TV Licence article Discussion

enfield_freddy

and just to add to my post above


the BBC are keen to brag that there collection cost are dropping quickly


infact they say


"We aim to collect the fee efficiently and fairly in order to deliver value for money for licence fee payers. In 1991 collection costs came to 6.2% of the total fee collected. By 2013/14 we had reduced this to 2.7%, allowing more money to go towards new content and services"


.http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13




I have not noticed a drop in the licence fee or an improvement in UK tv ,repeat UK TV ,,,,,,,,,not free feeds to foreign countries that pay no fee for watching/listening.

DavidP24

TV advertising adds billions to cost of products across the country.

Consider detergents to wash your clothes, these are mostly produced by two companies (after mergers), these same companies produce the supermarkets own brands.

Do you really believe that a bottle of liquid clothes detergent costing £8 to £12 is reasonable when in ALDI you can get it for under £3.

Do you think that Finish dishwasher tablets are worth their price?

They are very slick, they produce products for every market, they have created "concentrated" products to offset fuel costs but not passed on the savings to consumers. They also took the opportunity to give you less for your money.

When it started decades ago you had premium brands that advertised a lot and some that advertised less and charged less. Then after eliminating the competition we the consumer get screwed AGAIN.

I hate advertising, many years ago I thought getting Sky Plus was the answer, until I discovered that no matter what you have recorded you can't watch it all, I upgraded my disk several times copying all the programmes. What made me decide to abandon SKY was when I made cutbacks and found you cannot watch saved recorded after you unsubscribe or lower your subscription. I had paid to watch a movie and when I recorded it I was allowed to watch it but just because I had not watched it while I was subscribed I was denied.

It was Sky that weaned me off the drivel on ITV, C4 C5 and the BBC, I then weaned myself off Sky and now I am selective about what I watch, I might buy content from Amazon or watch something from Netflix from time to time, these are both exempt.

I would have supported the BBC to NOT have advertising but I will NOT be forced to pay for something I do not want or need.

It is clear that Zapito does not feel he is paying enough tax, so perhaps we can add a Microwave Tax, a Dishwasher Tax and a Tax on having a Dryer. They already get 5% on your energy bill, books are supposed to be tax free but hey if your want a downloaded version from Amazon well hit you for that.

Do you not understand that Goverments just waste your money?

They went after smokers for years then when people stopped killing themselves and those tax revenues reduced they taxed your leisure time, they call it an Eco tax, stick it on a flight and then give people who take their kids out of school 3 days early a criminal record.

I know, let's have a tax on sleep, I mean they tax your work, they tax your food, they tax your leisure activities, why not sleep? Then you can hate the people who sleep less to avoid tax.

Step back, consider why you despise the people you have been programmed to despise by the press, media and Government.

I doubt that the people you are "deeply resentful" of are worth the cost of Capita, never mind the waste of Court time, 200,000 court cases, most of them applying for reduced fines under means testing rules and qualifying. Capita costs £560m, but you also have to consider the cost of collection as a whole. 23,000 cases were thrown out, costing people days off work and the administration of the court.

If we are going to have a referendum on the EU why not ask people "do you want to keep the BBC", that would include BBC Radio, BBC Web, the lot.

If the Licence fee is to be a univeral tax then it should be taken with other taxation where there is already a mechanism, whether that be Council Tax or Income Tax.

The BBC Income is well over £5bn and income from the licence is £3.7bn, I can't think of many private organisations that would spend over half a billion on collecting their income. The BBC has to play it's part, how many Local Radio traffic reporters do you when there is GPS, just a summary of the worst places nationally. Same goes for news reporters and to an extent programming. Does the BBC need the top heavy management when it has outsourced a lot of production? Does it need to pay top talent rates, buy them caravans only to find out later they have been abusing kids in there and on BBC property? Seriously, why not make the BBC a place where new talent evolves. Let the commercial channels pay top dollar and without the BBC competing talent would cost less anyway.

Finally whilst you are "deeply resentful" because others are not paying, consider that they are "deeply resentful" because they can't afford to pay.

Zapito

enfield_freddy wrote: »

and do you honestly think that if 10,000 more people bought licences tomorrow the cost would drop?

The Government has frozen the licence fee at its 2010 level of £145.50 until 31 March 2017, three months after the current BBC Charter period ends.

So? Even if the "cost" (ie the fee) would not change pro rata, it still means that much less funding available to the BBC which ultimately feeds through to quality of output. Why should some people get away with getting the service for free while honest folk are prepared to pay their fair contribution? Sure, if someone genuinely has no use for broadcasting services, then they should be allowed to be exempted from the fee. But that number is certainly extremely tiny.

I also think, by the way, that the old age free licence should only apply to households with no-one under that age in residence. If anyone in the household is under that age then the licence should be due and payable by them. Why it exists anyway is only a government gimmick; there is no real reason for that concession.

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

Since getting rid of my TV I do a lot more reading, listen to music without video, I plan leisure activities rather than spending all my time watching the box in the corner.

And if you genuinely have no use for broadcast media then, as I have already said, then you should rightfully be exempted.

DavidP24 wrote: »

The reality is that our Courts are clogged up with people who have not paid their licence because they can't afford it, so we fine them even more money and then imprison them with a criminal record. These are not scum that the newspapers would have you believe, but more like people who are genuinely disabled or just the poorest members of our society.

I would have no argument with the licence fee being counted in calculating benefits, which would solve that problem (if they are not already - I simply don't know).

DavidP24 wrote: »

You resent paying...

No I don't. I clearly stated that I resent others lying and cheating in order to get away without paying for the service they use.

DavidP24 wrote: »

... surely you do not believe that the BBC is a highly efficient well oiled machine with excellent financial management?

That is an entirely different question. Just because I support the principle of universal payment for a universal service in no way signifies that I am complaisant regarding the quality of that service. In fact I have taken up many issues with the BBC, but the principle of the licence fee is not one of them.

DavidP24 wrote: »

If there is a loophole in the law, you cannot blame the people who use that loophole.

So you are perfectly happy for corporations and wealthy folk to take advantage of tax loopholes then, are you?

DavidP24 wrote: »

We have non domiciles using loopholes
We have most small to medium sized company directors paying themselves dividends rather than salary to avoid double national insurance
We have Vodafone who evaded £6bn and got let off with 2bn
We have vodafone who avoided £84bn when they sold Verizon
We have the banks that had the taxpayers underwrite the trillions they have lost gambing
This week alone China has had 7 trillion wiped off it's share values because of market speculation

As you say. And I agree these too need to be tackled (those which have not already). But why exclude licence fee dodgers?

DavidP24 wrote: »

So all I can wish for you is that your circumstances change, that you go into a poverty level when you can't afford the TV Licence but are forced to pay, even when you have got rid of your TV.

Not at all, as I have said I think anyone who genuinely doesn't use broadcasting services should be exempt, and also that licence fee should be taken into account with regard to benefits.

Zapito

DavidP24 wrote: »

It is clear that Zapito does not feel he is paying enough tax, so perhaps we can add a Microwave Tax, a Dishwasher Tax and a Tax on having a Dryer. They already get 5% on your energy bill, books are supposed to be tax free but hey if your want a downloaded version from Amazon well hit you for that.

Do you not understand that Goverments just waste your money?

Your assumption about my attitude to tax is completely unfounded. There is no reason to suppose that I wish to pay more tax; this is not about tax, which goes to the government, but is about money which goes to the BBC and certain other broadcasters. I have plenty of issues regarding government, including taxation and the way taxes are spent, but that is an entirely separate issue. I also have issies regarding the way the BBC spends its money, but that also is a separate issue. The issue here is about people taking responsibility and paying their fair share towards the cost of BBC.

Sam52

Hi all

Do you need a license if you only watch on +1

enfield_freddy

Zapito wrote: »

So? Even if the "cost" (ie the fee) would not change pro rata, it still means that much less funding available to the BBC which ultimately feeds through to quality of output. Why should some people get away with getting the service for free while honest folk are prepared to pay their fair contribution? Sure, if someone genuinely has no use for broadcasting services, then they should be allowed to be exempted from the fee. But that number is certainly extremely tiny.

I also think, by the way, that the old age free licence should only apply to households with no-one under that age in residence. If anyone in the household is under that age then the licence should be due and payable by them. Why it exists anyway is only a government gimmick; there is no real reason for that concession.

yup you tell them , you fill forms in online


and what do you get from capita , more threatening junk mail

Cornucopia

Sam52 wrote: »

Hi all

Do you need a license if you only watch on +1

Yes...........

cw18

Sam52 wrote: »

Hi all

Do you need a license if you only watch on +1

Yes.

But (for the moment anyway), not if you watch on iPlayer or equivalent after it's been shown on +1.

HappyMJ

cw18 wrote: »

Yes.

But (for the moment anyway), not if you watch on iPlayer or equivalent after it's been shown on +1.

What if a 50 minute program is available online 10 minutes after being shown on the normal channel and you start watching it online at the exact same time that it's also being broadcast on a +1 channel?