountable for the costs they incur? Pirate bay founders were found guilty in regards to reporting or allowing references to copyright material being used and distributed in a manner that was deemed unacceptable and fined accordingly. If you can get 60? million out of 4 swedes .... imagine how much the state could generate on a larger scale. The fines imposed to those caught could either be used to offset the differences or even pay for the system itself.

Public Services :
I agree to a large degree in regards to a value they may hold.
But the greatest question as of late is, do they really hold the service they claim?
With so many people willing to opt out or pay for other channels, it does question to what value they are fore-filling and does the country need so many channels.

[intrepidfox]

Public Services :I agree to a large degree in regards to a value they may hold.But the greatest question as of late is, do they really hold the service they claim?With so many ... (show full quote)

Public Services :
I agree to a large degree in regards to a value they may hold.
But the greatest question as of late is, do they really hold the service they claim?
With so many people willing to opt out or pay for other channels, it does question to what value they are fore-filling and does the country need so many channels. ... (hide full quote)

I must admit that i do not pay the fee and this may sound wierd but i have no problem paying the tax. My biggest problem with STV is that many programmes can only be seen on the net (many people do not have broadband) and there are so many repeats. Svt etc hardly ever produce any material themselves and seems to me to be "just" overstaffed. Many people will say don´t watch it then. I have no choice as these are the only channels i have and i´m not prepared to fork out 2-300 extra a month

[HannahSwain]

I am against such a tax. We purposefully do not own any TV signal-receiving equipment nor even a TV. Why should we have to pay for this when we don't use it?

[as8]

The tax is not being implemented in the name of independance, it is being implemented as it makes complete economic sense.Today there is a requirement that one pays for a TV l ... (show full quote)

The tax is not being implemented in the name of independance, it is being implemented as it makes complete economic sense.

Today there is a requirement that one pays for a TV license, however collection rates are not as high as it could be because people just don't pay. So, there is an collection agency that spends a lot of money trying to identify and collect license monies from those that do not pay. It makes perfect sense that since almost everyone now has a device than can receive broadcasts, that one uses the Tax Office to collect the taxes rather than a seperate body that is effectively collecting a tax! Of-course the sad thing is that those in Kiruna will lose their jobs

The additional theory is that more monies will be collected through the tax, and additionally saved by not paying for Radiotjänst services, that can be directed towards programming.

The tax added to annual declarations has been implemented in Finland for a while, and works fine. ... (hide full quote)

+1 This is a good move.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Svt etc hardly ever produce any material themselves and seems to me to be "just" overstaffed.

That's a bit harsh. SVT produce a lot of the material they broadcast (about 70% locally produced). Also, it is not only SVT that is supported by the fee; it is the radio too, hence the name "Radio- och TV-avgift"...

[byke]

But does radio, really serve a purpose anymore?
Is it not just an outdated formula and over subsidised with 48 state stations?

And having not seen swedish TV or listened to Swedish radio for a very long time - can anyone answer if programs on any of the state channels are sponsored in anyway ? such as "this program is brought to you by (insert swedish brand here)"

[Yorkshireman]

I am against such a tax. We purposefully do not own any TV signal-receiving equipment nor even a TV. Why should we have to pay for this when we don't use it?

But You obviously have an internet connection?

If the tax as proposed is not implemented, the other alternatives that have been thrown around for a few years have been, additional taxes on internet connections, license fee for PC's and Mobile devices etc... I rather suspect that would become more expensive than a blanco-tax.

How many have complained about paying for Begravningsavgift, which is based upon the fact that You will die in Sweden, there is no opt-out there, and the monies go to the Swedish Church?

[Elf_Moon]

I am also against paying this tax, I don't own a TV and wouldn't want to pay for something so frivolous! It's completely ridiculous to expect ME to pay some lazy person's TV bill, so they can get fatter and lazier watching mindless crap that sends their brains into an ever more spiralling decline of intelligence.

TV creates mindless zombies, argue against that all you like but I've seen it happen!

No why should I pay said 'mindless zombie making' tax?

I've discussed this with my partner, we think such a tax would be against our beliefs and we have even considered other viable countries of residence (he is a very talented engineer.) A big step for such a small thing, but I simply don't want to pay something like this- it makes my blood boil, it goes in the face of what I feel is right and wrong.

Entertainment tax is wrong... Entertainments are not REQUIRED by anyone, fire services, needed. Hospitals, needed. Street lights, needed. Entertainment, not needed... Geez pick up a book <.<

[byke]

If there is 48 stations, and a population of 9m to which an ever increasing amount is of a foreign background or dont listen to in any sense - that equates to a maximum reach of 185,000 per station.

When in reality I suspect less than 20% use such services.
Which if true (very speculative) would equal 36k per station which is pathetic.

I would propose that all car owners cover this cost as an implemented tax instead since they have to be the greatest purchaser of such equipment.

That has to be the greatest use or justification of the radio in sweden in modern times.
(road traffic reports, not allowed to watch tv while driving, etc)

[Bender B Rodriquez]

But does radio, really serve a purpose anymore?Is it not just an outdated formula and over subsidised with 48 state stations?And having not seen swedish TV or listened to Swed ... (show full quote)

But does radio, really serve a purpose anymore?
Is it not just an outdated formula and over subsidised with 48 state stations?

And having not seen swedish TV or listened to Swedish radio for a very long time - can anyone answer if programs on any of the state channels are sponsored in anyway ? such as "this program is brought to you by (insert swedish brand here)" ... (hide full quote)

Here you have the numbers:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tel..._share_2011.svg
http://www.dagensmedia.se/nyheter/radio/article3066383.ece

[Yorkshireman]

I've discussed this with my partner, we think such a tax would be against our beliefs and we have even considered other viable countries of residence (he is a very talente ... (show full quote)

I've discussed this with my partner, we think such a tax would be against our beliefs and we have even considered other viable countries of residence (he is a very talented engineer.) A big step for such a small thing, but I simply don't want to pay something like this- it makes my blood boil, it goes in the face of what I feel is right and wrong.

Entertainment tax is wrong... Entertainments are not REQUIRED by anyone, fire services, needed. Hospitals, needed. Street lights, needed. Entertainment, not needed... Geez pick up a book <.< ... (hide full quote)

The Tax monies given to Theater, Museums etc... culture 2012 is around 6.7 Billion SEK where there is no opt-out. Having a tax for the TV and Radio public service is just going to level the playing field between different forms of entertainment.

[intrepidfox]

That's a bit harsh. SVT produce a lot of the material they broadcast (about 70% locally produced). Also, it is not only SVT that is supported by the fee; it is the radio t ... (show full quote)

That's a bit harsh. SVT produce a lot of the material they broadcast (about 70% locally produced). Also, it is not only SVT that is supported by the fee; it is the radio too, hence the name "Radio- och TV-avgift"... ... (hide full quote)

But it´s rubbish and repeated about 5 times on SVT. Even the news is repeated. Who listens to P1 etc anyway