Are TV licences really necessary?

[french frank]

It is though around 5% of the weekly income of someone on JSA, and more in the first year since they are likely to have to pay it weekly at higher rates rather than monthly, quarterly or annually.

This assumes that they live alone or are the head of a household where no one is earning.

The other unfairness is that a single person with one television set pays the same as a family with as many sets as they want (one in the living room, one in the breakfast room, one or more in kids' rooms - and often more than one on at the same time). It's a huge myth that everyone with a TV is obliged to have a licence. There are only something like 25m households in the UK, hence 25m domestic licence fee payers; but there are approx 50m people over the age of 16 (2011).

[MrGongGong]

Because it is not as fair as funding from general taxation in that it claims a much higher proportion of a poor person's income than a rich one's.

Isn't that true of more or less everything ?
Rich people pay the same for milk and beer etc

It's also NOT compulsory , I know several people without TV
they seem quite happy to me

[aeolium]

Isn't that true of more or less everything ?

No, all other public services are paid for by some sort of taxation where someone's income is taken into account, and surely the BBC is a public service?

[MrGongGong]

No, all other public services are paid for by some sort of taxation where someone's income is taken into account, and surely the BBC is a public service?

indeed it is
but as one doesn't HAVE to have it then it's maybe a little different ?

[marthe]

Would you want to substitute endless pledge drives (think of PBS in the USA) for the licence fee?

[french frank]

indeed it is
but as one doesn't HAVE to have it then it's maybe a little different ?

How is that different from a public library?

[aeolium]

This assumes that they live alone or are the head of a household where no one is earning.

That's true, though figures for the last 3 months of 2011 showed nearly 4 million households where no one was working.

You're right about the other unfairness relating to multiple sets. Also, there is the fact that the TV licence system requires its own collection bureaucracy which would be superfluous if funding was through general taxation (and plenty of problems with that bureaucracy have been documented on these and predecessor forums )

[MrGongGong]

How is that different from a public library?

I don't know
and don't really have any big point to make
apart from that I'm pleased that those folks who like to watch TV are subsidising (in a small way) my own taste in eccentric musics
(as i'm very pleased that those folks who choose to smoke helped to pay for my operation earlier in the year !)

[teamsaint]

I don't know
and don't really have any big point to make
apart from that I'm pleased that those folks who like to watch TV are subsidising (in a small way) my own taste in eccentric musics
(as i'm very pleased that those folks who choose to smoke helped to pay for my operation earlier in the year !)

well if you meet any license paying tv watching smokers, I wouldn't upset them !!Seems they are your friends .

[johnb]

I'd be very careful what you wish for.

Your wishes might well be granted!

If the BBC becomes just another public service funded from general taxation there will be an even greater temptation for politicians to meddle, and meddle more often.

What is then to stop some politician having the bright idea of privatising the who thing?

[french frank]

What is then to stop some politician having the bright idea of privatising the who thing?

Quite a lot, I'd say, in that they would have to get it through parliament. And if they could do that in those circumstances, they could do it now.

[Gordon]

I'd be very careful what you wish for.

Your wishes might well be granted!

If the BBC becomes just another public service funded from general taxation there will be an even greater temptation for politicians to meddle, and meddle more often.

What is then to stop some politician having the bright idea of privatising the whole thing?

Quite so! Death by 1000 cuts. The Tories have never liked the BBC for a number of reasons but they'd like the profits from its brand and will do everything they can to weaken it and then pull out a coup de grace. The apathetic public at large won't even notice.

[french frank]

The apathetic public at large won't even notice.

One of the constant refrains is that people like the BBC because it doesn't have adverts. Of course, you could say the BBC is itself softening the public up for privatisation by irritating it with too many trails. Beat them down into submission and then they won't notice the difference ... straightaway.

[Gordon]

Quite a lot, I'd say, in that they would have to get it through parliament. And if they could do that in those circumstances, they could do it now.

I wish I was that confident FF!! Hiding Bills in parliamentary process is, like burying bad news, a skill which politicians have when they have the will. It is matter of preparation and timing and the sense of public opinion which I think is getting near enough apathetic and satiated enough with choice, for the back benchers to smell blood. Look at that spat with the BBC and IDS lately. More and more of that tests the water. What is the Lib Dem view of the BBC?

By the way didn't FoR3 contribute to the HoL select committee hearing?.

[french frank]

I wish I was that confident FF!!

I think my main point was that it isn't the licence fee that would stop politicians doing that!

By the way didn't FoR3 contribute to the HoL select committee hearing?

Possibly - I've lost count of what we have contributed to!