|
|||
|
Back to the Forum 2006
Archives In the December 26, 2005 issue of the Detroit News there was an essay with a very provocative caption. "Don't hammer consumers with a federal television tax." As she often does, Mrs. Gaffer handed me the page with a wry grin. I said, "What the heck!" or words to that effect. Then I read the article. Of course, there is no federal television tax being applied or even being considered by our government. The caption was simply false and misleading. The article was just a plea for the government to subsidize some citizens in the change over from the old (current) televison broadcast standard to the new digital broadcast standard. Here are the facts. If the current plan is followed, the old analog TV receivers will no longer work after 2009. Considering this is a government thing, it will probably not happen much before 2015. In any case, the old sets can be made to work with a product called a converter which will receive the digital signal and convert it back to the old analog signal. These things currently sell for about sixty bucks. There are also a number of other options for the consumers to continue watching television, but the converter is the least expensive route. The News managed to somehow construe the cost of this retail item as a hidden tax on the consumers. Say what? If I get it right, the gist of this News article is that consumers have some kind of inherent right to watch TV and the government ought to make sure they can do it by subsidizing those who cannot afford it. That begs the question, do people really have a right to television? Let's carry that reasoning to it's logical conclusion. By this logic, since the government mandates how the broadcast spectrum is used, they have some kind of obligation to make digital TV accessible to people who cannot afford the sixty buck converter. As to that nonsense, if these poor folk cannot afford a sixty buck converter, how did they manage to get TVs in the first place? Maybe they stole them. We ought to look into that. Back to the point, who was it that subsidized the public shift from radio to television? I don't remember being offered a new TV receiver by the feds. I just had to get by without television until my Mother-in-law bought a new set and gave me her old 10 inch black and white Motorola. Mrs. Gaffer and I made do with that for ten years. Everyone we knew had a better TV than us. So what? Later, my Mother-in-law bought a color set and we got her old hand-me-down again. It was a whopping 15 inch black and white and everyone we know still had a better TV than us. So what? Maybe the government should have bought me a color TV. Sure! I wonder if our government subsidized the purchase of automobiles for people who were stuck with buggies when Ford hit it big with the Model T. I don't recall reading anything about that. Our government did begin to build highways a bit too late. We are still behind on that. Well, how about highways? Does the government have an obligation to buy and give me and automobile because they mandate how and where roads are built? Do I really have an inherent right to travel if I cannot afford it. I think not. And neither does the government have any obligation to provide TV, a luxury, not a necessity, to people who cannot afford it. People are not required to watch television. Sticking your head in the boob tube is not an enforced legal requirement. We ought to notice also that some people still do not have television receivers at all. What do they do? Maybe they sit around in the parlor and talk. Wow! What a concept, people talking to each other. That sounds subversive. We ought to put a stop to it. The first thing we know they will be forming cells and developing a real political philosophy. That could be dangerous to our entrenched socioeconomic machine, to say nothing of our two party system. Even King George could be in danger. What can we do? Perhaps the government should buy a new televison receiver for everyone who does not have one. That will put an end to a lot of the subversive activity. People won't talk to each other if they have TV to watch. We have overwhelming evidence of that. Hey, why not? If we are going to be silly, why not go all the way? Let us take this cradle-to-grave idea to it's full conclusion. George Orwell and 1984, here we come! Before we go ahead though, Let us think about the cost of
this News proposed subsidy. Here is an often ignored truth. For
every buck we send to the feds in taxes we are lucky to get back
half a buck in goods and services. That's the best we can do.
This cradle-to-grave big brother game these do-gooders keep begging
for is extremely expensive. If we actually let the feds do it,
that sixty buck converter could end up costing the tax payers
150 bucks. Do we really want that?
|