The voucher strengthens democracy and upholds freedom of opinion.

Advertising Tax There is no advertising tax in the United Kingdom and the United States today. However, media reform movements have repeatedly attempted to introduce an advertising levy. The American media economist Robert McChesney believes that the monopolistic power of the large media corporations poses a threat to democracy, the freedom of opinion and the freedom of the media. He suggests a system in which every citizen is given an annual voucher of 200 US dollars that can be donated to a non-profit news or media organization (McChesney & Nichols 2010, 201; McChesney 2012, 212–214). McChesney anticipates an increase in the plurality of the media system if this citizens’ news voucher is put into practice. McChesney and Nichols (2010, 209–211) suggest a 2% advertising tax as one of the measures for financing this citizens’ voucher. Due to the strong commercialism of the media system in the USA, public service media have traditionally been weak. The path towards the establishment of public service media was a tough one, full of obstacles, and it took until 1967 until the passing of the Public Broadcasting Act that led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). PBS has existed since 1970. Local stations that are more or less public in nature also play an important role. PBS is structured as a network of local, non-commercial, educational broadcasting stations. In 2013 41% of public television’s budget came from taxes, 25% from individuals (donations, membership fees), it is important to note that tax law is organised nationally while the Internet, Internet economy and online advertising operate on a global level. legislative change is needed before Google and Facebook’s online advertising can be taxed Google and Facebook’s tax avoidance is possible precisely because these global companies operate in the global Internet and their tax avoidance is supported by the tax legislation of rival nation states that compete against one another through tax dumping and liberal business regulations. It is important to recognise that while many people certainly regard Google and Facebook’s tax avoidance strategies as immoral, these strategies are not in fact illegal in many countries. For this reason, legislative change is needed before Google and Facebook’s online advertising can be taxed.17% from businesses, 4% from universities and 17% from other sources.15 The US media reform group Free Press (2010) proposed the introduction of an advertising tax in the USA to provide better funding for public service media, which would strengthen these media and enhance media diversity. It envisages two possibilities: a direct advertising tax would tax the media’s advertising income at a certain rate (Free Press suggests a 2% rate). The second kind of advertising tax is an advertising sales tax to be borne by those buying advertising time or advertising space that is added to the price of the advertisement. The third kind is an indirect advertising tax. In the USA, companies are able to deduct 100% of their advertising costs from tax. Free Press suggested that the deductible percentage be reduced and certain industries (e.g. alcohol, tobacco) excluded from this deductibility, which would lead to increased tax revenue. In Free Press’s proposal, the revenue generated through the advertising tax should be used to strengthen public media in the USA. In the United Kingdom, the Media Reform Coalition advocates a similar concept (Co-ordinating Committee for Media Reform 2011). It suggests introducing a tax on the turnover or profit of certain media industry sectors, such as Internet advertising, Internet service providers, mobile phone providers and hardware producers. The income generated through this measure should be used to finance public journalism and local media cooperatives.