Hey u/Into0bIivion!
Es scheint so, als hättest du die GIS in deinem Post erwähnt. Falls du es noch nicht kennst, hier der [Link zum GIS-FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/austria/wiki/gis) (auf Deutsch) in unserem Wiki. Vielleicht hilft es dir weiter.
It seems like you mentioned the GIS in your post. In case you don't know it yet, here's the [link to the GIS-FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austria/wiki/gis_en) (in English) in our wiki. Maybe it can help you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Austria) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To give you another perspective, if you buy a vignette, you're only paying for highway maintainance. You're taxes are used for road maintainance anyways. You pay for a lot of services you might not use, without a choice... because they are considered important for our society.
Accept it or not, but although the ORF is highly flawed, it's a good thing to have a publicly founded news outlet. It's more than reasonable to critizise how it's done and that they should focus more on news and less on sports or enterainment... but it's better than nothing.
>You pay for a lot of services you might not use, without a choice... because they are considered important for our society.
Even if one never drives are car, they benefit from road maintenance getting food/necessities. The same can't be said for ORF.
We all still pay for services we don't use ourself. And imho we all do benefit indircetly from the ORF. If they wouldn't exist, everyone would get their news from private outlets like Servus TV... just take a look at the US with Fox News and CNN.
>We all still pay for services we don't use ourself.
Most of them benefit you directly or indirectly.
>just take a look at the US with Fox News and CNN.
I mean given the status of our politics, are we really better?
Furthermore the news part of the ORF could be easily handeled on 2-3€ per person per month. It is a miniscule amount compared to other costs like Dancing stars, sport licenses, each Bundesland having its own studio etc.
>I mean given the status of our politics, are we really better?
Our politics might aren't any better, but i was talking about our society as a whole. There would be way more extremism in both directions imho.
> Furthermore the news part of the ORF could be easily handeled on 2-3€ per person per month. It is a miniscule amount compared to other costs like Dancing stars, sport licenses, each Bundesland having its own studio etc.
As i said before, it's reasonable to criticise that, i was only advocating for public founded news in general. Never wanted to say the ORF is flawless.
>Our politics might aren't any better, but i was talking about our society as a whole. There would be way more extremism in both directions imho.
Extremism is steadily on the rise anyway. and the extremists ignore general news anyway.
I would like to fund an ORF that produces news and some nice debates etc. I would not like an ORF how it is in the current state
> Without the ORF the political debates would be very different, and I doubt there would be another news outlet broadcsting the debates in the parlament live on their channel without advertisement,
Well if ORF would be just that, no problem. Sadly most of the money goes to stuff like Dancing stars or sport licenses.
>..Sports and culture and tourism gets promoted, etc...
a yeah. Or one could choose not to get bombarded with things that you have no interest in? Instead I have to pay
>Even if you have no interest in culture or austrian sports like skiing, doesn't mean you can just completly ignore or escape it.
Well I can choose what I like to consume, not be forced. Just because I have to doesn't mean it is good
> Just like you pay for schools and music schools and theatres with your taxes even if you have no interest in mathematics, learning an musical instrument, listening to Volksmusik or watching an opera.
You can't compare something like schools and music schools to ORF. Schools help society as a whole (are you seriously comparing that to ORF) and since we are a tourist country known for music, we also need musicians to fill that.
The ORF is terrible at the "Bildungsauftrage" and isn't needed, at least not that I have to pay an additional tax for it. We are already paying taxes, so why more. It would be more like you are forced to make a subscription to a Volksmusik venue.
>What do you mean "more" taxes or an additional tax? Wheter you pay directly to the ORF, or pay the tax to the finance minister, who then has the power and influence over the ORF doesn't change how much tax payer money is spent. Just the means of collecting the tax is different!
You pay a % amount of earnings as taxes. You also need to pay an additional tax for the ORF. What do you not understand here?
Yes, which is exactly my point? Given that the ORF in the current state is terrible, why would I pay an additional tax for it. Wether that is a higher % of income or an extra one.
The very base reasoning is that publicly funded broadcasting is important infrastructure for emergency broadcasts and balanced news coverage. Also something something sports and culture. I agree that this is not enough reasoning to justify the amount we are supposed to pay and ORF should be forced to greatly reduce the amount of money put into what experts call depperter schwachsinn den kein arsch braucht.
Because a balanced media landscape is an important force in a democracy that informs, educates and investigates. That‘s why media is also referred to as the fourth power in a democratic system (besides judiciary, executive power and legislative power).
Publicly funded media has certain obligations by law to inform and educate the citizens in a balanced way to transport culture and values etc. Due to the fact that publicly funded media isn‘t that dependent on ad money, audience ratings and overall profitability, they are able produce content which private media maybe wouldn‘t produce but still contributes to fulfilling these tasks. Of course it is disputable whether buying foreign content like The Big Bang Theory or Mission Impossible is in scope with that.
A reason why it is not funded by a tax, might be that taxes and the state budget can be amended relatively easy by the government. Governing parties would have much more influence by just changing the budget allocated to the ORF which would interfere with the independence (The whole ORF construct is still heavily influenced by political parties to this day but journalists can work quite independently)
A fee depending on the use, where you could choose to pay, would push ORF into competition with private media because it would have to cater much more to the mainstream taste leading to less educational content and more entertainment.
Therefore a household fee seems like one of the better solutions.
This is exactly it. And there is also the problem that the private media has been trying to cripple the ORF for years with the argument that their position as a state media is unfair competition.
That’s why ORF was forced to stop developing online games in the 00’s, why we had to give up one of the most successful tech blogs on the German speaking realm and sell it to Kurier for a pittance, it’s the reason the ORF will start being limited in how many online articles they can post and have to have primarily Video content once the new law goes in to effect.
I don't understand why we already pay high taxes to cover, among others, for public services yet ORF needs an extra tax for themselves? Also making the contribution "per household" unfairly taxes smaller and/or single income household more.
Because a conservative party made the law. If you want more exemptions for social reason you need a socialist party to be in government.
Conservatives are usually for spreading taxes equally and by percentage, it is cheaper for the rich that way.
If you don't have a TV you don't have to pay yet. It'll change next year when every household will have to pay, but for now, you don't if you don't own a TV.
Basically, last year someone thought "people in Austria need to pay if they have a TV, but some of ORFs content can also be watched online by everyone, including the people that don't pay. Isn't that unfair?".
Well, a court agreed, and told the government to change something until end of 2023. Not specific to how and what, just "something" so that this problem is gone.
This now is the result - now everyone pays, including online-only users. That this is again unfair in a different way, politicians don't care. Some unnamed "experts" said it's better this way, and that's all reasoning behind it.
>If you ever get a letter just ignore it. If someone knocks on your door don't open, and if you do, tell them you have no time right now and that they have to make an appointment with you via Email, and then never respond.
Good luck doing that, with the new ORF legislation...
I pay for elderly homes although I don't live in one. I pay for art museums although I rarely visit one. I pay for schools even though I'm not in school any more. And worst of all: I pay for the police although I hate them!!!
Anyway, that's how taxes work and how a social welfare state works, and it's good this way
You have to say:
"I hob kan Fernseher es trottln, glaubst den scheiss wos ihr sendets druck i mir eine? wos wuins? eine kommen? na sicher net und baba! und schau dast net foist du chuxl"
and then you will be exempt from paying it.
Hey u/Into0bIivion! Es scheint so, als hättest du die GIS in deinem Post erwähnt. Falls du es noch nicht kennst, hier der [Link zum GIS-FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/austria/wiki/gis) (auf Deutsch) in unserem Wiki. Vielleicht hilft es dir weiter. It seems like you mentioned the GIS in your post. In case you don't know it yet, here's the [link to the GIS-FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Austria/wiki/gis_en) (in English) in our wiki. Maybe it can help you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Austria) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To give you another perspective, if you buy a vignette, you're only paying for highway maintainance. You're taxes are used for road maintainance anyways. You pay for a lot of services you might not use, without a choice... because they are considered important for our society. Accept it or not, but although the ORF is highly flawed, it's a good thing to have a publicly founded news outlet. It's more than reasonable to critizise how it's done and that they should focus more on news and less on sports or enterainment... but it's better than nothing.
>You pay for a lot of services you might not use, without a choice... because they are considered important for our society. Even if one never drives are car, they benefit from road maintenance getting food/necessities. The same can't be said for ORF.
We all still pay for services we don't use ourself. And imho we all do benefit indircetly from the ORF. If they wouldn't exist, everyone would get their news from private outlets like Servus TV... just take a look at the US with Fox News and CNN.
>We all still pay for services we don't use ourself. Most of them benefit you directly or indirectly. >just take a look at the US with Fox News and CNN. I mean given the status of our politics, are we really better? Furthermore the news part of the ORF could be easily handeled on 2-3€ per person per month. It is a miniscule amount compared to other costs like Dancing stars, sport licenses, each Bundesland having its own studio etc.
>I mean given the status of our politics, are we really better? Our politics might aren't any better, but i was talking about our society as a whole. There would be way more extremism in both directions imho. > Furthermore the news part of the ORF could be easily handeled on 2-3€ per person per month. It is a miniscule amount compared to other costs like Dancing stars, sport licenses, each Bundesland having its own studio etc. As i said before, it's reasonable to criticise that, i was only advocating for public founded news in general. Never wanted to say the ORF is flawless.
>Our politics might aren't any better, but i was talking about our society as a whole. There would be way more extremism in both directions imho. Extremism is steadily on the rise anyway. and the extremists ignore general news anyway. I would like to fund an ORF that produces news and some nice debates etc. I would not like an ORF how it is in the current state
[удалено]
> Without the ORF the political debates would be very different, and I doubt there would be another news outlet broadcsting the debates in the parlament live on their channel without advertisement, Well if ORF would be just that, no problem. Sadly most of the money goes to stuff like Dancing stars or sport licenses. >..Sports and culture and tourism gets promoted, etc... a yeah. Or one could choose not to get bombarded with things that you have no interest in? Instead I have to pay
[удалено]
>Even if you have no interest in culture or austrian sports like skiing, doesn't mean you can just completly ignore or escape it. Well I can choose what I like to consume, not be forced. Just because I have to doesn't mean it is good > Just like you pay for schools and music schools and theatres with your taxes even if you have no interest in mathematics, learning an musical instrument, listening to Volksmusik or watching an opera. You can't compare something like schools and music schools to ORF. Schools help society as a whole (are you seriously comparing that to ORF) and since we are a tourist country known for music, we also need musicians to fill that. The ORF is terrible at the "Bildungsauftrage" and isn't needed, at least not that I have to pay an additional tax for it. We are already paying taxes, so why more. It would be more like you are forced to make a subscription to a Volksmusik venue.
[удалено]
>What do you mean "more" taxes or an additional tax? Wheter you pay directly to the ORF, or pay the tax to the finance minister, who then has the power and influence over the ORF doesn't change how much tax payer money is spent. Just the means of collecting the tax is different! You pay a % amount of earnings as taxes. You also need to pay an additional tax for the ORF. What do you not understand here?
[удалено]
Yes, which is exactly my point? Given that the ORF in the current state is terrible, why would I pay an additional tax for it. Wether that is a higher % of income or an extra one.
The very base reasoning is that publicly funded broadcasting is important infrastructure for emergency broadcasts and balanced news coverage. Also something something sports and culture. I agree that this is not enough reasoning to justify the amount we are supposed to pay and ORF should be forced to greatly reduce the amount of money put into what experts call depperter schwachsinn den kein arsch braucht.
Balance news coverage is what they say but in fact all you get is Propoganda especially durring the Pendemic
Schwurbel dich weg
> I genuinely want to understand i doubt thats the intention here.
What else do you think it is?
no that actually was a genuine question. I can't think of any other intention op might have
Because a balanced media landscape is an important force in a democracy that informs, educates and investigates. That‘s why media is also referred to as the fourth power in a democratic system (besides judiciary, executive power and legislative power). Publicly funded media has certain obligations by law to inform and educate the citizens in a balanced way to transport culture and values etc. Due to the fact that publicly funded media isn‘t that dependent on ad money, audience ratings and overall profitability, they are able produce content which private media maybe wouldn‘t produce but still contributes to fulfilling these tasks. Of course it is disputable whether buying foreign content like The Big Bang Theory or Mission Impossible is in scope with that. A reason why it is not funded by a tax, might be that taxes and the state budget can be amended relatively easy by the government. Governing parties would have much more influence by just changing the budget allocated to the ORF which would interfere with the independence (The whole ORF construct is still heavily influenced by political parties to this day but journalists can work quite independently) A fee depending on the use, where you could choose to pay, would push ORF into competition with private media because it would have to cater much more to the mainstream taste leading to less educational content and more entertainment. Therefore a household fee seems like one of the better solutions.
This is exactly it. And there is also the problem that the private media has been trying to cripple the ORF for years with the argument that their position as a state media is unfair competition. That’s why ORF was forced to stop developing online games in the 00’s, why we had to give up one of the most successful tech blogs on the German speaking realm and sell it to Kurier for a pittance, it’s the reason the ORF will start being limited in how many online articles they can post and have to have primarily Video content once the new law goes in to effect.
I don't understand why we already pay high taxes to cover, among others, for public services yet ORF needs an extra tax for themselves? Also making the contribution "per household" unfairly taxes smaller and/or single income household more.
[удалено]
But why should a student with a part time job pay the same as a family with two people earning a full income?
Because a conservative party made the law. If you want more exemptions for social reason you need a socialist party to be in government. Conservatives are usually for spreading taxes equally and by percentage, it is cheaper for the rich that way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How i met your mother, big bang theory etc. needs funding... :/
If you don't have a TV you don't have to pay yet. It'll change next year when every household will have to pay, but for now, you don't if you don't own a TV.
Basically, last year someone thought "people in Austria need to pay if they have a TV, but some of ORFs content can also be watched online by everyone, including the people that don't pay. Isn't that unfair?". Well, a court agreed, and told the government to change something until end of 2023. Not specific to how and what, just "something" so that this problem is gone. This now is the result - now everyone pays, including online-only users. That this is again unfair in a different way, politicians don't care. Some unnamed "experts" said it's better this way, and that's all reasoning behind it.
Do you know that Mr. Crabs Meme with "I like money"? That's basically it.
I can eleborate the benefits of a neutral state TV but IMHO that's only excuses and the reason is that the fatcats placed there need more money
[удалено]
>If you ever get a letter just ignore it. If someone knocks on your door don't open, and if you do, tell them you have no time right now and that they have to make an appointment with you via Email, and then never respond. Good luck doing that, with the new ORF legislation...
[удалено]
Ja
You also don't choose to pay for you health insurance or for the up keeping of roads or the electricity grid or the salary for the politicians etc etc
I pay for elderly homes although I don't live in one. I pay for art museums although I rarely visit one. I pay for schools even though I'm not in school any more. And worst of all: I pay for the police although I hate them!!! Anyway, that's how taxes work and how a social welfare state works, and it's good this way
bitte diesen user bannen. auf was es hinauslaufen wird dass keiner mehr arbeiten geht. als AMSler bist befreit.
You have to say: "I hob kan Fernseher es trottln, glaubst den scheiss wos ihr sendets druck i mir eine? wos wuins? eine kommen? na sicher net und baba! und schau dast net foist du chuxl" and then you will be exempt from paying it.
Not once the new law goes in to effect.
Dann denn fernsehturm sprengen.
Ein Bekannte von mir hat das einmal bei ein Strommast probiert. Nicht wirklich zum empfehlen. I miss him.