Should the TV licence fee be scrapped?

[Deleted User]

You're putting the BBC, on an equal footing with school and unemployment benefit :huh:

stevemcol

am I? ok then.

Cornucopia

stevemcol wrote: »

am I? ok then.

The point is that the BBC is mere TV. Where other public services are actually essential, within various definitions of the word, the BBC is not.

The law as it stands offers a choice to individual households about whether to watch TV broadcasts, and therefore whether to have a licence. The BBC would be in a much better position, morally and politically, if it could find a way to respect that choice, rather than harassing those people who make it.

stevemcol

Cornucopia wrote: »

The point is that the BBC is mere TV. Where other public services are actually essential, within various definitions of the word, the BBC is not.

The law as it stands offers a choice to individual households about whether to watch TV broadcasts, and therefore whether to have a licence. The BBC would be in a much better position, morally and politically, if it could find a way to respect that choice, rather than harassing those people who make it.

Libraries, parks, leisure cycleways & footpaths, free national museums, arts ....all non-essential services that we fund for the greater good through taxation, whether or not we use or appreciate them. We don't moan (much) or cherry pick the ones we like or use because it's all covered by our overall tax bill. So that's how I believe we should fund the BBC.

[Deleted User]

Of course, parks, leisure cycleways & footpaths all encourage us to be healthier and fitter, to exercise and breath fresh air.

Even libraries and museums get us out of the house and moving, if only sedately.

TV, on the other hand, encourages us to abstain from even the most sedate physical exercise, and to instead do as little as humanly possible.

They didn't coin the term couch potatoes for nothing.

stevemcol

Ok I just need to understand the rules of engagement for the discussion. Government levies, direct or indirect can only be charged against outside activities that lead to physical exercise. Have I got the right angle there? Clearly no bbc sports coverage would ever encourage any of us to partake? Are you fundamentally opposed to indoor media sources? Just that your reasons for objecting to the licence fee seem to vary.

Cornucopia

stevemcol wrote: »

Libraries, parks, leisure cycleways & footpaths, free national museums, arts ....all non-essential services that we fund for the greater good through taxation, whether or not we use or appreciate them. We don't moan (much) or cherry pick the ones we like or use because it's all covered by our overall tax bill. So that's how I believe we should fund the BBC.

I suppose there are two (more) points on that:-

1. Scale. How much do we spend on parks et al. If we were spending c. £5bn on these things (in addition to £5bn+ in the commercial sector) it might be considered more of an issue.

2. Commercial alternatives. Commercial TV (and C4) provides us with a reasonable alternative to the BBC that is free at the point of delivery. (Whether you agree that advertising is a fixed cost is not really relevant, because it's not going to disappear any time soon).

Or in other words, we have public libraries because no free commercial option is available. If Waterstones lent books for free, would we still have public libraries?

stevemcol

I haven't researched the topic so can't really offer anything of value on scaling. I wouldn't single out any particular public service for comparison but all leisure based public services I would suspect would significantly outweigh spending on the BBC.
I don't see that commercial broadcasting as completetly free. I am exposed to unwanted advertising and I count that as a cost.
There are valid arguments on both sides and I repsect your point of view. We will alway fundamentally disagree because I see the BBC as a good thing, you don't and never the twain.

Cornucopia

stevemcol wrote: »

I haven't researched the topic so can't really offer anything of value on scaling. I wouldn't single out any particular public service for comparison but all leisure based public services I would suspect would significantly outweigh spending on the BBC.

What's the justification for bundling everything except the BBC vs. the BBC? That seems quite arbitrary.

I don't see that commercial broadcasting as completetly free. I am exposed to unwanted advertising and I count that as a cost.
There are valid arguments on both sides and I repsect your point of view.

My argument is that even if it is a bottom line cost to households, it won't disappear even if Commercial TV is wound up, and we rely solely on the BBC. Advertisers will simply find other ways of getting their messages across.

We will alway fundamentally disagree because I see the BBC as a good thing, you don't and never the twain.

I can see certain good aspects to the BBC. However, there is just too much, now, on the down-side for me to tolerate paying for it any more. The final straw was the Newsnight/Savile debacle.

Many people, once they dispense with their licence, become hardened to the BBC by the BBC's own attitudes to enforcement. And then they never go back.

[Deleted User]

Would you be agreeable to scrapping VED, and putting it on Council Tax, to be paid by everyone, whether or not they own/use a motor vehicle?

After all, everyone benefits from the roads.