Should the TV licence fee be scrapped?

Fish_n_Chips

Just paid mine today.....£145.50 for what...?

Cornucopia

SensiblePerson wrote: »

The majority in the survey don't want to pay £145 for everything the BBC provides, but are willing to pay twice as much for channels....

What's led you to that conclusion? The poll and the thread say very little about pay TV.

Some of these channels wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the original material from the Beeb (eg Dave).

You do know that UKTV (operators of Dave et al) are half-owned by the BBC?

stevemcol

This is a tedious argument that keeps resurrecting itself ad nauseum. The government should probably fund the BBC from general taxation which would perhaps subdue the constant bickering.
I'm still a big fan of the BBC output; agreed not 100% of it but you can't please everyone all the time. Just being able to watch TV and listen to radio with no ads is worth 50p a day or whatever it works out at.
There are many more examples of waste by central government that pale the licence fee into insignificance.

Mosquito46

We take the BBC for granted and fail to see what an asset it is, warts, errors and all. And also what value for money it is too.

I did some research on this in 2007, so the figures relate to then, but doubtless the ratios and principles remain the same. Searching around on the Ofcom website, I found that that total commercial TV advertising revenue is running at about £4 billion a year. Total retail spending in the UK runs at about £264 billion a year. (Retail Consortium, thisismoney.co.uk).

So of that £264 billion, £4 billion goes to pay for commercial television. That's about 1.5%. So 1.5% of every shopping basket on average is what you pay for commercial television. To match the current licence fee for the BBC at that level, you would have to spend £8,766.66 a year. Or another way, if you spend less than £8,766.66 then the BBC is costing you more than commercial television, if you spend more than £8766.66 a year, and most people do, commercial television is costing you more than the BBC, especially if on top of retail spending, you are paying again through subscription fees.

But that Is not the end of the story.

Commercial TV however costs most people far more than the licence fee, and is hidden and unaccountable.

Commercial TV is financed by the sale of advertising, which ultimately comes from the consumer. The total advertising income of commercial TV in the UK is about £4 billion a year. The £4 billion is only what the TV companies charge, not what it costs other companies to hire an advertising agency to run a campaign and make TV adverts.

Let's take not just any advert, but an M&S advert. They hire an agency to create a series for broadcast. Suppose the TV companies charge £100K to screen it. But on top of that £100K, M&S have had to pay the agency their fees, the production costs etc. amounting to several times the £100K. So rapidly the 1.5% of the shopping basket reaches more like 5%.

5% of most people's annual spending comes to far more than the licence fee, and then many people are also conned to paying again to watch it through subscription and Pay TV! No wonder commercial TV was described as a licence to print money! A BECTU study has even put the cost as high as 13% of consumer spending. But there is no outcry because this most inflationary and hidden 'tax' is unnoticed.

Cornucopia

So what is the actual cost in terms of higher shop prices?

Can I save some of that cost by buying own-brand rather than big-brand? What if I shop only in local independent shops?

You cannot compare a tax with a feature of a vibrant capitalist economy.

janiebquick

The licence fee is an anachronism and should be scrapped. However, I am unable to suggest an alternative source of funding. I find the commercial channels virtually unwatchable these days as there are so many intrusive adverts and, for example, if you are watching a documentary, there is always a dumbed down synopsis given after every break. I hate it!

BobbinAlong

It is the TV licencing method that is anachronistic. Fund from taxation and scrap the licence completely and all the associated quango costs, advertising costs and civil service jobs costs that go with it - how much of that £145 goes in "overheads" not to the BBC???

vassa

mjm3346 wrote: »

You are missing an important (money saving) option

scrap the licence fee and fund from general taxation

That would get rid off all the costs and resources involved in collection of the fee, court time for evaders etc so the total cost of providing the same income would be less, the massive TV licence database could also be deleted and retailers would not have to waste time getting TV buyers details to pass them on.
With the growth of "catch-up tv" the licence will soon have to be extended anyway, probably to include broadband, to maintain the same level of income.

Why should people who don't watch TV pay through general taxation?

vassa

happyinflorida wrote: »

The BBC is NOT independent and I am furious at having to pay a licence fee for this garbage.

I have stopped watching so many of their programmes as I know it is government propaganda.

Exactly....it's not a coincidence that this 'independent' company managed to have its only means of revenue written into law, making anyone who watches but doesn't pay a CRIMINAL. Yep, it's a CRIMINAL offence to watch a TV without a licence.

They are a government organisation, plain and simple.

I don't own a TV - if i want to watch something that i'm interested in i seek it out on youtube etc and watch it on there, i don't just sit and watch whatever the TV decides to put on, best of both worlds.

MothballsWallet

Cornucopia wrote: »

What does this mean? Why would Fox News replace BBC News?

It wouldn't, but look at its (Fox's) style.

Then, some words:

Bill. O'Reilly.
Sean. Hannity.

Thankfully, they no longer work for Fox, but it took the channel bosses a long time to see what was wrong with Mr O'Reilly and Mr Hannity.