Do You Need The BBC?

[Car Boot]

I suspect there'd still be a TV licence whether or not it funded the BBC....

 

That's true. The BBC TV licence fee pays for other things beside the BBC.

 

But the bulk of the fee is swallowed up by the BBC.

 

It would be much fairer to take the fee from income taxation. Then we could have the wealthy subsidising the viewing habits of the poorest, instead of the other way round.

[melthebell]

That's true. The BBC TV licence fee pays for other things beside the BBC.

 

But the bulk of the fee is swallowed up by the BBC.

 

It would be much fairer to take the fee from income taxation. Then we could have the wealthy subsidising the viewing habits of the poorest, instead of the other way round.

whys that fairer? if somebody wealthy doesnt watch live tv why should they pay? youre just a wannabe robin hood who doesnt have a clue

[Car Boot]

whys that fairer? if somebody wealthy doesnt watch live tv why should they pay? youre just a wannabe robin hood who doesnt have a clue

 

The BBC being funded from income taxation would be much fairer because those who earn more would pay more. Those with very little or no earned income would be taken out of paying for the BBC entirely. This is called PROGRESSIVE taxation because it is based on the ability to pay.

 

The BBC TV licence fee is the most REGRESSIVE tax in the UK, which hurts the poorest the most.

 

While you are defending the wealthy the BBC is prosecuting the poorest members of society for being unable to afford it's increasingly expensive licence fee, 71.9 per cent of whom were women in 2016.

[melthebell]

The BBC being funded from income taxation would be much fairer because those who earn more would pay more. Those with very little or no earned income would be taken out of paying for the BBC entirely. This is called PROGRESSIVE taxation because it is based on the ability to pay.

 

The BBC TV licence fee is the most REGRESSIVE tax in the UK, which hurts the poorest the most.

 

While you are defending the wealthy the BBC is prosecuting the poorest members of society for being unable to afford it's increasingly expensive licence fee, 71.9 per cent of whom were women in 2016.

everything affects the poorest more, that goes without saying, going to do your food shopping hits the poorest first, should somebody else buy their food.

You are talking nonsense, you started off saying how if you dont watch the BBC its unfair, now youve changed your tune and saying the wealthy should pay more towards it, well, if they dont watch the BBC then why should they? in your own words its unfair.

 

Its nothing but Faux Robin Hood nonsense you are spouting

[Hibbs]

everything affects the poorest more, that goes without saying, going to do your food shopping hits the poorest first, should somebody else buy their food.

You are talking nonsense, you started off saying how if you dont watch the BBC its unfair, now youve changed your tune and saying the wealthy should pay more towards it, well, if they dont watch the BBC then why should they? in your own words its unfair.

 

Its nothing but Faux Robin Hood nonsense you are spouting

 

Agreed. Nothing wrong with it as it is!

[Car Boot]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with it as it is!

 

Tell that to the women who were prosecuted in 2016 by the BBC for being unable to afford the increasingly expensive BBC TV licence fee. Women in that year made up 71.9 per cent of all licence fee prosecutions.

 

I'm not at all sure they will agree with you.

[melthebell]

Tell that to the women who were prosecuted in 2016 by the BBC for being unable to afford the increasingly expensive BBC TV licence fee. Women in that year made up 71.9 per cent of all licence fee prosecutions.

 

I'm not at all sure they will agree with you.

You'll be telling us they were deliberately targeted again next

[Car Boot]

You'll be telling us they were deliberately targeted again next

 

71.9 per cent of all BBC TV licence fee prosecutions in 2016 were against mainly low income women.

 

Is it sheer coincidence that women are massively over-represented when it comes to BBC prosecutions? No. It's happening every year. Last year's figures the BBC don't want to release. I wonder why?

 

The BBC has targets for everything.

[melthebell]

71.9 per cent of all BBC TV licence fee prosecutions in 2016 were against mainly low income women.

 

Is it sheer coincidence that women are massively over-represented when it comes to BBC prosecutions? No. It's happening every year. Last year's figures the BBC don't want to release. I wonder why?

 

The BBC has targets for everything.

weve had this argument before it obviously didnt sink in

[barleycorn]

Would you be legally required to buy a rod licence to go grouse shooting? I think a lot of these comparisons are ridiculous. If we subscribe to Sky, we are still legally required to buy a BBC licence as well, even if we don't watch BBC.

 

You don't understand that. If you choose to kill fish then you pay for your licence. If you choose to kill other creatures for sport you pay for another licence but you don't have to pay a rod licence.

 

If I want to watch the BBC I'll buy a BBC TV licence. If I never watch BBC but wish to watch sky sports, I should pay a sky sports subscription. Why can't you understand that it is unfair to force me to pay another fee for something I haven't chosen?

 

If you are scared of losing your precious BBC, make every taxpayer fund it rather than forcing people who subscribe to watch other channels subsidise your TV channels.

 

---------- Post added 07-04-2018 at 00:18 ----------

 

You don't have pay Vehicle Excise Duty if you ride a bicycle. If you choose to drive a car you pay. This thread is about some people being forced to pay for something they don't use, while other members of the public don't have to pay.

 

Mockery is a very common tactic for people who know they are in the wrong but don't want to consider alternatives, by the way.

The TV licence isn't for watching the BBC.