Thanks. I do know what it means, I just wanted you to clarify what you meant. So, after all essential outgoings, you'd promote an average family having approx. £16.50 each, per person, per week to spend after necessities?
Edit: Before the thread gets closed, can we stray back on topic. With all the talk about the NHS, have you not seen how silly it would be to compare paying for the NHS vs. paying the licence fee?
Sorry, I thought you just asked what I considered discretionary income, which was why I posted the link.
I'm not promoting anything, I'm just stating that providing such a public service through a similar funding model i.e at a price that is not prohibitive, is a viable option.
If the fact the price is not prohibitive is relevant then it seemed a reasonable comparison.
Any regressive tax is worse for lower income households. There is some relief available to lower income households for council tax I believe - about 25%.
so in this hypothetical example, are you saying that was lower than it currently is for low income households, but was regressive, that would be worse for low income households?
surely it would be better, as they'd be paying less.
Without evidence, you're most certainly not in a position to state that the licence fee is prohibitive.
The best evidence was provided by the Citizens Advice Bereau in its report 'TV Sinners'. That evidence was so convincing the govnt initiated a change in judicial policy so that low income evaders were no longer ending up in prison, as they had before. Convinced now?
Any regressive tax is worse for lower income households. There is some relief available to lower income households for council tax I believe - about 25%.
The best evidence was provided by the Citizens Advice Bereau in its report 'TV Sinners'. That evidence was so convincing the govnt initiated a change in judicial policy so that low income evaders were no longer ending up in prison, as they had before. Convinced now?
Who was telling us about all the single mothers being locked up?
The best evidence was provided by the Citizens Advice Bereau in its report 'TV Sinners'. That evidence was so convincing the govnt initiated a change in judicial policy so that low income evaders were no longer ending up in prison, as they had before. Convinced now?
which? if you'd read all of this thread, you'd have seen that we went through actual figures, put forward by someone on your side of the argument, and pretty much showed that it wasn't prohibitive.
if you want to ignore those figures, that's up to you.
I read a great comment on a youtube tv licence video today:
-- How can something be unfair but a good way of funding public TV? Ins't the main point that its unfair the only relevant issue? Might as well say slavery is unfair but its a good way of building a country so lets keep it going.
When there was 1 channel decades ago, it might have been relevant. Now there are thousands of channels not including online.
I get plenty of public TV from these other channels. This is 2009 and people dont really hold the BBC up like they used to because of choice
I read a great comment on a youtube tv licence video today:
-- How can something be unfair but a good way of funding public TV? Ins't the main point that its unfair the only relevant issue? Might as well say slavery is unfair but its a good way of building a country so lets keep it going.
Brilliant..
We are now comparing the TV licence to slavery....
When there was 1 channel decades ago, it might have been relevant. Now there are thousands of channels not including online.
I get plenty of public TV from these other channels. This is 2009 and people dont really hold the BBC up like they used to because of choice
But the number of alternative channels is not really the issue is it?
The issue is a public service broadcaster that provides a national and local television and radio service, without ads and is not totally dependent upon viewing figures for it's revenue. A broadcaster that provides viewing and listening for a wide range of tastes, all for the price of a pint of beer a week...
I read a great comment on a youtube tv licence video today:
-- How can something be unfair but a good way of funding public TV? Ins't the main point that its unfair the only relevant issue? Might as well say slavery is unfair but its a good way of building a country so lets keep it going.
When there was 1 channel decades ago, it might have been relevant. Now there are thousands of channels not including online.
I get plenty of public TV from these other channels. This is 2009 and people dont really hold the BBC up like they used to because of choice
Yes, of course you need to say more. You can't dip in and out of the thread you started, carefully ignoring many relevant posts arguing against your standpoint, and post new information that doesn't really add much to the debate.
Yes, of course you need to say more. You can't dip in and out of the thread you started, carefully ignoring many relevant posts arguing against your standpoint, and post new information that doesn't really add much to the debate.
What are your thoughts on the last few pages?
1) Yes I can "dip in and out"....thats the power of free speech and of course deciding whats worth replying to...or not.
2) Most of whats been said has been said thousands of times before.
The fact remains that the TV licence is unfair and out dated and funds an old idea in a new age.
Yes, of course you need to say more. You can't dip in and out of the thread you started, carefully ignoring many relevant posts arguing against your standpoint, and post new information that doesn't really add much to the debate.
What are your thoughts on the last few pages?
Oh and I note you conveniently avoided commenting fully on my post:rolleyes:
1) Yes I can "dip in and out"....thats the power of free speech and of course deciding whats worth replying to...or not.
2) Most of whats been said has been said thousands of times before.
The fact remains that the TV licence is unfair and out dated and funds an old idea in a new age.
Well dipping in and out will only nurture ignorance towards other peoples arguments and it also shows a distinct lack of respect and arrogance towards other FM's....
...you've missed three days worth of debate, have you read any of it? What are your thoughts?
Even when the posts you ignore are ones that would catch you out by replying to them?
Because these thing that have been said a "thousand times before" are the truth?
Actually, your opinion, not fact. The only fact is that other funding methods don't provide what the beeb does - and wouldn't even try.
Its doesnt catch anyone out, its just always a difference of opinion or another way of interpretating data/trends.
Nope.
My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.
Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.
Its doesnt catch anyone out, its just always a difference of opinion or another way of interpretating data/trends.
Nope.
My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.
Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.
And, as has been pointed out before, contrary to your original claim, many of thes 9.4 million are not actually watching the channels they're subscribing for, prefering the non-pay channels to the pay channels.
You see, that's why people reply to your posts! Otherwise the original claim would have been left unchallenged.
As for "other broadcasters providing" what the BBC does, even you would admit that's not the truth.
Even when the posts you ignore are ones that would catch you out by replying to them?
Because these thing that have been said a "thousand times before" are the truth?
Actually, your opinion, not fact. The only fact is that other funding methods don't provide what the beeb does - and wouldn't even try.
There's no reason why funding from general taxation can't provide PSB content - which is the whole point. It doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter, who broadcasts the content as long as it gets made and is readily available.
And, as has been pointed out before, contrary to your original claim, many of thes 9.4 million are not actually watching the channels they're subscribing for, prefering the non-pay channels to the pay channels.
You see, that's why people reply to your posts! Otherwise the original claim would have been left unchallenged.
As for "other broadcasters providing" what the BBC does, even you would admit that's not the truth.
Perhaps, but its still FACT that more people are choosing to watch something other than the BBC:rolleyes:
Comments
Sorry, I thought you just asked what I considered discretionary income, which was why I posted the link.
I'm not promoting anything, I'm just stating that providing such a public service through a similar funding model i.e at a price that is not prohibitive, is a viable option.
If the fact the price is not prohibitive is relevant then it seemed a reasonable comparison.
so in this hypothetical example, are you saying that was lower than it currently is for low income households, but was regressive, that would be worse for low income households?
surely it would be better, as they'd be paying less.
Iain
Commonly, disposable income is the amount of "play money" left to spend or save.
AFAIK the figure is after subtracting personal outlays which to my understanding would include paying off household debt.
Except that, as you know, it is to some.
The best evidence was provided by the Citizens Advice Bereau in its report 'TV Sinners'. That evidence was so convincing the govnt initiated a change in judicial policy so that low income evaders were no longer ending up in prison, as they had before. Convinced now?
Can I answer? Worse, just like the tv licence.
Actually for the very poorest its 100%.
Who was telling us about all the single mothers being locked up?
No. Any report from this century?
which? if you'd read all of this thread, you'd have seen that we went through actual figures, put forward by someone on your side of the argument, and pretty much showed that it wasn't prohibitive.
if you want to ignore those figures, that's up to you.
Iain
OK - so in your opinion, if low income households saw their council tax bills go down, you'd argue that they were in a worse position.
can expand on why you would think that?
surely if they were paying less, that would be better.
Iain
--
How can something be unfair but a good way of funding public TV? Ins't the main point that its unfair the only relevant issue? Might as well say slavery is unfair but its a good way of building a country so lets keep it going.
When there was 1 channel decades ago, it might have been relevant. Now there are thousands of channels not including online.
I get plenty of public TV from these other channels. This is 2009 and people dont really hold the BBC up like they used to because of choice
--
Need I say more???
LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUqFlgsPi2c
yes - a lot more.
the comments on that page are hilarious though.
Iain
Brilliant..
We are now comparing the TV licence to slavery....
But the number of alternative channels is not really the issue is it?
The issue is a public service broadcaster that provides a national and local television and radio service, without ads and is not totally dependent upon viewing figures for it's revenue. A broadcaster that provides viewing and listening for a wide range of tastes, all for the price of a pint of beer a week...
Yes, of course you need to say more. You can't dip in and out of the thread you started, carefully ignoring many relevant posts arguing against your standpoint, and post new information that doesn't really add much to the debate.
What are your thoughts on the last few pages?
1) Yes I can "dip in and out"....thats the power of free speech and of course deciding whats worth replying to...or not.
2) Most of whats been said has been said thousands of times before.
The fact remains that the TV licence is unfair and out dated and funds an old idea in a new age.
Oh and I note you conveniently avoided commenting fully on my post:rolleyes:
Well dipping in and out will only nurture ignorance towards other peoples arguments and it also shows a distinct lack of respect and arrogance towards other FM's....
...you've missed three days worth of debate, have you read any of it? What are your thoughts?
Even when the posts you ignore are ones that would catch you out by replying to them?
Because these thing that have been said a "thousand times before" are the truth?
Actually, your opinion, not fact. The only fact is that other funding methods don't provide what the beeb does - and wouldn't even try.
Its doesnt catch anyone out, its just always a difference of opinion or another way of interpretating data/trends.
Nope.
My opinion yes, but fact remains that 9.4 million people need extra choice. In my book this means the BBC are not worthy of a compulsory licence fee. Yes they may show some good programmes, but thats clearly not enough.
Other broadcasters are providing and already 9.4 million agree.
I have commented fully on your post so less of the sarcastic roll-eyes, eh?
Let me reiterate; your post doesn't add much to the debate.
And, as has been pointed out before, contrary to your original claim, many of thes 9.4 million are not actually watching the channels they're subscribing for, prefering the non-pay channels to the pay channels.
You see, that's why people reply to your posts! Otherwise the original claim would have been left unchallenged.
As for "other broadcasters providing" what the BBC does, even you would admit that's not the truth.
There's no reason why funding from general taxation can't provide PSB content - which is the whole point. It doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter, who broadcasts the content as long as it gets made and is readily available.
Perhaps, but its still FACT that more people are choosing to watch something other than the BBC:rolleyes: