Dont need a TV licence

KingS6

But I don't wish to watch television. So do others. You can cancel your licence if you're unsatisfied with the service you receive.

The idea would penalise those least able to afford a rise in income tax, they also won't be happy to pay for it as they'll be paying for a service they don't wish to use if they are currently LLF.

A regressive tax not progressive tax.

The PR gain from cancelling the licence fee is negated by the fact it is being incorporated into taxation. The accountability of the BBC would become even weaker as their funding would be solely embedded in taxation. It wouldn't be "all the PR" as the Government would have to announce how it is now being alternatively funded.

Have you done the mathematics to show that increase in income tax is negligible?

Cornucopia

Dave.44 wrote: »

... shortcomings being made up by the Gov....

I don't think this is true. (Or why else would the BBC be bleating about lost revenue all the time?)

More generally, funding by central Government funds raised by general taxation has some benefits:-

- Getting rid of the Licence, the Fee and the dubious enforcement practices.

- Beginning to make it related to ability to pay.

And some disadvantages:-

- It would make tense stand-offs between the Government and the BBC more likely.

- It would make it clearer that BBC spending was public spending, and would be subject to more general cost saving policies.

- Loss of the link between watching TV and paying for it.


I'm actually not sure about the need and the wisdom to alter the basis of the entire BBC. Different aspects of it have different needs, for example: News and Current Affairs need to have independence to allow to operate freely, but who would care if Strictly Come Dancing or Bake Off had pro-Government bias (and what would that mean, anyway?)

Dave.44

KingS6 wrote: »

But I don't wish to watch television.

Then why are you so interested in this thread?

KingS6 wrote: »

Have you done the mathematics to show that increase in income tax is negligible?

The financial report for 14/15 indicates that the licence fee raises £3.7 Billion with additional income of another £1.3 Billion including grant aid from Gov funds. That's equivalent to approx £8 a month added to Income Tax for the average person. However, some of the licence fees come from hotels and clubs and that could be recovered from room tax and higher rate tax payers would get clobbered as usual which would reduce the income tax a bit for the blue collars.

KingS6

Dave.44 wrote: »

Then why are you so interested in this thread?

Doesn't preclude those who are LLF from being "so interested" in this thread.

Come and say hi in the arms Dave 44 and introduce yourself to the rest of the gang!

I notice your first posts were on this thread (non elsewhere and on no other topics). You're a brand new member. You'll get to know the MSE crowd a lot better.

Eventually you'll get to gauge why people are interested in threads without asking them, how cool is that?

EdSwippet

Dave.44 wrote: »

But I don't wish to watch television.

Then why are you so interested in this thread?

In my case, I'm interested because it gives me a window into the thinking of people like you, who would like me to be "clobbered" to pay for something I don't consume in order to subsidise those who do.

Dave.44

I am already clobbered. To meet the TVL rules, I have 3 TV licences and only one pair of eyes. I have also been assessed for income tax at 69% including NI. I have legally escaped from the latter, now I am looking for a way out of having to have so many licences.

I am only interested in this topic for the purposes of research to find out the legalities, possibilities and where the grey areas get a bit risky.


The UK is a democratic country ruled by the majority. We are stuck with that. The worst off win, the best off lose.

Cornucopia

Dave.44 wrote: »

I am already clobbered. To meet the TVL rules, I have 3 TV licences and only one pair of eyes...

You require 3 Licences for 3 different properties?

There are options for addressing that.

silverwhistle

Dave.44 wrote: »

The UK is a democratic country ruled by the majority. We are stuck with that. The worst off win, the best off lose.

Well, that's patently a load of rubbish, as the statistics on inequality show.

I'm retired (early) but have never had a colour television and my B&W gave up the ghost in 1988. I can see the argument for taking the money from general taxation, if only to cut out the costs and dubious practices of Capita, but am worried about the disadvantages Cornucopia mentions, and how cost disciplines on the BBC could work, and their full implications politically.

Now, I would be ever so slightly miffed at having to pay, but not very much in the scheme of things. I would assume that the nominal amount per head would be less since there are more income tax payers than households. Those worried about the impact on poorer households could be assuaged by a corresponding increase in benefits or the fact that without much income you may well not be paying income tax anyway.

onomatopoeia99

Cornucopia wrote: »

TBH, I think arguing over the amount of the fine is somewhat churlish.

No-one would have been, if the comparison with speeding hadn't been bought in by someone arguing the for the abolition of the licence fee.

onomatopoeia99

Cornucopia wrote: »

The BBC is in a mess with TV Licensing - a mess of its own creation. I've asked them for information about the fundamentals of what it is doing, and it refuses to answer. It won't say what the remit of TV Licensing is, and how it relates to legislation (because it doesn't), and it won't say how it's process is consensual (which it states is required to ensure that it doesn't breach the Human Rights Act).

Given that most CoE member countries have TV licence fees for public service or state broadcasters, and those countries also have to comply with the ECHR which is the basis of the HRA, perhaps this question has already been asked and answered in one of those countries.

I'd favor moving to the Danish model of funding DR in determining who has to pay, and a fee similar to theirs.