TV licence fee cash guarantees house prices of relocated BBC staff

chris_spackman

If i was to have Vrgin or Sky i would be paying to watch what i wanted. if you have Sky or Virgin you can watch things like the History, Discovery channel etc. You then get an option to watch TV from all over the world and lets face it some is of very good quality and you get to listen to many many radio stations. If you then choose to watch stations that you have to pay for then that is your choice, a choice you do not have with the BBC.

House shows, dull soaps like Eastenders, people selling things, overpaid presenters, terrible Christmas TV listings etc is not worth it. If you pay £30 or so to Virgin or Sky you get your TV, Phone and Internet which is very good value. You then choose your sports etc but with the BBC they show.........snooker and soon the Grand Prix which by all accounts is going to be short on cars and are sports that not very many people like to watch.

The things like cricket, football, Rugby and the FA cup are gone to other stations. If people like JR did not get paid so much then the BBC could offer a better choice for us to watch but with only BBC News, BBC 1 and 2 that are the core stations they do not offer that much. BBC 3 & 4 are only on for a few hours a day and tend to show repeats.

I'd rather not have to pay for the likes of JR to get loads of money and put the £11 per month towards paying my home insurance or putting a little more fuel in my car etc

chris_spackman

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Ignoring the unreliable Wikipedia and the Murdoch owned Times, you have to concede that a) it was not a tax before Jan 2006 and b) it is legalistic hair splitting. The obvious difference is that the TV licence goes to pay for the telly, and VAT goes to pay for whatever the government decides. It is no different to paying a train fare under British Rail. Perhaps you think that if the licence fee were made private it would then a) then be fair and b) be cheaper (like the privatised trains - not).

But you would have the choice. I fail to see one good reason about paying a tax to watch the TV. There are plenty of bad reasons.

Sir_Humphrey

chris_spackman wrote: »

But you would have the choice. I fail to see one good reason about paying a tax to watch the TV. There are plenty of bad reasons.

You don't have to watch TV. If you do not want to pay for TV, do not watch it. If you do not want the internet, then don't have it installed. If you cannot find something to watch on Freeview, you must be very picky. Just look at the utter c**p on the French TF1 (privatised in the mid-1980s) if you want to watch really bad TV. Their games shows made Hole in the Wall look like University Challenge.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Ignoring the unreliable Wikipedia and the Murdoch owned Times, you have to concede that a) it was not a tax before Jan 2006 and b) it is legalistic hair splitting. The obvious difference is that the TV licence goes to pay for the telly, and VAT goes to pay for whatever the government decides. It is no different to paying a train fare under British Rail. Perhaps you think that if the licence fee were made private it would then a) then be fair and b) be cheaper (like the privatised trains - not).

Very poor Sir Humphrey. You can do better than that body swerve!

I think it's fairer for people to decide what to do with their own money than have such a large proportion taken in tax. Especially something like TV. I don't see what particular benefit having a nationalised TV company gives us and I can see many disadvantages: the way that the very good but very expensive BBC website crushes many small companies through unfair competition for example (local papers and providers of educational materials spring to mind).

chris_spackman

It should come down to choice. As simple as that.

I choose not to have a phone line with BT, i don't even pay them line rental for my home phone and that is my choice.

I choose to use the Orange network, not Vodafone or 3.

I do not watch any BBC shows, they do not produce anything i want to watch. I watch Sky news or ITV News and even CNN etc.

chris_spackman

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

You don't have to watch TV. If you do not want to pay for TV, do not watch it. If you do not want the internet, then don't have it installed. If you cannot find something to watch on Freeview, you must be very picky. Just look at the utter c**p on the French TF1 (privatised in the mid-1980s) if you want to watch really bad TV. Their games shows made Hole in the Wall look like University Challenge.

I do want to watch TV but fail to see why i should pay the BBC to do so.

Can you give me good reasons why i should fund the BBC if i CHOOSE not to watch it

chris_spackman

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Nonsense. You do not need a telly any more than you need Sky. If you do not want to pay the licence fee then don't have a telly. You could still listen to the radio.

But if i want to watch the TV why should i pay a tax to do so?

chris_spackman

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Well, what do people expect if you move the jobs of difficult to replace professionals? How many people who hate the licence fee are happy to pay squillions a month to watch footie and American imports on Sky?

That is their CHOICE

It is being put forward that if the TV tax is stopped you will have to pay a computer tax or even pay more on your mobile phone bill now that you can watch tv on them.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

I think it's fairer for people to decide what to do with their own money than have such a large proportion taken in tax. Especially something like TV. I don't see what particular benefit having a nationalised TV company gives us and I can see many disadvantages: the way that the very good but very expensive BBC website crushes many small companies through unfair competition for example (local papers and providers of educational materials spring to mind).

I donlt care who the money goes to provided it offers value for money. If the government can provide the service better for less (in a mixed economy) which is the case in TV and was with British Rail then honestly, I couldn't care less about the nominal choices involved. Right Libertarians ought to be more concerned about genuine liberty then the right to be ripped off by private sector oligarchs.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I donlt care who the money goes to provided it offers value for money. If the government can provide the service better for less (in a mixed economy) which is the case in TV and was with British Rail then honestly, I couldn't care less about the nominal choices involved. Right Libertarians ought to be more concerned about genuine liberty then the right to be ripped off by private sector oligarchs.

I still don't see what is better about having a broadcasting service being paid for by taxation. It's expensive and denies people free choice as they have to pay for it if they want to watch any TV at all, regardless of whether or not they benefit.

You haven't made any sort of case at all for the BBC. You keep on about British Rail instead and whether or not the licence fee is a tax which it clearly is (or is very close to being).