TV licence

[Dai Cottomy]

I've had thirteen years of free Telly, so I mustn't grumble, but I am now deaf and BBC Radio don't do subtitles. Any chance of a rebate?

[LMcD]

I've had thirteen years of free Telly, so I mustn't grumble, but I am now deaf and BBC Radio don't do subtitles. Any chance of a rebate?

That depends, I suspect, on how many leaves, if any, are left on the Magic Money Tree.

[cloughie]

The financial implications are no doubt important to some who will find paying for their licence difficult but I think the government are using it to kick the BBC and part of its plan to change how the corporation is funded.

[LMcD]

The financial implications are no doubt important to some who will find paying for their licence difficult but I think the government are using it to kick the BBC and part of its plan to change how the corporation is funded.

Spot on!

[Padraig]

Spot on!

Alternatively -

Give a thing and take it back
God will ask you where is that
You'll say I don't know
God will send you down below.

[Frances_iom]

The puppet master has long had a dislike of the BBC - some of his reasons are quite sane eg the Beeb is finding it very difficult to change its London centric approach, but most Brexiters believe the BBC was against them for years and now that they have won the war (by fair means or foul) they want to wreak revenge.

[jonfan]

When I pay my licence fee I expect the money to go on programmes, not social payments for the needy. I’m happy to pay for free licences for the over 75s from general taxation, as was Gordon Brown’s intention. By the same reasoning, if loading this on the BBC is acceptable, then utility companies should fund the winter fuel payments, a far more hefty cost on the tax payer. As noted above, the free licences are small fry for the Treasury, who have been doling out the billions recently with great largesse all over the place.

[eighthobstruction]

When I pay my licence fee I expect the money to go on programmes, not social payments for the needy. I’m happy to pay for free licences for the over 75s from general taxation, as was Gordon Brown’s intention. By the same reasoning, if loading this on the BBC is acceptable, then utility companies should fund the winter fuel payments, a far more hefty cost on the tax payer. As noted above, the free licences are small fry for the Treasury, who have been doling out the billions recently with great largesse all over the place.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Of course there will be comments from those losing this free gift. However, its a very visible example of the younger generations paying for a service received by the well retired.

Leaving aside the 60 to 75year old segment of the population, I'm thinking particularly of the 20 to 35/pushing 40 year olds, without transfers of assets from their parents, who face a life ;iving in rented properties (with the luck of the draw on security of tenure and fairness of landlords) and the rest - T May's famously "just about managing" part of our society. The possibility for inter-generational resentment and strife is already an issue and with millions more joining the unemployed, its a little provocative for the over 75's who do not qualify for Pension Credit to insist they deserve the free licence - when many of them will comfortably have the means to pay. If the state wants it to be provided, I agree it needs to come from the benefits budget.

Yes, its a typically mean and spiteful stitch up by Osborne. Incidentally - on the day of the announcement Esther Rantzen was interviewed on PM, Radio 4 (I think it wasn't the World at One) and directed her ire at OFCOM for suggesting the BBC did not serve the viewing tastes of "The Young", setting out why she thought it ridiculous. Some heartwarming comments for those of us driven away, pre noon, from the tweets, competitions and other trivia desperately filling the airwaves, trying to catch the interest of the disinterested young.

[Serial_Apologist]

Of course there will be comments from those losing this free gift. However, its a very visible example of the younger generations paying for a service received by the well retired.

Leaving aside the 60 to 75year old segment of the population, I'm thinking particularly of the 20 to 35/pushing 40 year olds, without transfers of assets from their parents, who face a life ;iving in rented properties (with the luck of the draw on security of tenure and fairness of landlords) and the rest - T May's famously "just about managing" part of our society. The possibility for inter-generational resentment and strife is already an issue and with millions more joining the unemployed, its a little provocative for the over 75's who do not qualify for Pension Credit to insist they deserve the free licence - when many of them will comfortably have the means to pay. If the state wants it to be provided, I agree it needs to come from the benefits budget.

Yes, its a typically mean and spiteful stitch up by Osborne. Incidentally - on the day of the announcement Esther Rantzen was interviewed on PM, Radio 4 (I think it wasn't the World at One) and directed her ire at OFCOM for suggesting the BBC did not serve the viewing tastes of "The Young", setting out why she thought it ridiculous. Some heartwarming comments for those of us driven away, pre noon, from the tweets, competitions and other trivia desperately filling the airwaves, trying to catch the interest of the disinterested young.

Yes but the younger generation has always paid for a service received by a well retired, if, that is, you agree that being well retired was fought for, and always better than retirement in penury.

It's not the fault of either the young nor the old that people weren't informed of the unsutainability inbuilt in a system primarily designed just to keep the worker and his or her family adequately together in mind and body to make profits for the rich, disregardful of the social and psychological, let alone material effects of fostering consumer undurables in the form of status-engendered dissatisfaction let alone negative equity on those without long-term wherewithals sequestered away in tax havens.

[cloughie]

[LMcD]

A couple of points.
1. Would the BBC like its money all in one go, or in regular slices, e.g. monthly, do you think? They could follow the example of Amazon and offer a discount for people who are prepared to pay for the whole year up front.
2. What are the chances there will be problems when all those people who will now have to resume paying for their licence all cough up on the same day in August and then all renew a year later?

[Dave2002]

If the state wants it to be provided, I agree it needs to come from the benefits budget.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I note that many people over 60 are in fact really quite well off, but there isn't any reason I can see why the tax formulae can't be tweaked so that those better off older people do pay more, but do it via general taxation, rather than means testing and giving a benefit to those felt to be more "deserving". `Some poorer people do not want to be stigmatised by having a "benefit" which also presents a signal of their inferior financial status. Of course this is also used by governments, as they "know" that some beneifts in fact won't be taken by some people - some of whom really would gain in quality of life from having such benefits. One such is the Attendance Allowance, which many older people are perhaps too proud to take, or apply for, until eventually they are in such a desperate state that they are no longer able to apply on their own behalf - because of dementia or other incapacity. Some benefits are kept pretty secret.

[oddoneout]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I note that many people over 60 are in fact really quite well off, but there isn't any reason I can see why the tax formulae can't be tweaked so that those better off older people do pay more, but do it via general taxation, rather than means testing and giving a benefit to those felt to be more "deserving". `Some poorer people do not want to be stigmatised by having a "benefit" which also presents a signal of their inferior financial status. Of course this is also used by governments, as they "know" that some beneifts in fact won't be taken by some people - some of whom really would gain in quality of life from having such benefits. One such is the Attendance Allowance, which many older people are perhaps too proud to take, or apply for, until eventually they are in such a desperate state that they are no longer able to apply on their own behalf - because of dementia or other incapacity. Some benefits are kept pretty secret.

The winter fuel allowance kicks in 9 years earlier than the TV licence concession and so goes to many more who don't need it. The arguments I have seen several times against the sort of scheme you mention is that it would cost more to administer than it would save and at the same time increase the risk of those who do need it not getting it. Some folks give it to charity - perhaps they could sponsor an over 75 TV licence with it in future?

[Dave2002]

The winter fuel allowance kicks in 9 years earlier than the TV licence concession and so goes to many more who don't need it. The arguments I have seen several times against the sort of scheme you mention is that it would cost more to administer than it would save and at the same time increase the risk of those who do need it not getting it. Some folks give it to charity - perhaps they could sponsor an over 75 TV licence with it in future?

I may have made a mistake in what I wrote - at least with the intentions. I wasn’t intending that there would be a more expensive process in which richer older people were singled out for extra charges, but rather that everybody who is rich enough would pay slightly more - and some of those would happen to be over 60. I don’t know how much taxes would have to increase to cover the costs for offsetting the TV licence. At least that would still keep the tv licence, since another suggestion discussed here before is to make everybody’s TV costs come out of general taxation and abandon the tv licence altogether. That approach would present further problems.

Licensing of anything (cars, ability to drive, ability to practice medicine, to teach, etc.) is not just about raising revenue, but has elements of control - ostensibly for quality purposes. However, often the licence is charged to the producer, rather than the consumer. Perhaps the tv licence is anomalous.