Proposal of licence fee to charged even if you don't own a TV

jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/licence-fee-what-is-the-bbc-charge--and-how-will-the-changes-affect-you-10079874.html

An interesting one this and one I saw coming. As people use catch-up services more and more people would not have a need to watch live tv - unless you are into sport or specific live events. There is a proposal to levy a charge on every household regardless of whether live tv is watched to fund the BBC.
«13456

Comments

  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is a ridiculous suggestion to make people pay a levy even if they do not own a TV.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,572
    Forum Member
    It is a ridiculous suggestion to make people pay a levy even if they do not own a TV.

    You don't need a TV when you can watch online. It is one solution to how the BBC should be paid for, and would save the cost of licence fee collection and enforcement. Those who never watch any kind of TV would lose out, but they must be a very small minority.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6
    Forum Member
    jjwales wrote: »
    You don't need a TV when you can watch online. It is one solution to how the BBC should be paid for, and would save the cost of licence fee collection and enforcement. Those who never watch any kind of TV would lose out, but they must be a very small minority.
    Just fund it from general taxation and save ALL the admin.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is a ridiculous suggestion to make people pay a levy even if they do not own a TV.

    any more ridiculous in this day and age to make you pay a tax to own a TV?
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    any more ridiculous in this day and age to make you pay a tax to own a TV?

    Nope.

    Time to #AxeTheTVTax, it's an archaic and regressive notion.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,572
    Forum Member
    Just fund it from general taxation and save ALL the admin.

    That's what I've always advocated. Though presumably it would mean higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.
  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    That's what I've always advocated. Though presumably it would mean higher taxes or spending cuts elsewhere.
    Seeing as the beeb seems so London centric. Make it a tax banks.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    Seeing as the beeb seems so London centric. Make it a tax banks.

    I was under the impression that the Beeb was very regional to be fair.

    Maybe that's just because I listen to BBC Ulster and would gladly pay a subscription for the service.
  • DaccoDacco Posts: 3,354
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The amount that the BBC make from that tax should be capped at half of the present level of funding, the rest should be paid into government coffers to relieve the tax burden on the low paid.
  • GreatGodPanGreatGodPan Posts: 53,186
    Forum Member
    The BBC is not just about its TV services!

    I think this is a sensible suggestion.
  • InMyArmsInMyArms Posts: 50,792
    Forum Member
    They should just have a few adverts fund it.
  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was under the impression that the Beeb was very regional to be fair.

    Maybe that's just because I listen to BBC Ulster and would gladly pay a subscription for the service.

    How much would you be willing to pay?
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How much would you be willing to pay?

    A Netflix style monthly subscription would be reasonable for the news programmes etc that I listen to on BBC Radio Ulster.
  • sangrealsangreal Posts: 20,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Strongly disagree.

    If they want people to have a license to be able to watch BBC iPlayer
    then just get people to register for the service using their existing licence number.
    No licence? Then charge a small fee on the site (e.g. yearly, monthly, or one-off).

    Though personally, I think it should remain as it is. License for tv, iPlayer free.

    As for scrapping the licence fee completely.... I'm undecided.
    BBC with adverts....hmmm.....
    But yes, in an ideal world, there would be no tv licence required.
  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    InMyArms wrote: »
    They should just have a few adverts fund it.

    Ultimately the public pay for adverts anyway, so we'd just be swapping one way of paying for another with the added inconvenience of having to put up with these adverts on BBC radio and TV.
  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I use to say it was worth a little for the news and website. Now they've changed the website on the mobile and moving onto the same for desktop, I'll say they're not worth it now.
  • SnowStorm86SnowStorm86 Posts: 17,273
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good idea. I like it. It will help secure the future for this invaluable public service. Be that via conventional TV broadcasting or Internet.
  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A Netflix style monthly subscription would be reasonable for the news programmes etc that I listen to on BBC Radio Ulster.

    How about £3 a week?

    It's a minuscule amount, roughly the cost of a pint of beer.
  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Good idea. I like it. It will help secure the future for this invaluable public service. Be that via conventional TV broadcasting or Internet.
    Invaluable. It's a TV station. You can do without it no problem.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How about £3 a week?

    It's a minuscule amount, roughly the cost of a pint of beer.

    Why weekly? Any other subscription service operates on a monthly billing cycle so why should the BBC be different?
  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    How about £3 a week?

    It's a minuscule amount, roughly the cost of a pint of beer.

    How about £3 per month. Sounds better
  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PrestonAl wrote: »
    How about £3 per month. Sounds better

    £3 a month for a dedicated local radio station with no ads, that would be fantastic value for money! They'd need to get large numbers of subscribers to make it viable though and some way of preventing none subscribers from tuning in for free.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It won't happen. It's too late.

    Twenty years ago the change to a household levy might have worked, but there is no chance today. Society has moved on and sees the idea of a "tax" to fund TV/Radio as bizarre.

    Politicians will get the message soon enough, then the statement "there are no plans to change the current system of funding [the BBC] for the foreseeable future"
  • MagnamundianMagnamundian Posts: 2,359
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    InMyArms wrote: »
    They should just have a few adverts fund it.

    The problem here is that advertisers would flock to buying advertising space on the BBC and the rest of TV-land would suffer, there is only so much advertising money to be spent.

    Wouldn't bother me as I hardly ever watch ITV (likely to be the biggest loser in such a situation), but I guess other people might get upset if they lost the channel giving them BGT and TOWIE...
  • VDUBsterVDUBster Posts: 1,423
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Nope.

    Time to #AxeTheTVTax, it's an archaic and regressive notion.
    If you 'axe the TV tax', I hope your prepared to be goodbye to subscription free TV...
Sign In or Register to comment.