I believe the current service is only available to those that purchase a licence, as opposed to being available to all.
Which is 98% of the population, right? And since we've established that a) of the 2%, we don't know how many of them actually can't afford it, yet, b) that the current licence fee isn't actually prohibitive; we must then concede that the available evidence heavily suggests that the current service actually is available to all?
Which is 98% of the population, right? And since we've established that a) of the 2%, we don't know how many of them actually can't afford it, yet, b) that the current licence fee isn't actually prohibitive; we must then concede that the available evidence heavily suggests that the current service actually is available to all?
On that basis we could and therefore probably should charge £140 for a licence to use a library. In fact if £140 is not prohibitive we should charge that for every public service.
On that basis we could and therefore probably should charge £140 for a licence to use a library. In fact if £140 is not prohibitive we should charge that for every public service.
Using a library is different to watching a TV though, isn't it? Watching TV or listening to the radio (for example) is completely passive. It requires no effort. Libraries require people to leave their houses, and more often than not either drive or use public transport to get there. For some, accessing a library will genuinely be prohibitive. Besides, libraries are funded through council tax payments and each council determines what percentage goes towards running their libraries.
For example, Hertfordshire County Council allocated £24m for 'Libraries & Culture' this year and with 420,000 households in Hertfordshire, that's around £57 per household, on average, per year (if paid by DD, that £5.70 a month over 10 months). Now that's £57 for something that some people definitely won't use, which will seem unfair to some people. It's also worth noting that those in higher banded properties will actually pay more than £57 and if accessing the library is still prohibitive for them, that's doubley unfair, right? However, people don't complain about paying towards these services. The 24m won't even go towards writing books either, but the TV licence does fund TV productions that aren't just shown on the BBC. Some are syndicated around the world.
So, that £57 a year for something that requires some effort to use...and £142.50 for something that requires no effort to use. Sounds like fair models to me.
Excellent. So those who don't use their TV to watch live broadcasts get to pay for them anyway. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. Or maybe not.
But we're talking about a public service. Let's pick one example, rubbish collection. So those who always take their own rubbish to the tip get to pay for it (council collection via community charge) anyway. I'm sure they would appreciate that. Or maybe not.
Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to opt-out of certain public service things? Or are you just intimating that the BBC is not a public service, so needs to be treated differently?
And it would be nice if a public service was available to everybody without requiring a licence.
sure - but you're getting pretty close to suggesting as you did the other day that people are being actively denied access.
given that the cost of that licence isn't prohibitive even to low income households, to any meaningful intent and purpose it is available to everybody.
sure - but you're getting pretty close to suggesting as you did the other day that people are being actively denied access.
given that the cost of that licence isn't prohibitive even to low income households, to any meaningful intent and purpose it is available to everybody.
Iain
How is 'it would be nice if a public service was available to everybody without requiring a licence' close to suggesting 'people are being actively denied access.'
The fact is I think a public service should be funded from general taxation rather than a regressive flat tax.
What we have now is some people paying in for the benefit of the some people that are paying in. That is not the same as everybody chipping in for the benefit of all.
Perhaps we should restrict all public services in the same way.
What we have now is some people paying in for the benefit of the some people that are paying in. That is not the same as everybody chipping in for the benefit of all.
Perhaps we should restrict all public services in the same way.
Stop being disingenuous. What we have now is 98% of households paying into a service and 100% of them having access to it. The households that don't want access to the service simply don't pay. Since we've established that the licence fee isn't prohibitive, we know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice.
Stop being disingenuous. What we have now is 98% of households paying into a service and 100% of them having access to it. The households that don't want access to the service simply don't pay. Since we've established that the licence fee isn't prohibitive, we know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice.
Why do you struggle to understand this?
What we have now is 98% of households paying into a service available to 98% of households.
Nothing disengenuous about that, it's a simple fact.
The majority of the population can afford private health insurance. Shall we disband the NHS?
So where do you get this piece of startling information from...?
So does this "private health insurance" we can all afford include cover for every eventuality, how about medical history, on-going health problems, age, etc etc
Which is what I stated, think about it. 98% pay into a service and of the 98%, 100% have access to it.
Again, since we've established that the licence fee isn't prohibitive, we know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice.
It appears you consider that the fact 100% of the people buying a licence have access to the service is some sort of bonus.
And when exactly did we establish the LF wasn't prohibitive? We established it would take extreme circumstances to be so, but then some people live in extreme circumstances. We certainly established it's regressive and can be 15% of disposable income to some households, the equivalent of £3000 to a household with £20000 disposable income, and we do not know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice. When did you decide we knew why those 2% don't have a licence.
So where do you get this piece of startling information from...?
So does this "private health insurance" we can all afford include cover for every eventuality, how about medical history, on-going health problems, age, etc etc
:rolleyes:
The fact private health care is as affordable as the LF.
The majority could easily afford top coverage if that's how they choose to spend their disposable income.
Health care starts from £10 a month - the majority can afford private health care.
Please, can you start thinking about things before you post a reply. If you disband the NHS, how will the private health companies find the extra billions it would take to run them? £10 a month from each patient isn't going to go far, is it?
Comments
I believe the current service is only available to those that purchase a licence, as opposed to being available to all.
Which is 98% of the population, right? And since we've established that a) of the 2%, we don't know how many of them actually can't afford it, yet, b) that the current licence fee isn't actually prohibitive; we must then concede that the available evidence heavily suggests that the current service actually is available to all?
On that basis we could and therefore probably should charge £140 for a licence to use a library. In fact if £140 is not prohibitive we should charge that for every public service.
Using a library is different to watching a TV though, isn't it? Watching TV or listening to the radio (for example) is completely passive. It requires no effort. Libraries require people to leave their houses, and more often than not either drive or use public transport to get there. For some, accessing a library will genuinely be prohibitive. Besides, libraries are funded through council tax payments and each council determines what percentage goes towards running their libraries.
For example, Hertfordshire County Council allocated £24m for 'Libraries & Culture' this year and with 420,000 households in Hertfordshire, that's around £57 per household, on average, per year (if paid by DD, that £5.70 a month over 10 months). Now that's £57 for something that some people definitely won't use, which will seem unfair to some people. It's also worth noting that those in higher banded properties will actually pay more than £57 and if accessing the library is still prohibitive for them, that's doubley unfair, right? However, people don't complain about paying towards these services. The 24m won't even go towards writing books either, but the TV licence does fund TV productions that aren't just shown on the BBC. Some are syndicated around the world.
So, that £57 a year for something that requires some effort to use...and £142.50 for something that requires no effort to use. Sounds like fair models to me.
Well I certainly agree. I started a thread on this very same point a few months ago.
But we're talking about a public service. Let's pick one example, rubbish collection. So those who always take their own rubbish to the tip get to pay for it (council collection via community charge) anyway. I'm sure they would appreciate that. Or maybe not.
Are you suggesting that people should be allowed to opt-out of certain public service things? Or are you just intimating that the BBC is not a public service, so needs to be treated differently?
so some people are free to choose not to buy a licence.
and?
Iain
And it would be nice if a public service was available to everybody without requiring a licence.
That's what a public service is all about though, isn't it? Everybody chipping in for the benefit of all.
sure - but you're getting pretty close to suggesting as you did the other day that people are being actively denied access.
given that the cost of that licence isn't prohibitive even to low income households, to any meaningful intent and purpose it is available to everybody.
Iain
Which is what we've got now!
A non-prohibitive charge which can be opted out.
How is 'it would be nice if a public service was available to everybody without requiring a licence' close to suggesting 'people are being actively denied access.'
The fact is I think a public service should be funded from general taxation rather than a regressive flat tax.
It's just an opinion.
What we have now is some people paying in for the benefit of the some people that are paying in. That is not the same as everybody chipping in for the benefit of all.
Perhaps we should restrict all public services in the same way.
Stop being disingenuous. What we have now is 98% of households paying into a service and 100% of them having access to it. The households that don't want access to the service simply don't pay. Since we've established that the licence fee isn't prohibitive, we know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice.
Why do you struggle to understand this?
What we have now is 98% of households paying into a service available to 98% of households.
Nothing disengenuous about that, it's a simple fact.
Which is what I stated, think about it. 98% pay into a service and of the 98%, 100% have access to it.
Again, since we've established that the licence fee isn't prohibitive, we know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice.
The majority can't really afford private health care.....however an awful lot receive it as a work benefit.
Also, you do know that NHS doctors work privately too? So disbanding the NHS may result in very few doctors for the private sector.
It appears you consider that the fact 100% of the people buying a licence have access to the service is some sort of bonus.
And when exactly did we establish the LF wasn't prohibitive? We established it would take extreme circumstances to be so, but then some people live in extreme circumstances. We certainly established it's regressive and can be 15% of disposable income to some households, the equivalent of £3000 to a household with £20000 disposable income, and we do not know that the households who don't have a licence do so out of choice. When did you decide we knew why those 2% don't have a licence.
Health care starts from £10 a month - the majority can afford private health care.
The fact private health care is as affordable as the LF.
The majority could easily afford top coverage if that's how they choose to spend their disposable income.
Please, can you start thinking about things before you post a reply. If you disband the NHS, how will the private health companies find the extra billions it would take to run them? £10 a month from each patient isn't going to go far, is it?
:rolleyes: