Age-related TV licence policy

[Dave2002]

What??!! "Sorry, I'm not going to look after Auntie Gladys any more - I can cope with the helping her in & out of bed, bathe, cut her toenails, and ... well, you know ... but paying a TV Licence is just one step too far!"

Some carers have a very rough deal. Give up good jobs to look after aged Ps, or disabled relatives, and then struggle. They might not even get back into work later on if circumstances change. I’m not suggesting that paying for a TV licence is going to deter people who really are concerned, but it’s an extra thing to worry about. OK - doesn’t have to be much younger carers - what about two older people living together - one aged 68 and the other 76, but one has dementia - I didn’t say which one. Although one could imagine rules or decisions to suit every case, that doesn’t really make sense. Decisions should be based on easy to apply rules, but also not be obviously unreasonable and unfair, and should work in the majority of situations. One person over 75 (or some other advanced age) might be a perfectly reasonable criterion, without having to make things more complex.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I’m not suggesting that paying for a TV licence is going to deter people who really are concerned, but it’s an extra thing to worry about.

No, not "suggesting", Dave - actually stating it:

Requiring all the residents to be over 75 might be a step too far, and would deter younger family relatives (or anyone ...) from becoming a live-in carer for some older people.

[Dave2002]

No, not "suggesting", Dave - actually stating it:

OK. Change “would” to “could” or “might” then. Thanks for the proof checking!

[oddoneout]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/14/the-guardian-view-on-the-bbc-a-broadcaster-not-a-welfare-agency

but of course doing things this way means that it's the BBC gets the blame not the government, which presumably was at least in part the intention.

[Old Grumpy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...welfare-agency

but of course doing things this way means that it's the BBC gets the blame not the government, which presumably was at least in part the intention.

So the BBC has done the right thing and the government is at fault...

... correct on both counts!

OG

[Old Grumpy]

I did take part in the consultation, but - unsurprisingly perhaps - my views went unheeded.
I think the least the BBC could do is offer some kind of discount to those in the fortunate position of having the funds to pay for the whole year up front, thus following the example of Amazon Prime, which costs £7.99 a month or £79 for a year if paid in advance.
I gather that all those who - like us - will have to resume paying for our licence will be contacted next June.

I did respond and it may not surprise you to know that the final outcome matches my view expressed therein

OG

[burning dog]

The government looks like it will soon have to afford a £46 to £115 per week rebate (depending on N.I. changes) for anyone who earns over £1500 per week, which puts concerns over those under 75 who "got away" with free TV into perspective.

[alycidon]

The government looks like it will soon have to afford a £46 to £115 per week rebate (depending on N.I. changes) for anyone who earns over £1500 per week, which puts concerns over those under 75 who "got away" with free TV into perspective.

Could you be more specific about that please burning dog. Perhaps I am being thick, but I don’t quite understand what this means. And I don’t consider that I ‘get away’ with free TV. Surely, if it’s on offer and I choose to accept it, as I have for the past eighteen months, then your assertion is just a wee bit harsh, isn’t it?

[burning dog]

Could you be more specific about that please burning dog. Perhaps I am being thick, but I don’t quite understand what this means. And I don’t consider that I ‘get away’ with free TV. Surely, if it’s on offer and I choose to accept it, as I have for the past eighteen months, then your assertion is just a wee bit harsh, isn’t it?

Some people on here seem to fret (grump) that others under 75 "get away" with free TV as they live with an elderly relative . I don't lose any sleep over that, nor over the fact that Lady Trumpington used her free bus pass when she's wealthy and a member of the House of Lords. It's peanuts compared to an issue like a large rebate for the wealthiest members of society which seems on the cards in the very near future.

I think benefits should be universal as far as possible , the rich should pay their (higher) taxes but get the same pension, child benefit, exemptions as everone else. Much easier and fairer than means testing

PS. I think it would have taken a fair amount of admin to sort out which over 75s had younger people living with them and for how long if the exemption was restricted to solo "oldies"

[alycidon]

Thanks BD I agree with most of that. But the rebate seems rather unfair - £1500 per week is knocking on for £80,000 pa if my maths is OK.

[burning dog]

That was my point Alcyicdon. I can understand people getting worked up over it. A raising of the basic rate to £80,000 means the largest rebate for £80,000 a year or more, less for those over £50,000 and nothing at all for those under £50,000 These propsed tax changes by Boris Johnson were reported on the Today programme recently

[french frank]

Some people on here seem to fret (grump) that others under 75 "get away" with free TV as they live with an elderly relative .

It's not that I 'fret'. I battled with my local post office a few years back who seemed to think that I shouldn't be allowed to buy a TV licence because I don't have a TV. I chose to do so because the BBC would have benefited (and at that time I still occasionally listened to Radio 3). Now that I triply don't need a licence (no TV, over 75 and don't 'consume' any BBC programmes, radio or television) I'm not getting one because the BBC wouldn't benefit. But I do think there is something wrong with the licence fee being a 'household tax' - one payment no matter how many working adults live there and watch television. The point about one 75-year-old getting the household a free licence is merely the logical extension of that.

PS. I think it would have taken a fair amount of admin to sort out which over 75s had younger people living with them and for how long if the exemption was restricted to solo "oldies"

In that case I repeat my solution: the electoral register is updated every year and routinely marks the over 75s (not liable to jury service).

[Old Grumpy]

The difference is the proposed rebates will (effectively) come out of taxation, whereas the cost of the TV licences for over 75s is coming out of the BBC's budget, thanks to government shenanigans!

OG

[Dave2002]

The difference is the proposed rebates will (effectively) come out of taxation, whereas the cost of the TV licences for over 75s is coming out of the BBC's budget, thanks to government shenanigans!

OG

Reminds me of the joke about a discussion on the origin of the universe. As I recall it may have involved a scientist, and a mathematician, a vicar and a politician. I'll cut to the last line. The punchline is .... ta da .... "And where do you think the Chaos came from?"

[burning dog]

In that case I repeat my solution: the electoral register is updated every year and routinely marks the over 75s (not liable to jury service).

That would be workable and cheap it may need legislation to permit it (don't know). As with Old Grumpys point Is it the BBC who have to sort out who has pension credit? How will this work?