Tv licence has "10 years left"

[I1L2T3]

Forcing me to pay tax for something I don't use is not progressive.

 

It would be paid for from general taxation which is broadly progressive in the UK. There's loads of other things taxes pay for that you don't use or might not like but you don't get to pick and choose.

 

Bottom line is public service broadcasting has to be paid for by somne kind of contribution from the public.

 

Maybe the real debate sone people think we're having here is a more fundamental one about whether we have public service broadcasting at all?

[I1L2T3]

Genuinely I see YOUR point, I dislike adverts myself ( the BBC also show many adverts, for their own shows and product placement) but imagine you were in my shoes with nothing and I mean nothing to watch on the BBC at all, I bet you wouldn't be happy to pay £145 for my sky bill would you ?

 

I think you'll get your wish about the licence fee. I don't think there's any doubt that in the next decade or so there will be a commitment to get rid of it. The real debate us about how much the BBC gets redefined and downsized, and how it gets paid for.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 19:53 ----------

 

As L00b says, what it's providing is a public service, a public good as an economist would put it. If you read that link, you should understand what I mean when I say that the BBC would be gone as a public good if it were turned into a subscription service.

 

I'll give you some examples from my own life. I grew up on a fairly rough council estate, but the BBC gave me access to many things that have improved the quality of my life and inspired me to do things that have enabled me to do interesting and sometimes well paid work. "Serious" music on Radio 3, philosophy programmes on BBC2, science programmes like The Sky at Night or Life on Earth, Open University maths programmes, etc. Few if any of these things would be provided by subscription channels, and even if they had been, my parents wouldn't have bought the subscriptions. You don't subscribe to something you aren't already interested in. Being on the BBC enabled me to just stumble across these things by chance.

 

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who have had similar experiences.

 

You need public libraries for the same reason.

 

Up to a point, the internet does provide these things - but that content also needs to be paid for somewhere down the line.

 

The research shows that these days the younger you are and the lower your socio-economic group then the more likely you are to not want to pay the licence fee or see the need for the BBC at all.

 

Older, more wealthy people tend to more strongly support it.

[Happ Hazzard]

If wealthy people want to watch the BBC they should have no problem in launching it as a subscriber service or one with adverts.

[I1L2T3]

If wealthy people want to watch the BBC they should have no problem in launching it as a subscriber service or one with adverts.

 

Not that simple

 

There is support for the licence fee across all social groups and ages, just less strongly in younger, poorly educated, lower skilled people

[biotechpete]

All your saying is it's a public service, so we must have a public service or we won t have a public service.

What public service is the BBC providing that isn't be provided elsewhere, I will give you a small amount of crumbs yes their is a small need for maintaining equipment, but yet again That should also be provided by those who want that service, if the BBC wants to develop its online content to rival Netflix then you and whoever subscribes to it should pay, it's for your benefit .

 

I can't accept that there is a fundamental requirement for a public service broadcaster because you and ot others can't or won't say what the BBC is providing that other channels aren't providing !

 

regarding the freeview etc infrastructure that would have happened anyway with or without the BBC, as a lot of that bandwidth was needed anyway for freebies and was second hand from thephone companies after the auctions to provide higher speed mobile data, people already had the 5 main Channels, but because it went digital they then needed to spend money to make people receive the 5 main channels plus a few more ?

 

Remember the commercial solution ONdigital? It went bust. The BBC was brought in to save the digital free to air project. No other broadcaster could've done that.

 

Do people really need to justify that the BBC provide content that others cannot. There are private schools, private hospitals, private roads and private housing but that doesn't mean that the state doesn't need to have a role in providing those things. It's an argument based on a false premise that the state should not provide what the private sector can. The reason for the BBC is the same as the NHS. The TV licence is a form of tax like NI however regressive people say it is.

 

But I haven't seen a commercial version of Radio 4 or BBC4. Cbeebies similarly, provides programming that I am not aware of on other channels. BBC comedy has been innovating where others haven't for decades. Who else would put the effort into grass roots cultural development like the BBC comedy awards? BBC news output through the world service in programmes like from our own correspondent is similarly of a depth not provided anywhere else on earth, never mind on sky.

 

I don't use schools, hospitals or busses. I don't like the proms or radio 1's big weekend but i'm not idiotic enough to think I should only have to pay for things at my point of use.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 20:37 ----------

 

Forcing me to pay tax for something I don't use is not progressive.

 

Isn't that more or less the purpose of taxation? Otherwise we could all pay for what we want to use. Except there's nothing progressive, or indeed affordable, in that model either.

edit to add: if you don'the use TV you don't have to pay for it either. As the huff post article someone linked to earlier, the BBC not competing for ad revenue means they effectively subsidise all other ad supported broadcasting.

Edited June 23, 2015 by biotechpete

[Happ Hazzard]

"BBC comedy" is just a circle jerk for a bunch of privately educated lefties. They haven't produced anything worthwhile for a decade or more.

[bigsexydoug]

As L00b says, what it's providing is a public service, a public good as an economist would put it. If you read that link, you should understand what I mean when I say that the BBC would be gone as a public good if it were turned into a subscription service.

 

I'll give you some examples from my own life. I grew up on a fairly rough council estate, but the BBC gave me access to many things that have improved the quality of my life and inspired me to do things that have enabled me to do interesting and sometimes well paid work. "Serious" music on Radio 3, philosophy programmes on BBC2, science programmes like The Sky at Night or Life on Earth, Open University maths programmes, etc. Few if any of these things would be provided by subscription channels, and even if they had been, my parents wouldn't have bought the subscriptions. You don't subscribe to something you aren't already interested in. Being on the BBC enabled me to just stumble across these things by chance.

 

I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who have had similar experiences.

 

You need public libraries for the same reason.

 

Up to a point, the internet does provide these things - but that content also needs to be paid for somewhere down the line.

 

Don't take this personally but 4 billion is a Damn lot of money for your opportunity,and its great it's helped you loads I can tell by your writing just how much you appreciate it, but that doesn't mean it needs to produce eastenders and tax Pensioners and send them to jail, I'm sure you would actually pay to help the young generation have the same opportunities as you got.

 

But at this moment the BBC is producing crap tv ( in my opinion) and jailing people because they won't /can't pay it ! That's why I've said make it a subscription service and not simply scrap the whole lot, I've tried to be really fair on that !

[RickyM]

The sooner the TV Licence fee is gone the better. Why should I pay for a TV service I VERY seldom use?

 

As another post said - it's all out of touch middle class lefties who think we northerners are inferior to them.

[I1L2T3]

The sooner the TV Licence fee is gone the better. Why should I pay for a TV service I VERY seldom use?

 

So you admit you use it?

[Mister M]

"BBC comedy" is just a circle jerk for a bunch of privately educated lefties. They haven't produced anything worthwhile for a decade or more.

 

Ah, we're getting to the heart of it now - you want to do away with the BBC because you're a chippy class warrior in the Murdoch mould.