Tv licence...no more!

poppasmurf_bewdley

There is a lot of moaning about the BBC Licence Fee but I have yet to hear a single complaint about the 20% VAT levied on the sale of new TV's.

That's £200 on a £1000 TV!

And many millions with the full Sky or Virgin TV package will be paying more in VAT on their subscription than they pay for the TV licence. But again, I've never heard a single moan about that.

Cornucopia

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Which is why the scope should be widened. Broadband contract? Need a TV licence. Mobile phone contract with data? Need a TV licence. Aerial or satellite dish on the roof? Need a TV licence.

Why? What social need is progressed by adding a regressive tax to those things?

Simple detection, simple enforcement. Only other change I'd suggest would be to make it a directly imprisonable offence not to have one when required. This country really needs to crack down on tax evaders, large scale or small scale, and set an example.

Most people misunderstand the nature of TV Licence evasion entirely. There is a small hard-core of true evaders - people who never pay, never will, and who are virtually impossible to catch given the nature of the offence. The rest (the vast majority in my experience) are simply poor, disorganised and/or misunderstand the requirement. I don't think that people like that should be being imprisoned.

The other issue is a practical one. The UK prison population is presently around 85,000 and we are told that the prisons are bursting at the seams. There are c. 180,000 TVL Licensing defendants, annually. A similar number are "caught" and let off for various reasons (under the BBC's discretion). So, potentially, another 360,000 people to accommodate for 3 months each. 6 months? It's not going to happen.

TBH, the whole narrative on tax evasion and tax avoidance in the UK is flawed IMHO. That needs sorting out before we take draconian action against the poorest in society (again).

Having had experience of US TV (not just the best bits that we get imported here, but in the round) what we have blows it away in terms of quality and consistency. It is a terrible example to put up of what we could have if the licence fee were abolished.

I'd like to understand why you think we would end up with US TV, solely as a consequence of Licence Fee abolition, because I simply don't see it. To be honest, I don't even see the end of the BBC as a consequence. Also, what is good in TV is very subjective. I watch a lot of US TV via Netflix and Now TV, and what I see is generally excellent: technically, creatively, conceptually and in terms of diversity of content (more so than the UK in some topic areas). Whilst an amount of this content comes from the Pay TV companies, some of it certainly originates with FTA.

I'm not saying that you are doing this, but there is a history of painting the worst possible outcomes as a way of undermining legitimate debate about the Licence and its misguided enforcement by the BBC.

Unfortunately, I think that the BBC shot themselves in the foot when they closed the iPlayer "loophole". The issue is that people like me are now seeing more content from American networks than we are from the BBC. This makes it even less likely that we will come back.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

There is a lot of moaning about the BBC Licence Fee but I have yet to hear a single complaint about the 20% VAT levied on the sale of new TV's.

That's £200 on a £1000 TV!

And many millions with the full Sky or Virgin TV package will be paying more in VAT on their subscription than they pay for the TV licence. But again, I've never heard a single moan about that.

The principle of sales tax is well-established. Why would people complain about it in this very narrow context?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Cornucopia wrote: »

The principle of sales tax is well-established. Why would people complain about it in this very narrow context?

Why moan about one tax on TV viewing whilst totally ignoring others which cost even more than the one they are moaning about.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Why moan about one tax on TV viewing whilst totally ignoring others which cost even more than the one they are moaning about.

Because:-

(a) I am not moaning. (I cannot speak for anyone else on that).

(b) It is not about the money per se, nor about the concept of public service, per se, nor about taxation, per se.

(c) My whole Pay TV payment is generally less than the Licence Fee. Therefore VAT is insignificant in the equation. If you want to hear from disgruntled Sky and VM customers who object to paying both the VAT and the Licence when they are already paying an arm and a leg to their Pay TV provider, that's fine. But my advice to them will be to cancel and get something cheaper.

It is (for me) about two things:-

i) I do not see the social need for the Government to regulate TV viewing, especially since doing so takes us into the murky area of trying to enforce a minor offence inside people's homes.

ii) The BBC's approach to enforcement of the Licence is a mess. Important pieces of information are being deliberately mismanaged by them, important legal concepts are being deliberately undermined by them and they are bringing the law into disrepute (partly by inveigling other agencies into their flawed approach).

iniltous

The licence fee is around 40p a day.

pjcox2005

Cornucopia wrote: »

The principle of sales tax is well-established. Why would people complain about it in this very narrow context?

Surely the principle of a tv licence fee in the UK is well established as well so on that logic shouldn't be complained about.


I think it's great value for money for what you get. I use it less due to sky and particularly sports, but if that helps others, particularly elderly stay connected with society then great.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Cornucopia wrote: »

i) I do not see the social need for the Government to regulate TV viewing, especially since doing so takes us into the murky area of trying to enforce a minor offence inside people's homes.

.

I agree with you there.

I can remember having dinner with an MP friend of mine in the late 80's during the time when there was a great debate about whether pornography should be allowed on TV.

In a rather heated argument, he declared "You don't expect me to vote for that do you?" I replied to him that that was the problem. MP's shouldn't have a vote on it at all. If there was demand for !!!!!!, then it should be met. If there wasn't, it wouldn't happen.

But this is digressing from the TV licence matter somewhat.

Cornucopia

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Surely the principle of a tv licence fee in the UK is well established as well so on that logic shouldn't be complained about.

So we should never question anything, never change anything?

I have no objection to people questioning VAT, as long as their reasoning is sound and they have thought about the consequences. In this case, though, it makes no sense to single out VAT on Pay TV (which is an optional luxury) or to compare it with the Licence Fee (which is compulsory if one meets the requirements to pay it).

I think it's great value for money for what you get. I use it less due to sky and particularly sports, but if that helps others, particularly elderly stay connected with society then great.

Well... I tend to the view that forcing people to pay for something just because it is good for them is a little bit patronising.

If the BBC had not sabotaged the Freeview spec, it would have been the simplest thing to roll out an electronically-enforced Licence, and hopefully good sense would have prevailed that in return for that certainty of control, the Licence requirement for commercial TV would be removed.

Technically, now, it is a little more challenging, but that is the BBC's fault and if there is stress to be born in making good their handiwork, then that is down to them. IMHO.

onomatopoeia99

Cornucopia wrote: »

The principle of sales tax is well-established. Why would people complain about it in this very narrow context?

The principle of a TV licence is very well established and widespread amongst the major European economies, not just the UK.

I have no problem with the current model of funding the BBC, though I prefer the Danish model that funds DR. No-one has put forth a better alternative. The best case scenario that I can see from abolition is we end up with something like ITV, which would be a tragedy.