[zz9]

Originally Posted by samwalk

Replacing the TVL with general taxation means different people pay different amounts for the same product. Income tax varies with disposable income to redistribute wealth. Why on earth should people on low incomes get a subsidised service? TV is not a right. Why should above average earners subsidise everyone else's TV? Why not other entertainment too? How about subsidised cinema seats? Theatre? Football?

Film, theatre, ballet, opera etc do get large subsidies, far bigger than the TVL licence on a per-viewer basis.
British films can also claim significant tax relief on their budget, at taxpayers expense.
Other services like parks, libraries (with large fiction, music and film sections) etc are paid for out of general taxation.
As for football, local councils subsidise sports centres, playing fields, tennis courts etc. Again, paid for from taxes generally relative to income.

The other problem is that once a TVL becomes a tax it becomes a target for cuts. Everything becomes political and politicians start asking why they should spend X on subject Y? The history of other tax funded non-essential schemes is hardly inspiring.

I assume that is why the BBC are not in favour of it. There would have to be a way to preserve editorial independence. Maybe have a set "fee per household" figure and stick to it for years with rises linked to the RPI?

[cyril-furr]

Originally Posted by zz9

He was talking about France.....

Sorry, missed that bit

[cyril-furr]

Originally Posted by zz9

Film, theatre, ballet, opera etc do get large subsidies, far bigger than the TVL licence on a per-viewer basis.
British films can also claim significant tax relief on their budget, at taxpayers expense.
Other services like parks, libraries (with large fiction, music and film sections) etc are paid for out of general taxation.
As for football, local councils subsidise sports centres, playing fields, tennis courts etc. Again, paid for from taxes generally relative to income.
I assume that is why the BBC are not in favour of it. There would have to be a way to preserve editorial independence. Maybe have a set "fee per household" figure and stick to it for years with rises linked to the RPI?

The likes of Capita & Fishburn Hedges would not be very keen on it either, as it would put them out of a job
http://www.fishburn-hedges.co.uk/wor...essage?area=35
http://www.publictechnology.net/sect...on-outsourcing

[samwalk]

Originally Posted by zz9

Film, theatre, ballet, opera etc do get large subsidies, far bigger than the TVL licence on a per-viewer basis.
British films can also claim significant tax relief on their budget, at taxpayers expense.
Other services like parks, libraries (with large fiction, music and film sections) etc are paid for out of general taxation.
As for football, local councils subsidise sports centres, playing fields, tennis courts etc. Again, paid for from taxes generally relative to income.
I assume that is why the BBC are not in favour of it. There would have to be a way to preserve editorial independence. Maybe have a set "fee per household" figure and stick to it for years with rises linked to the RPI?

Other stuff is subsidised by tax and that varies - for some reason that doesn't make it seem better. Also there is a big different between a subsidy (part of the cost) and funding (100%). That's without even getting into whether opera should be supported at all.

Indexation sounds attractive but time and again it fails. For starters governments fiddle the indexes to make inflation look good. The most blatant example was removing housing costs on the basis that mortgages buy an asset that people can sell when they are dead. On a long term average earnings rise by about 1% above inflation, and for most people that determines spending power (Sky, movies etc). Like the NHS, the broadcasting industry claims it's costs rise faster than the cost of Tesco sandwiches.

More importantly every organisation with fees set relative to inflation sees year on year cuts to improve efficiency, except where there are deep structural changes that need funding.