|
|
|
|
|
by Udik
3391 days ago
|
|
> I know it 100% functions as a tax You wish. Taxes are mostly proportional to the payer's income, or wealth, or to the value of some owned good. Instead, so called "tv licenses" are fixed, such that the poorest citizen, owner of a 10inch tv found in the trash bin, is bound to pay as much as the richest taxpayer, with his multi wall-sized home cinema devices. In this respect it works exactly as the annual subscription to a TV service (it's actually called "subscription" in some countries) and it's clearly a remnant of the times when TVs were rare, expensive objects that were in themselves a proof of the wealth of their owners. |
|
We have a similar bit of bullshit in British Columbia, where government health insurance is paid through premiums, administered outside of the tax system (which is annoying as hell, and doesn't happen in other Canadian provinces), which are progressive only up until $30k (£18k) annual income, and fixed after that at $900 (£550) /person/year. Which is 3% of $30k/year, but 1% of $100k/year, etc.
... actually laid out like that and looking at the inhuman shitshow in the US, I think I might withdraw my complaint.
But, back to naming because obviously that is what really matters, a regressive tax[0] is still a tax.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax