Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,349
You guys know Germany has this model in place right?
Since 2013 all citizens have to pay. Regardless if they have a device or not to watch tv or listen to the radio. Currently their fee is 18 euros per house per month.

I can see where the SABC are coming from. The current model is outdated and doesn’t work. Germany ditched that model in 2013 for the same reasons.
2013 called, it wants it's outdated tv license model back. Seriously SA doesn't need to follow every failed trend and policy in the world.

There are exemptions to the tax; same a Germany has exemptions. So if the people in shacks are excluded; then I think that is fair. They're below the poverty line and shouldn't be made to pay this.

Same as if you're unemployed in Germany; you don't pay.
How is it fair to exclude the majority? The only reason there is to not upset the voter base. Btw income status is no longer considered a valid reason for exemption so what now if we follow the German model?
 
Last edited:

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
37,591
Well, I pay my TV licence already so this doesn't change anything for me....





 

system32

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
4,873
You guys know Germany has this model in place right?
Since 2013 all citizens have to pay. Regardless if they have a device or not to watch tv or listen to the radio. Currently their fee is 18 euros per house per month.

I can see where the SABC are coming from. The current model is outdated and doesn’t work. Germany ditched that model in 2013 for the same reasons.
The issues in ZA are:
1) In SABC has experienced serious corruption resulting in huge losses and death - so why should taxpayers give them money.
2) A SABC house hold tax == tax on middle class - we need a "user pays principle" - you don't watch you don't pay.

And no more taxpayer bailouts of the SABC.
 

SAguy

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
8,875
SABC, the national broadcaster that can't even afford to broadcast it's national team's sports games
 

dusi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
961
The state broadcaster said that this household levy should be based on the ability to access the SABC’s services rather than the actual use of its services.

So it's about the possibility of accessing SABC services per household? And how will they do that, come to your house to do an audit on what devices you have?
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,349
So it's about the possibility of accessing SABC services per household? And how will they do that, come to your house to do an audit on what devices you have?
All households would be deemed to have access. So again it's not about the ability to access, just like etolls are not user pays.
 

dusi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
961
All households would be deemed to have access. So again it's not about the ability to access, just like etolls are not user pays.
Ok so like an additional house hold tax for a service that one may or may not have access to.
 

skeptic_SA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
9,396
There was a discussion about this on 702 yesterday. If the damn host didn't talk over the guest the whole time, I might have had something useful to add here.
 

elf_lord_ZC5

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
9,305
2013 called, it wants it's outdated tv license model back. Seriously SA doesn't need to follow every failed trend and policy in the world.


How is it fair to exclude the majority? The only reason there is to not upset the voter base. Btw income status is no longer considered a valid reason for exemption so what now if we follow the German model?

The majority stay excluded ...
They are ANC voters, and have preferential racial status.
 

Slegdehammer67

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2018
Messages
326
They have put themselves into that hole after digging it for decades...and if the hole is too deep and you can not get out and no one is around...good fcuking luck...
 

Gatecrasher

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
6,679
Since the SABC has the obligation to broadcast unprofitably in all 11 (and sign) languages, it has a right to claim some funding from the citizenry to supplement its commercial operations.
But why not just get a fixed government budget allocation as recompense for this obligation, instead of devising messy, inefficient collection schemes that are controversial, annoying, time-wasting and bound to fail?
 

elf_lord_ZC5

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
9,305
Since the SABC has the obligation to broadcast unprofitably in all 11 (and sign) languages, it has a right to claim some funding from the citizenry to supplement its commercial operations.
But why not just get a fixed government budget allocation as recompense for this obligation, instead of devising messy, inefficient collection schemes that are controversial, annoying, time-wasting and bound to fail?

Failure - It is the African Way
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
23,700
First DSTV, then Netflix, then Disney, then your ISP, then pretty soon they'll want you to pay for a TV licence if you use any sort of social media
 

DreamKing

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
12,158
nice, let dstv subscribers to pay only, better than attaching to municipal bill.

:D :D :D
 

elf_lord_ZC5

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
9,305
As long as they, make it, so they collect from the ever dwindling tax base, only, they doom themselves to failure. Especially as their main audience is the non paying majority.
 

Gazg

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
875
Lmfao.......how does it become "every household" if you are just targeting Multichoice??
 
Top