Box tax: “I’m not going to pay for something I don’t use”

THE ECO SCAN/YOUR OPINION – When some Internet users Figaro consider the extension of this fee fair, others feel extorted.

“Do you have a television and/or an Internet box?” This is what could be written on your next tax return. Indeed, the Minister of Culture Fleur Pellerin announced this Wednesday that was “”. However, this measure poses several problems, in particular the fact that. Internet users of Figaro, moreover, are mixed.

“I find it abnormal that those who can watch television on a computer do not also pay the license fee, believes . It’s not fair!” “And do you think those who see the amount of the audiovisual tax on their tax slip aren’t fed up with it, when most people watch TV programs on other devices?, adds. Well, I do. . It’s either everyone or no one.”

“Today, the operators highlight their advantageous all-in-one box offers: Internet access, telephone and TV, explains. I specify that I am obliged to take this offer if I want to have broadband. Whereas, personally, I only use it to have the Internet because I don’t watch television. With this tax, I will have to pay the royalty for something that I do not use!” He, too, considers that this “tax would be profoundly unfair. We already pay for one on the boxes, to have access to the telephone. They now want us to pay for a new one on top? It’s extortion.”

“The public channels that do not have an audience should be closed”

Finally, some Internet users have submitted their ideas for alternatives. “And if we reduced?, proposes. We do not need to change the studios of 8 p.m. every year, nor to have X channels that no one watches.” And adds: “The fee is used to finance public broadcasting and radio. However, to save money, it would be necessary to close what does not have an audience – for example. It would also be necessary to restore advertising after 8 p.m. on France Télévisions. If these symptoms are tackled, the price of the license fee could be greatly reduced.” “For me, the solution would be to privatize the public channels, declares in turn. There would therefore be no more royalties for a public television which offers – very often – rebroadcast programs, and others to which no one is interested. interested.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.