On 12-3-2010 15:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>   And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
>>> alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
>>> living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
>>>
>>>   Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
>>> that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
>>> For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.
> 
>> Tax also solves that.
> 
>   Polls suggest that the majority of people would want either the current
> system to remain, or for the "media tax" to be taken directly from tax funds
> instead of this proposed fixed-fee-per-household. Taking the money from the
> tax funds would, indeed, solve the problem of the fee being unfair to poor
> people and those living alone because it would be directly proportional to
> people's income.
> 
>   The government, so far, is not hearing the people on this. (Tells
> something about democracy, doesn't it?)
> 
>> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
>> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
>> support the obviously wrong solution?
> 
>   There has been some argument that taking the money from tax funds would
> increase governmental control over the public media, or something like that.

Here and in other countries it didn't happen, so why would Finland be 
different? Judges are paid by tax money also, are they also under 
government control?

> Most people (including myself) don't quite understand what this means, as
> the TV channels currently funded by the current payment system is already
> run by the government. I suppose there's some complex politics behind all
> this mess.

My first suggestion would be that there is some *simple* politics behind 
it. Some group is paying people to argue against it. Likely suspects: 
the boss(es) of the current TV company (interest: freedom to give 
yourself a 'market conform' salary), those of the commercial competitors 
(interest: keep the station in constant debate), foreign IP holders 
(keep the playing field simple), political parties (either afraid of 
what a good journalist may uncover or just believing in their own 
rhetoric), etc.).

>   IMO it's not so important who runs those TV channels (because it's not
> like there weren't privately-owned alternatives; there are quite many of
> them). It's more important for this "media tax" to be fair.

Content can be important. The major functions of an independent state 
funded channels are:
- broadcast statewise important content because you don't want somebody 
to make money from the e.g. the funeral of a king/queen/president. You 
also may want to make sure these things will always be broadcasted for 
free. Other important things in this category may even include important 
sport events. (our most important sport event (the 11 cities skating 
tour) takes place irregularly with less than a week time for 
preparation. If you give that to one or every commercial station you can 
not make sure the whole 200km tour is covered. Nor do you want that on a 
pay channel.)
- make programs for/about minorities
- programs that very few people watch but are considered important 
nevertheless, like plays/opera.
- programs that are to costly for a commercial company (best known 
example: Attenborough)

Post a reply to this message