[ad_1]
And the verdict is clear. The broadcast contribution remains in its current form, only a small thing is changed: The owners of a second home do not have to pay a separate contribution. All other constitutional complaints were dismissed, nor the mandatory nature of the contribution was criticized nor criticized the obligation of contribution of the rental car.
Thus, he remains essentially the same. From a legal point of view, the verdict was predictable. Still, it's a disappointment. Because the financing of the issue remains unfair. The Federal Constitutional Court could and should have given the prelude to a necessary reform of the contribution system. This signal is now missing.
At the beginning of 2013, the broadcasting fee replaced the GEZ fee which had been in effect until then. Unlike the previous model, the calculation is no longer based on the number of actual receivers such as TVs or radios, but is based on apartments. This makes the survey much easier operationally – but the system has not really become equitable.
It is difficult to understand why, for example, residents of a shared flat pay only a single amount, but single households have such a high rate. Private vehicles do not have to be paid extra, but once the vehicles are in the possession of a car rental company, they are required to pay contributions. Why judges of all these inconsistencies have only chosen and fixed the problem of secondary residence, will always remain a mystery Karlsruhe
The judges had to check whether the broadcast contribution is completely constitutional. Critics view the contribution rather as a tax than as a tax – and the power to impose a tax would not accrue to the federal states, which are responsible for the broadcasting treaty.
The Federal Constitutional Court strengthens here but also the existing system: Broadcasting contributions would have the legislative power of the countries, since the broadcasting contribution is not a tax, but a contribution in the constitutional financial sense, it said. A contribution, unlike a tax, will benefit – and constitutional judges see this as "the opportunity to use public service broadcasting."
The reality of the media changes
The relevance of public service broadcasting in particular Politically difficult times such as today must certainly not be discussed. We should ensure that citizens have access at all times to independent, complete and balanced information. What happens when a country relies solely on commercial media companies, we are currently experiencing with horror in the United States. None of us should be – in a figurative sense – the Coca-Cola beverage industry has to explain.
And yet the question arises, whether the German public service broadcasting system with 90 channels and an annual income pot of nearly eight billion euro is not beyond the good and evil. The reality of the media is changing, new offers like Netflix and Google are spreading, and it is time for the beneficiaries ARD, ZDF and Deutschlandradio to demonstrate efficiency and transparency in the use of funds.
The new collection procedure should also be more effective. Apartments are easier to count than units in homes you do not have access to. And yet, the contributor service that collects broadcast fees must employ nearly 1,000 people to power the complex system. In addition, the survey is not complete: about 3.5 million people do not pay – and no one knows if it's right. White spots everywhere
The Federal Constitutional Court reinforced the existing model. This concludes the legal review of broadcasting funding. The political path of reform should not be. Because there are alternatives, like a tax per capita, so in principle a tax. Of course, this type of financing also has its pitfalls, but it would be simpler and less expensive – and ultimately it would be more accurate than the current model.
It is understandable that a kind of tax on broadcasting be viewed with suspicion. However, it would be more honest to guarantee the population an independent information base. Whatever the case may be, the policies of this subject should now take into account and critically challenge the reality of public service broadcasting in the test of time.
Source link
