TV / television licensing MEGATHREAD

[Berberis]

It is a tax as the money does not go directly to the BBC/ Other channels.

 

However if it is a TAX the BBC needs to be more open to scrutiny too, it being a public body.

 

A household levy would be better.

[Magilla]

I think there's firm evidence that education, health, roads, the armed forces, police and pensions are beneficial to society as a whole. I do not see the evidence for the BBC doing the same.

 

That's because you're not looking or are being willfully blind.

 

It's fairly obvious if you go at any other country where ad driven TV is the norm that the BBC is beneficial to society as a whole.

[spilldig]

No, I haven't. It's a public service organisation that offers outstanding value for money and caters to the widest possible audience.

 

Worth every penny and long may it continue.

 

Fine. You pay for it then. It should have been privatised years ago.

[Magilla]

Fine. You pay for it then. It should have been privatised years ago.

 

What other public services do you think should also be privatised, and if they were do you think they'd be as good?

[spilldig]

What other public services do you think should also be privatised, and if they were do you think they'd be as good?

 

There's not much more left to ptivatise really, except the BBC.

What, I think should never have been privatised are life and death things like water, gas ,electricity and to an extent, transport, and I fear the NHS is heading that way too, but the gravy train that is the BBC should have been privatised long ago. If people want it, fine, but if someone prefers watching independent TV then they shouldn't pay a tax for watching independent TV.

[Magilla]

There's not much more left to ptivatise really, except the BBC.

What, I think should never have been privatised are life and death things like water, gas ,electricity and to an extent, transport, and I fear the NHS is heading that way too.

 

Why do you fear it? If it's OK for one public service body, why not all?

 

but the gravy train that is the BBC should have been privatised long ago.

 

It isn't a gravy train, how could it be when they produce such a wide range of programming to a high quality for a fraction of the cost of subscription services (that still carry adds).

 

If people want it, fine, but if someone prefers watching independent TV then they shouldn't pay a tax for watching independent TV.

 

The tax isn't for watching independent TV, it's to support a public service.

 

Here's a comment on another forum I saw recently that sums things up quite nicely:-

 

Should we all club together to buy something that benefits us all, or should we only operate "selfishly"?

 

As a taxpayer you subsidise the Royal Opera House and The Royal Ballet, and for that matter the Royal family. You also pay for thousands of other things that you might not want or be enthused about, like nuclear weapons or huge subsidies/tax relief for religious organisations or independent schools. Or worse, bail-outs for spectacularly failing banks, when you know full well that were they successful they wouldn't be putting any money in your pocket. But things are not organised such that you are billed direct for things like that, like you are for the BBC.

 

The idea that people resent paying for the BBC is a bit of a national canker. We need to find a way of funding it that everyone can feel comfortable with, for sure.

 

But it's every bit as valuable as universal education and the emergency services and the roads and street lighting and a thousand other benefits of clubbing together as a feature of our national life. Sadly the only way to prove that this is so would be to shut it down.

 

I wish I could send the whiners who'd like to see that happen to an alternate-universe version of Britain where it really did. They'd have their own Fox news, and what a joy for them. They'd deserve it.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Magilla

[spilldig]

Why do you fear it? If it's OK for one public service body, why not all?

 

I wouldn't miss the BBC. I would miss the NHS.

 

It isn't a gravy train, how could it be when they produce such a wide range of programming to a high quality for a fraction of the cost of subscription services (that still carry adds).

 

They award themselves too much because the finance is too easy.

 

 

The tax isn't for watching independent TV, it's to support a public service.

 

Of course it is because you still pay it for watching independent TV.

 

Here's a comment on another forum I saw recently that sums things up quite nicely:-

...................................

[Magilla]

I wouldn't miss the BBC. I would miss the NHS.

 

It's not going anywhere (except maybe in name), you would just have to pay for what you use. That's the system you're proposing, I would imagine you'd be happy about it.

 

So again, what exactly is it you claim to fear?

 

They award themselves too much because the finance is too easy.

 

If it's that easy to produce TV that they can award such large sums, how come a Sky subscription (for example) is so much more expensive?

 

Of course it is because you still pay it for watching independent TV.

 

You'd still pay if even if you watched no TV so self evidently, it's not for watching independent TV.

 

You pay it because it's a public service, and they are paid for by the public.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Magilla

[spilldig]

It's not going anywhere (except maybe in name), you would just have to pay for what you use. That's the system you're proposing, I would imagine you'd be happy about it.

 

So again, what exactly is it you claim to fear?

Again I repeat.

I fear that the NHS may be privatised

 

If it's that easy to produce TV that they can award such large sums, how come a Sky subscription (for example) is so much more expensive?

 

I don't care what the Sky subscription is. I don't have to pay it.

 

 

You'd still pay if even if you watched no TV so self evidently, it's not for watching independent TV.

 

I pay it now, even if I don't watch it.

 

You pay it because it's a public service, and they are paid for by the public.

You should only pay to watch it.

[Magilla]

I fear that the NHS may be privatised

 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If privatisation is good for one public service, why not another?

 

What is it about privatisation that you fear?

 

I don't care what the Sky subscription is. I don't have to pay it.

 

You do, indirectly. Regardless, they're the only broadcaster in the UK that comes close to the range of programming the BBC makes (though quality isn't there), minus radio/internet etc.. for the bargain price of 2 to 3 times the cost (minimum).

 

I pay it now, even if I don't watch it.

 

And rightly so, just as you do for many many other public services that you may not use on a daily basis.

 

Out of interest, which shows on free to air TV are so great that you're happy to only have access to them?

 

You should only pay to watch it.

 

So, you should only pay for the NHS when you use it?

 

No, you should pay because it's a public service, paid for by the public to benefit the public.

 

Should we all club together to buy something that benefits us all, or should we only operate "selfishly"?

 

Selfish then, I guess.