L00b Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 (edited) @ apelike - happy that you don't need a license if you never watch any live content from any source whatsoever on your TV, including online TV services. Difficult as that may be to believe, but each to their own. I'm certain you're an upstanding citizen not engaging in any tax avoidance or worse here All the same, that statutory exception (which you -and so many others- avail of) does not run contrary to the fact the TV license is, legally, an ownership tax, does it? The wording is quoted up there, and is fairly plain. @ Car Boot - same reply as to apelike above, that Wiki section disproves the statutorily black-and-white fact that a TV license is an ownership tax how, exactly? It's not as if I'm twisting or misrepresenting its nature and legal definition, am I? It's no different to car tax, by way of analogy. You can SORN your car for ever and more, if you're never using it on public roads. But if you're using your car on public roads, you must pay it. It's a tax based on your ownership of the car (if you don't own a car, or 'the' car, you're not liable for it - same with 'TV receiver' as legally defined, which extends to *all sorts of electronics*) for when it is used on public roads. Edited December 4, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 And the costs are passed to consumers. Yeah? so you mean the BBC having no advertising have cheaper product in the shops that we can buy or eat, where are they I have not found the magical BBC shop, that I have already paid for in taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 TV licence detractors make it sound like they have, or should have, a choice in the matter. Well, they certainly have the choice of subscribing to Sky, Netflix and such like or not. They also certainly have the choice to watch and/or listen BBC programs or not. they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. See here, and here for details of how it's set and spent. Incorrect. If you had fully read the wiki link that you provided you might have noticed this section: When a TV licence is not required "It is not necessary to own a TV licence for the purpose of: installing and using a television set solely as a closed-circuit TV monitor. using a TV to play pre-recorded DVDs or videos (although to record live programmes it is necessary to hold a licence). using a TV as a digital radio receiver. using a digital box to listen to radio through a TV. using a TV as a monitor for a computer games console. watching catch up TV services when the programme is not live except when using the BBC's iPlayer service to receive BBC catch-up programmes." Do you believe that the wiki link you provided supports or casts doubt on your claim that: they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. Because people who do choose to buy and own a TV (reception equipment) can use it for a number of purposes which do not legally require the purchase of the BBC TV licence. Ownership of reception equipment only requires a BBC TV licence depending on the content the device receives. The complete opposite of your assertion. Thus, given that clear context, anyone still attacking the BBC about the TV license, just shows themselves up for what they are: either an imbecile, or an anti-democratic agitator. Happy posting What do you think your posts have shown about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 I don't have any problem agreeing that successful advertising which is proven to increase sales volume, could ultimately be associated with economies of scale that are achieved on the back of the increased sales volumes (because unit cost decreases by making more units, not by spending more or better marketing £s on advertising campaigns; and suppliers only give you discounts for buying more materials/components, again not for spending more or better marketing £s on advertising campaigns ). Subject to the advertising business meeting the conditions which I enumerated, of course. All the same, I'm really not sure where that gets you in this debate about the license fee. For substantially the same reason as I previously put to Car Boot (the license fee itself has no commercial basis: it's an ownership tax) and which, as I can see, he is studiously ignoring with just more nonsensical and uninformed rants, instead of objective facts TV license detractors make it sound like they have, or should have, a choice in the matter. Well, they certainly have the choice of subscribing to Sky, Netflix and such like or not. They also certainly have the choice to watch and/or listen BBC programs or not. But they don't have any choice about paying the license fee, if they choose to buy and own a TV, because it's a tax based on ownership of reception equipment, nothing to do with the content received. See here, and here for details of how it's set and spent. Now, last I heard, the UK was still a Parliamentarian democracy, and a majority of British people wanted more democracy, sovereignty, control and whatnot. Not some sort of plebeian idiocracy wherein policies are decided and voted through by social media rent-a-mobs. So, if you have a problem with the TV license, take it up with your MP -who has the power to amend legislation and curb or edit the relevant Royal Charter- for abolishing some or all of that Charter and/or its effects. Not with the BBC, which only exists as a result of that Charter and associated Acts and SIs, and which is administered (including the levying of the license) according to that Charter and associated Acts and SIs. Thus, given that clear context, anyone still attacking the BBC about the TV license, just shows themselves up for what they are: either an imbecile, or an anti-democratic agitator. Happy posting I guess that is why they are trying or going to change the law? so we have to pay the tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) @ apelike - happy that you don't need a license if you never watch any live content from any source whatsoever on your TV, including online TV services. Difficult as that may be to believe, but each to their own. I'm certain you're an upstanding citizen not engaging in any tax avoidance or worse here All the same, that statutory exception (which you -and so many others- avail of) does not run contrary to the fact the TV license is, legally, an ownership tax, does it? The wording is quoted up there, and is fairly plain. But as pointed out it is not an ownership tax. A TV licence is paid as an extra per household on top of the ownership and not included when buying. If it was an ownership tax then it would be included on every TV you buy, and as only one licence is needed per household, despite how many TV's it may have, it makes that claim erroneous. That licence fee can also be waived by the secretary of state which has also set the rules and conditions about watching live TV. Those rules have also been posted by me and others with links. You may find it hard to believe but I have not watched any live TV on my TV and don't even have an aerial for it. The TV licensing people have also confirmed that I am exempt. Last time I watched any live TV at my home was when dirty Den and Angie was still in EastEnders. A tax.. yes, an ownership tax no! Edited December 5, 2017 by apelike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 The BBC TV licence fee is a tax on receiving live TV transmissions. It is not a tax on owning a TV, or any other reception equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 The BBC TV licence fee is a tax on receiving live TV transmissions. It is not a tax on owning a TV, or any other reception equipment. it's going to change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) But as pointed out it is not an ownership tax.But as quoted from the Act, it is. A TV licence is paid as an extra per household on top of the ownership and not included when buying. If it was an ownership tax then it would be included on every TV you buy, and as only one licence is needed per household, despite how many TV's it may have, it makes that claim erroneous. That licence fee can also be waived by the secretary of state which has also set the rules and conditions about watching live TV. Those rules have also been posted by me and others with links.It doesn't make the claim erroneous at all, that waiving of the tax per extra TV is an implementing choice (regulation, rule, <...>), to the exact same extent as the waving conditions (statutory exceptions) to the core principle set out in Section 363 about non-broadcast use, likewise the deemed payment of the TV license for people in receipt of benefits, etc. Reprising my car analogy, (AFAIK) the government does not wave car tax (or deems it paid) -unlike the TV license- for car owners in receipt of benefits who can't afford it: that is an implementing (policy) choice, it does not detract or affect from the fact that, statutorily speaking, car tax is based on ownership. You can disagree all you want based on your (lay) understanding of how the TV licence is administered in practice. It doesn't change the legal fact of the thing, until and unless Parliament amends or repeals Section 363 and related (down to 368 IIRC). Which is how and why I suggested to lobby MPs in the matter, rather than recriminate against the BBC, because the BBC is powerless for exactly the same reason (i.e. until and unless Parliament amends or repeals the other Sections of that Act, which mandate the BCC to collect and enforce the license). Edited December 5, 2017 by L00b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Car Boot Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 'A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. Is a TV Licence required to own a television set? You don’t need a TV Licence to own or possess a television set. However, if you use it to watch or record programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, or to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer, then you need a TV Licence in order to do so.' http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16 If TV Licensing inform us that we don't need a TV Licence for just owning (or possessing) a TV, as they do in the link above, then (obviously) the TV tax is NOT a tax on ownership. It is a legal permission to view live television broadcasts. Perhaps TV Licensing is a 'bad faith poster' (whatever that may mean)? But I don't think that they would take bad faith all the way to outright lying, for the sake of a cheap debating shot. I guess we all know better now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 /pedantry Just for those who don't understand the difference between licence and license: Licence - noun ie a TV licence License - verb ie to license a TV Otherwise we'd be living in the USA /pedantry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts