the RNC , the FBI and the FEC

Desh said:
You got it Charver.

You maybe give the stations a tax write off for doing it but the fact remains that the airwaves belong to the people anyway.
Click to expand...

Everything belongs to the people then. This is stupid. You are advocating taxing broadcast stations, local broadcast stations. This will put them at an even greater disadvantage to cable than they are already at. If you give them a tax write off then there's no point.

You may as well give candidates money through a tax on local broadcasters. It would have the same effect.
 
Watermark said:
It wouldn't be cheaper. It'd be a tax on broadcasters. That's unfair.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking they wouldn't be 'taxed', they would just have to set aside, in our case 10 minutes, per day (in the course of a week) for political broadcasts. So American Idol is cut short...you really gonna complain?
 
charver said:
Strictly speaking they wouldn't be 'taxed', they would just have to set aside, in our case 10 minutes, per day (in the course of a week) for political broadcasts. So American Idol is cut short...you really gonna complain?
Click to expand...

Charver, time is money. You are demanding that they give out time that would otherwise be devoted to a paying customer for free. It amounts to a tax.
 
Watermark said:
Charver, time is money. You are demanding that they give out time that would otherwise be devoted to a paying customer for free. It amounts to a tax.
Click to expand...

No i'm not. if they feel so strongly that they don't want to deprive the advertiser of his hard earned timeslot they can shorten their programmes.

You seem to have adverts every 5 minutes in America as it is, so it may be a tight squeeze but i'm sure you could manage it.
 
charver said:
No i'm not. if they feel so strongly that they don't want to deprive the advertiser of his hard earned timeslot they can shorten their programmes.

You seem to have adverts every 5 minutes in America as it is, so it may be a tight squeeze but i'm sure you could manage it.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Why tax broadcasters? Why not tax any other business?
 
charver said:
I'm still disputing whether it is actually a tax.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing that airtime is meaningless and free to broadcasters?

They are a business like any other business. If you make them work for free, you are taxing them indirectly. Whether or not "the people own the airwaves" is irrelevant. Let the people just take all the profits from broadcasters and see how much money they get from them after a few months.
 
Watermark said:
The government owns the airwaves, Charver. Not the people. Big difference. However, the government, by that logic, owns all the land in the nation and the hair on your head also.
Click to expand...

So if the government legislate for party political broadcasts then they are, in essence, taxing themselves, no?

And my hair, the little that i have, belongs to Her Majesty the Queen thank you very much.
 
cawacko said:
Watermark, I think your points have been spot on here. I understand people's desire for change but there is an obvious non understanding of the economic effects of the proposed solutions.
Click to expand...

I understand that the proposal wouldn't "kill" broadcasters, but it would make their businesses less profitable, because they have to work for someone else for free. I mean, why tax broadcasters? Why not anyone else?

If you want to give out campaign financing, take it out of the general fund, which is slightly and equally unfair for everybody, instead of being very unfair to a few "other people".
 
Last edited:
charver said:
So if the government legislate for party political broadcasts then they are, in essence, taxing themselves, no?

And my hair, the little that i have, belongs to Her Majesty the Queen thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Forcing someone to work for free is a way of hiding taxation.
 
Watermark said:
I understand that the proposal wouldn't "kill" broadcasters, but it would make their businesses less profitable, because they have to work for someone else for free. I mean, why tax broadcasters? Why not anyone else?

If you want to give out campaign financing, take it out of the general fund, which is slightly unfair to everybody, instead of being very unfair to a few "other people".
Click to expand...

Exactly. As you stated there is a large television market, 'free' TV, cable TV etc. By singling out one group to make them offer candidates free air time is putting them at a competitive disadvantage and thus as you state an effective 'tax' on their business.

I guess the government could try and force every single channel available to show the candidates speaking but somehow I don't think that is quite realistic.
 
Watermark said:
Forcing someone to work for free is a way of hiding taxation.
Click to expand...

Are there rules on how often a network can show adverts?

I rather suspect that there might. Presumably these have changed over the years- i.e. the ad breaks have become longer and more frequent in nature. The prospect of providing a public service over servicing corporate greed would be a welcome thing, no?
 
charver said:
Are there rules on how often a network can show adverts?

I rather suspect that there might. Presumably these have changed over the years- i.e. the ad breaks have become longer and more frequent in nature. The prospect of providing a public service over servicing corporate greed would be a welcome thing, no?
Click to expand...

It's not about "corporate greed". It's about the government stepping into industry and unfairly putting one company or several companies at a disadvantage compared to their competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top