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.
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.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message