TV Licence article Discussion

Lewie

Mistral001 wrote: »

Not true. Is it? surely funded by government = funded by tax-payer.
I totally agree with you that the licence fee is a tax.

Yes but funded by the tax payer is the right description.
The government would have nothing to waste without our money.
There are many examples of wrong descriptions being used, such as, 'the NHS is free at the point of use'.
It should be outlawed. It's possibly the most misleading of all.


The licence fee was officially deemed a tax in 2006.
It had to be as people are forced to pay the fee to watch channels that have their own funding.
I'm surprised all the other tv companies don't get together and take it to court.

Lewie

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

the BBC's public service remit should be paid out of general taxation and anything else, yes I'm looking at you strictly come dancing should be an add on subscription for those that want it.

Why should any of the BBC be funded through taxation?
You don't like Strictly so you say it should be subscription for those that want it.
I don't want to fund any part of the BBC so it should be subscription only across the board.
You can't just pick and choose which bits should be subscription because you don't like them.
Well, you can, but that would be hypocrisy.

Mistral001

Nick_C wrote: »

Most Government Funds come from taxes, duties, and borrowing.

Funded by the government suggests paid for from government funds.

The TV license is a tax. It is collected by, or on behalf of, the BBC. The BBC is an independent non governmental body.

BBC domestic services are not funded by the Government. They are funded mainly by people who watch live television, whether they watch the BBC or not.

The notion that it is a tax that is collected on behalf of the BBC is an urban myth.

It is a tax and all taxes go to government.

oldernonethewiser

Lewie wrote: »

Yes but funded by the tax payer is the right description.
The government would have nothing to waste without our money.
There are many examples of wrong descriptions being used, such as, 'the NHS is free at the point of use'.
It should be outlawed. It's possibly the most misleading of all.


The licence fee was officially deemed a tax in 2006.
It had to be as people are forced to pay the fee to watch channels that have their own funding.
I'm surprised all the other tv companies don't get together and take it to court.

Take the BBC to court?


Why?


They don't decide a licence fee is required.
They don't set the licence fee.

Cornucopia

The TV Licence is considered a tax, and is reported with Government spending as such.

The physical tax raising mechanism is that TV Licensing (a BBC brand) engage Capita to administer a fee per household for permission to view TV broadcasts and/or iPlayer.

The cash raised by the BBC through Licence Fee payments is paid to the Government who then release it back to the BBC. (I have a feeling that the payment back is made on a monthly basis).

I presume that the court action under discussion would be on the basis of unfair state subsidy, but I don't think that would work.

There is a potential court action involving a Judicial Review of the questionable enforcement activities of TV Licensing and Capita, but it's an easy way to waste £100k+, so there isn't a rush of potential plaintiffs.

Lewie

oldernonethewiser wrote: »

Take the BBC to court?


Why?


They don't decide a licence fee is required.
They don't set the licence fee.

No mention of taking the BBC to court.
Take the case to court.
Why should a tax be paid that supposedly covers all live broadcasts but only one broadcaster benefit so massivly from it?


Of course they decide a licence fee is required, and how much it 'needs' to be.
They can muddy the waters as much as they like but they enforce it, they administer it, they employ the bully collectors of the tax.
Is there another government enforced tax that is collected by outside cotractors?
They decide the extortionate fees paid to their 'stars' which in turn governs the cost of running the corporation which in turn governs the cost of the tax.

oldernonethewiser

Lewie wrote: »

No mention of taking the BBC to court.
Take the case to court.
Why should a tax be paid that supposedly covers all live broadcasts but only one broadcaster benefit so massivly from it?


Of course they decide a licence fee is required, and how much it 'needs' to be.
They can muddy the waters as much as they like but they enforce it, they administer it, they employ the bully collectors of the tax.
Is there another government enforced tax that is collected by outside cotractors?
They decide the extortionate fees paid to their 'stars' which in turn governs the cost of running the corporation which in turn governs the cost of the tax.

Apologies I thought you meant other companies taking the BBC to court.


Perhaps the other companies have considered this course of action before?


More than one broadcaster benefits from the TV licence.

Cornucopia

oldernonethewiser wrote: »

More than one broadcaster benefits from the TV licence.

Only the BBC, World Service Radio and S4C have ever benefited from the TV Licence (in terms of broadcasting services).

There have been other "top-slicing" elements, but no other broadcasters.

Nick_C

Lewie wrote: »

Is there another government enforced tax that is collected by outside contractors?

Council Tax and "Business Rates" (NNDR), which are collectable by Local Authorities who usually contract it out (usually to Capita).

Lewie

Nick_C wrote: »

Council Tax and "Business Rates" (NNDR), which are collectable by Local Authorities who usually contract it out (usually to Capita).

Wow! No wonder we are in such a mess. Local authorities are contracting loads out now.
I don't get it.
Capita have to employ people then make their rather large profit.
Why can't the local councils employ similar people themselves then they get the 'profit' and could put it back where it belongs?
Bizarre!!