I’m not renewing my TV licence - any pitfalls?

[teamsaint]

Tax is never completely fair or equitable.

Radio 3 costs about £50m PA.

That makes Beefy's contribution about £1 PA.

I'd think the tickets he buys for the Proms will cover his bit for a few years.

And even if he stops going, so what ? The state provides many benefits, some of which we use, some don't, some we use for a while then stop, some of which we contribute towards, and so on.

Anyway, I'm paying over the odds, because if I didn't have Sky, ( which I have because the BBC doesn't provide decent football coverage) I'd give up my licence too, so I'm happy to cover Beefy's £1 or £2 radio 3 subs out of my fee.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thinking about your question and what you’re driving at, you’re not thinking that I would dump my TV on the pavement, causing a hazard to people walking by, are you?

Absolutely not. I'm just wondering where one draws the line between doing something voluntary when not called on to do so, and the consequences of everyone turning a blind eye when someone (in the case of the BBC making radio listening non-subject to the licence fee) is not perhaps acting in their own best interests. It's not quite as black and white as it may seem, which is why I raised the question.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, any quite extraordinary belated realisation on your part is hardly a matter for the rest of us, S_A ...

On the contrary - we all have to account for our inconsistencies!

[teamsaint]

On the contrary - we all have to account for our inconsistencies!

The conservative party didn't bother, they just called another election to cover up the" inconsistencies" from the previous one.

[Serial_Apologist]

The conservative party didn't bother, they just called another election to cover up the" inconsistencies" from the previous one.

Yes but unlike the posters on this forum, they don't have consciences!

[french frank]

I think there is a moral argument, but the solution has effectively been put beyond your control, because the authorities, in their wisdom, have abolished the radio-only licence. I dare you'd have been willing to pay that, but they say they don't want it.

Which is not the responsibility (or in many cases the wish) of those who have no interest in watching television.

Who funds Radio 3? What funding? Out of the licence fee which you telly watchers so generously provide, now to the tune of £147 p.a., I estimate Radio 3's share is approximately £2.35 per year. And you are suggesting that it would be fairer if those who only listen to Radio 3 paid the full £147 to subsidise your television viewing?

The BBC is not short of money. It finds the money for what it considers priorities:

In the past 11 years it has increased Radio 2's service budget by 33% and 6 Music's by 120%. Radio 3's budget has increased by 7%, lagging far behind the inflation rate.

[teamsaint]

Which is not the responsibility (or in many cases the wish) of those who have no interest in watching television.

Who funds Radio 3? What funding? Out of the licence fee which you telly watchers so generously provide, now to the tune of £147 p.a., I estimate Radio 3's share is approximately £2.35 per year. And you are suggesting that it would be fairer if those who only listen to Radio 3 paid the full £147 to subsidise your television viewing?

The BBC is not short of money. It finds the money for what it considers priorities:

In the past 11 years it has increased Radio 2's service budget by 33% and 6 Music's by 120%. Radio 3's budget has increased by 7%, lagging far behind the inflation rate.

.....and the number of licence fees issued each year continues to rise, even though Beef Oven ! and many others are giving up theirs, and one can assume that the new requirement to have a licence for iplayer viewing will have a positive revenue effect.

[french frank]

one can assume that the new requirement to have a licence for iplayer viewing will have a positive revenue effect.

Given the number of people who reported that they didn't need a licence because 'they only used their television for catch-up services'. They will no doubt be in the TV Licensing database now that that is no longer an exemption.

[Lat-Literal]

This is one of my last posts on this thread as it is clear to me that there are contradictions and a lack of rational clarity in others' arguments that haven't been fully highlighted.

First, FoR3. Does it (a) stand for the reasonable wish to maintain or improve a standard for BBC R3 or (b) have a truly elitist radical agenda in which anything on the BBC should be to that standard, reflecting new elements of far right beyond any previous far right and Soviet style Politburo restrictions? It might be useful to hear if it has shifted its ground.

Next, the licence. Portrayed as an imposition when it enables opt-out. I was asked whether I would argue instead for tax. I said no. Are compulsory taxes preferred and if so why?

Thirdly, the constant shifting of ground between not wanting to watch television because there are other preferred activities and not wanting to view it because the content is disliked. How do people who don't watch TV have any idea about TV content? Yesterday, I watched programmes about the Iraq marshes, rare fish and animals in the Amazon, the history of Scottish art and more on the BBC. Is it that those who criticise content for being universally dross just have a minimal range of interests, enthusiasm and imagination?

Also, TV viewers are in the best position to decide what is wanted of television. If many viewers don't want the removal of choice where that means only TV with advertising would occur, why should non TV viewers force that absence of choice on them? How on earth can that fundamental absence of choice be argued rationally by people who are pro choice?

Additionally, I can to some extent accept arguments against a state broadcaster from libertarians or anarchists who do not want a state or much of one. However, teamsaint is right that we all pay for things that we don't use and generally most in the political mainstream accept it and that rightly or wrongly is also true even where the wealthy benefit too. I pay for the provision of council refuse tips so those who are rich enough to own a car can dump their dross there but I pay additional amounts for collection of bulky goods because I don't have a car to drive me to those dumps. Fair enough. Why should broadcasting be the exception? Ironically, there is no highbrow debate here. It's all "I want or I don't want".

Plus, enforcement. Why the hullabaloo about databases and the big brother state vis a vis television when it is often alongside arguments that there should be better enforcement re tax avoidance? There is a fundamental inconsistency there unless it is felt that those who stash money away in the Cayman Islands can be dealt with by waving a magic wand.

Finally, for now, I simply don't believe the lists that have been provided on what people watch. Fake news is one thing but fake homes is a real plummeting to dismal new depths.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And you are suggesting that it would be fairer if those who only listen to Radio 3 paid the full £147 to subsidise your television viewing?

No, but perhaps a radio only licence of, say, £20 - £30 a year might smooth the waters?

[P. G. Tipps]

On the contrary - we all have to account for our inconsistencies!

Indeed ... and that perfectly admirable ruling even includes those members who prefer to point out supposed and wholly unconnected 'inconsistencies' in a wholly separate and long-dead forum debate which, afaik, has absolutely nothing to do with this particular thr ... oh, never mind! ...

[french frank]

This is one of my last posts on this thread as it is clear to me that there are contradictions and a lack of rational clarity in others' arguments that haven't been fully highlighted.

In answer to your questions:

1. a)

2. I would prefer general taxation, as part of their income tax since all income earners would be paying according to their means - as they do for all public services, other than those provided by the local authority (which does at least have a small discount for sole occupants). The BBC favours the licence fee as it provides a clear link between the fee people pay and the services/programmes they 'consume'. That works both ways: if people don't think much of the BBC services and prefer to watch commercial television, they resent having to pay anything. If it came out of taxation, there would need to be an Independent Authority set up (as for MPs' salaries) which would lay down, independently of government, what the annual fee should be. That would make the BBC less beholden to government than it is now.

3. The answer will vary depending on who you ask. I don't really have much thought about whether programmes are good or bad, interesting or boring. Judging the programmes people choose to discuss here, they don't sound as if they would appeal to me. But basically, I don't like the 'activity' of sitting down in front of a television. The things that do interest me take up most of my available time. So even if a programme did sound interesting or was recommended, it would be a question of Shall I do A or B?

4. Didn't quite understand the point

5. Not quite sure of the point here. You could be arguing for subscription TV where you pay for the service you want (need) but not for those you don't want.

6. This is a point where the BBC is in an impossible position: the government is harassing it for allowing too high a level of evasion and the public is up in arms at the strongarm 'thuggery' of 'TV Licensing'.

7. No comment. I don't know these lists - unless you mean the BARB ratings?

[Lat-Literal]

In answer to your questions:

1. a)

2. I would prefer general taxation, as part of their income tax since all income earners would be paying according to their means - as they do for all public services, other than those provided by the local authority (which does at least have a small discount for sole occupants). The BBC favours the licence fee as it provides a clear link between the fee people pay and the services/programmes they 'consume'. That works both ways: if people don't think much of the BBC services and prefer to watch commercial television, they resent having to pay anything. If it came out of taxation, there would need to be an Independent Authority set up (as for MPs' salaries) which would lay down, independently of government, what the annual fee should be. That would make the BBC less beholden to government than it is now.

3. The answer will vary depending on who you ask. I don't really have much thought about whether programmes are good or bad, interesting or boring. Judging the programmes people choose to discuss here, they don't sound as if they would appeal to me. But basically, I don't like the 'activity' of sitting down in front of a television. The things that do interest me take up most of my available time. So even if a programme did sound interesting or was recommended, it would be a question of Shall I do A or B?

4. Didn't quite understand the point

5. Not quite sure of the point here. You could be arguing for subscription TV where you pay for the service you want (need) but not for those you don't want.

6. This is a point where the BBC is in an impossible position: the government is harassing it for allowing too high a level of evasion and the public is up in arms at the strongarm 'thuggery' of 'TV Licensing'.

7. No comment. I don't know these lists - unless you mean the BARB ratings?

Thank you for your post.

Re 1, I am delighted that (a) is the correct answer. I note your comments re 2. I accept and even respect what you say re 3 but consider your position to be unusual, hence not representative of most who would argue against a licence. Re 4, many who favour private sector broadcasting regard increasing the numbers of stations carrying advertising as an expansion of consumer choice. I don't - or at least not in the same way where only commercial stations are available. 27 types of curry only offer the one (non) choice - of curry. Public sector broadcasting is not a curry. Only its existence alongside commercial broadcasting provides any real choice. Re 5, I am arguing the opposite of what you suggest - I don't believe in any area of taxation or licencing I should be paying only for what I want. On 6, I agree and the public are simply wrong. Re 7, I just don't believe what many say.

[Beef Oven!]

Absolutely not. I'm just wondering where one draws the line between doing something voluntary when not called on to do so, and the consequences of everyone turning a blind eye when someone (in the case of the BBC making radio listening non-subject to the licence fee) is not perhaps acting in their own best interests. It's not quite as black and white as it may seem, which is why I raised the question.

You confused me with your examples. In one, the council failed to undertake an obligation that it has that produced an immediate risk to members of the public, and in the other the BBC does not want to raise revenue through a radio licence and the decision produces no risk at all; and even in one’s wildest imagination that there is a risk to the £4 billion funding, my £147 is no temporary solution. It’s a really bad analogy, but you know that already.

[Beef Oven!]

No, but perhaps a radio only licence of, say, £20 - £30 a year might smooth the waters?

There are no rough waters to be smoothed. But if you personally you feel that strongly about it, write to the BBC and suggest it. If it becomes policy, then people who listen to the radio will pay it.