Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?

The Tv licence is charged to every household in the Uk and monies used to fund the BBC, is this a fair method?

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

Un-Fair TAX

It is unfair to tax every household within the UK to fund an organisation such as the BBC, simply because in todays world of technology there are better ways.
It is un-fair because...
a) The people who dont wish to watch the BBc have to pay for it.
b)if a person already subscibes to cable or satalite then they pay twice for the service.
c) in many country's outside the UK they receive the or some of the services of the BBC freee of charge.
d) No other service in the Uk is allowed to get away with blanket charges to every household whether or not consumers use their sevice!

No because...
Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

It is un-fair because...

a) The people who dont wish to watch the BBc have to pay for it.
b)if a person already subscibes to cable or satalite then they pay twice for the service.
c) in many country's outside the UK they receive the or some of the services of the BBC freee of charge.
d) No other service in the Uk is allowed to get away with blanket charges to every household whether or not consumers use their sevice!

No because...

a) What's with the little c in the first BBC!!!!! Get your grammar right!!!!
b) The licence fee pays not just for TV it also pays for radio, online and digital switchover. In fact only 69% of your licence fee goes on TV.
c) The BBC makes some quality programs such as country file and songs of praise, which I think we all watch.
d) The licence fee in 2008/2009 amounted to only 39p a day which is well worth it.
e) BBC Worldwide isn't completely paid for by the licence fee it is also funded by adverts. It also makes it possible for you, yes you, to watch amazing BBC programs overseas.
f) It could be worse you, yes I'm still talking to you, could live in Austria, which is a very nice place full of mountains, goats, that women off the sound of music and stuff, where the licence fee is £232.84 and they have adverts.
g) You spelt service wrong!!!
h) If Jesus was still with us he would have paid the licence fee and he wouldn't have complained about it. He was cool like that.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

everyone has a right to choice!

If you do all your shopping in ASDA, you are not made to pay TESCO £150 per year because they run a similar service!

No because...

Its true everyone does have a right to choose so if you don't like it don't have a tv! If you don't own tv and thefore do not have a license this would of course be unfair to those wh do as the bbc offer much more than eastenders. They offer educational opportunities to young talentin many different fields as well as funding many programs that you or yur children learnt from in schools. If these things were taken away people would get upset then too. Unfortunately we live in a world where nothing is free but no one wants to pay.

I am sorry to disagree with you but your argument misses one point: it is not a matter of choosing or not to have a TV, but choosing or not to watch a certain program! The fact that BBC runs educational programs cannot be an argument in a democratic world, that I have to pay a compulsory fee for their functioning.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

outdated method

The TV licence is a TAX, it has no place in the 21st century, with modern methods of TV broadcasting, a jobs for the boys organisation which should be made to stand or fall on its own merrits!

No because...
Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

tvlicence

hmmm and where would you expect the money to come from to fund all of the services we get from paying the licensing fee? Without a TV licence we'd have advertising on all BBC channels and radio stations which i for one would fucking detest. If you don't like paying the licence don't watch TV! Or just stream it off the internet, otherwise, shut up or expect to pay taxes elsewhere to fund the same thing! http://www.onebillionpageviews.org

No because...

This is not a fair method, the licence fee is a form of hypothecated tax meaning the money raised is used for that one purpose only.
Maybe you are rich and don't mind paying the ever increasing £139.50 to watch ever so long tedious amounts of drivvle that the bbc accommodates.
this regressive tax which is irrelevant to the amount of money that somebody earns , is simply unfair on the poor. They may well be only using 1 tv under their roof compared to someone who earns a fortune pays the same licence fee, but had 7 tv's in their houshold.
This form of funding used by the BBC at present may well accomodate you in not wanting to watch or listen to advertisments, however for people who are struggling to pay the licence fee on top other sky expenses for example, the advertisements that are shown on ITV are simply not an issue.
What services are you refering to when you say our tax funds 'all the services we got from paying the licensing fee'?,because as far as I am concerned I can get educational tv programs from the sky channels i pay for at present, and they are a hell of a lot better than the short educational programs the bbc airs.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
Yes because...

Guilty of TV licence fraud until proven innocent of not owning a TV

The Tv licence is unlike every other licence. If you do not have a TV and hence no licence then you get hassle from the Tv licensing authorities. They can call round without giving advance notice , at times that are very inconvenient . For example in the evening when one is going out . One is treated as if one is dishonest
I don't own a car or a driving license either , but the DVLA does not knock on my door asking to check whether I own a car . they just assume that no vehicle license means no car and that people are honest ..
The TV license is also unfair on single people, it is one license per household , not one per person . There is no allowance for level of usage either. if one uses less electricity because one lives alone then one pays less . A single person , say they were a lot younger than me for example they were twenty years old, and watched one hour of TV per week would pay the same for a Tv license as a family of six people who watch twenty hours per week and had two TVs . However if a single person got rid of their Tv then they would get hassle , so they are trapped . Is this fair ?

No because...
Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

They offer a service which everyone uses

Many people argue that it's unfair because it's compulsory to pay, but ask yourself how often you either watch a BBC programme, listen to a radio show funded by the BBC or take part in an event funded by the BBC. Whether people realise it or not, the BBC stretches our money far further than it would otherwise go.

You may say, "well the other channels offer the same sorts of services but don't charge anything". Well, this may be right on one level, but ask yourself whether you really want to spend a quarter of your time watching adverts. Also, do you really want to be watching programmes which are designed to make more money out of us, through competitions and phone-in services?

The BBC also offer unbiased news available through interactive services, online and through the news channel. The BBC makes up-to-date information available to all of us in one way or another, and their motives - because they have the money and therefore have no need to make any more out of us - lie purely in that they want to give us the best service available.

They also offer free events and festivals to allow the public to truely appreciate entertainment. Recent events include the Big Weekend and the various radio shows that audiences can go to for free.

They pay their employees fair wages out of the money they receive, as they believe everyone deserves to be paid fairly. They offer an incredibly large range of work experience places, making sure that as many people as possible can realise the enjoyment behind entertainment.

So ask yourself this; if the BBC didn't charge us for these services, would you really want another advertisement-filled, biased television station, radio channels, website and events you had to pay for?

Yes because...

Fair enough, but there should still be an opt-out for people who never watch tv at all.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

It is not compulsory

Nobody is forced to buy a television. If people choose that that is what they want to do then they have to pay the taxes that come with it.
The TV licence also pays for the BBC's radio and internet services, so your telling me you haven't been on any?

Yes because...

If we have a choice then we should not be harassed by threatening letters when we do not have a TV or a TV licence?

Ignoring that, it is still a restriction of our freedom, that we cannot buy a TV without paying for the BBC. Just because we watch it having paid for it, does not mean we would watch it if we could watch other channels with out paying the BBC.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

Fantastic value for money

The money that the BBC gets is used to fund top quality television. Although there are a few notable misses in everyone's personal tastes, programmes such as Doctor Who would not be able to be made. All the other big hits on British TV are all American imports. The USA can have big budget shows, because they can get big sponsors, something which Britain cannot achieve without funding such as the TV licence. I mean, 40p a day is not too much for 7 stations, plus radio broadcasts (which we get free anyway), and a brilliant internet service.

Yes because...

If you don't want to watch it, but must nonetheless pay for it, it cannot be described as fantastic value.

40p a day isn't that good anyway. That's about £12 a month. Sky costs £20 - £30 a month, but they throw in broadband and free calls. It's not bad, but it isn't fantastic.

Further, the reason why so many of our shows are American imports is probably because they are better shows. Which is probably because there isn't a state tv monopoly in America.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

Without the licence fee the BBC would produce less educational material

If the BBC was forced to compete commercially the programmes which attract a smaller audience share would be cancelled. This sounds like good business sense, but from a public service sense would be a real loss.

The BBC has always had a commitment to producing high quality educational programming and programmes that cater to minorities, and it can only do so because it is not dependant on viewing figures. Though not as many people watch the OU programmes, for example, those that do can find them incredibly valuable.

There's a lot of entertainment on TV, which is a good thing, but we shouldn't turn away from programmes that help us learn. For those who can't afford university or don't know where to start when confronted by a million reference books, a half-hour guide to an otherwise inaccessible subject can be a great starting point.

Yes because...

Although programmes which attract a smaller audience may be cancelled, if the BBC was forced to compete comericially, it is highly likely that competitors would provide these programmes for the public. So the programmes would not be lost altogether, because competitors would provide them.

In all honesty the majority of BBC programmes aren't that educational for the majority of the British audience. The supposedly informative cooking programmes usually use ingredients which are far out of the pricing range of a working class family (already paying a high license fee), and because there are so many of them now, they compete with each other for viewers. For example Jimmy's food farm, in which Jimmy on one occasion uses a potato launcher and a tennis raquet. I'm not 100% certain, but the majority of households in the UK do not own a Potato launcher and do not use a tennis raquet in the kitchen -so this programme cannot be educational.

And to use a TV programme as a basis of knowledge on a subject is moronic.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

The UK's TV Tax has no place in the Digital Age

Let's be clear.The TV licence fee is in essence a tax like any other and not simply a fee paid for a service. Like other taxes it is in effect compulsory. Unlike other more mainstream taxes it is increasingly difficult to justify.

It belongs in the 20th not the 21st century.

At the beginning of the Age of Broadcasting there was obvious merit in publicly funding a new mass media technology.This is what public funding is for : collective provision of a " public good" which would otherwise not be available to anyone or available only on the basis of individual ability to pay and therefore enjoyed by a minority only.Thus the BBC was originally conceived as a national broadcaster in an age where there was virtually no private sector competition. It was also importantly not only intended to be a "public service" but one that would provide inform and educate the British public with high quality output untainted by crass commercialism.

But where are we now ? What unique content does the BBC provide ? Indeed what is so special about the BBC in 2009 that merits its entitlement to a guaranteed income irrespective of who or how many consumes its "service". Whilst the Beeb remains a part of the public sector it is hardly "frontline" and not quite the same emptying the bins or public health provision.Yet many of the arguments deployed in "defence" of the genuinely frontline services are routinely deployed in justifying its existence. A cynic might see a touch of self interest in some of those arguments. In reality the BBC has been providing the same sort of programming that ITV and the other broadcast media.

Given that - all that is left is public sector inertia and vested interest.

Yes because...
Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

TV or Internet

Firstly the question appears to me to be "is this a fair method?". Alot of people have answered YES who are, from their comments, obviously against tv licensing.

I have to say no it is not a fair method. But it can be avoided simply by not having a TV. To me it seems all this tax is doing is forcing people to decide between tv and the net (ok, or paying for both. but thats just silly imo!) A decade ago I would have said tv, but these days I have to say I prefere the net.

For those that argue that tv is a good learning tool (?) the net is a much more versatile, comprehensive and interactive learning tool. As far as entertainment goes, these same qualities make the net, for me, a much more enjoyable entertainment experience. If you're reading this you must agree with that to some extent!

At the end of the day the only certainties in life are death and taxes.

Yes because...
Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

Offers an invaluable service

The service provided by BBC is a merit good, one that would otherwise be underprovided by the free market. The BBC offers important education and news programmes that would not be produced by the profit making television broadcasters, and therefore needs to be mantained.

Yes because...

Yes it does provide education and news programmes but as were in a recession people find it harder to pay the regressive tax, especially if you live in relevent poverty.

Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?
No because...

Fair Tax

Although there may be many arguments contradicting the point’s I’m about to make, and many of the common public disagree with such a tax, but then again, what taxes don’t they moan about. they are happy to sit at home claiming benefits watching the BBC living off tax payers money but when it comes to giving something back where are they?, the fact is that, this corrupt lower class country will always find a way to moan about anything, scrap the tax and they will only moan about advertisement, advertising via signs is not enough, and some form of tax would have to be done, or advertisement will have to take a full campaign to fund such an expensive channel. Either way we’re in a losing battle of complaints, the TV companies and the government are trying to win our country over by having a bit of both with adverts on some channels and having BBC without adverts. Even with this people will still complain so what can we do to try and get a better TV viewing world. Please someone tell me how it is possible to get past such a stage without upsetting either side of such an argument.

Yes because...

Unfair Tax.

If I want to watch SKY I need to setup a payment method or I wont get decrypt key.

If I leave my property outside on the street, I can expect someone to take it without paying.

The BBC can encrypt all BBC Channels thus protecting their IP, this technology exists to prevent people watching channels without paying.

They choose to openly broadcast without putting this technology in place, surely the argument in any Court Case would be to say they are negligent in applying modern day technology.

This is a carpet tax designed to raise revenue from Tax Payers. Its about time this was challenged in UK Courts and if needs be in the European Court. I choose not to watch BBC but I still have to pay for SKY and BBC License.

BBC GET IT SORTED AND STOP SCAMMING THE PUBIC.



Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?

What do you think?
(45%) (55%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

3 Comments on "Tv licence, fair or un-fair tax?"

dgladys

It makes me smile every time I see a rant about the TV licnence and how unfair it is.

If only folk stopped to think – just a bit – they’d see how even more ruthlessly unfair commercial ad-funded TV is.

Let me show you:

In 2011 (latest figures I could get) TV advertising revenue in the UK was £4.36bn and the number of households 26.1million

I make it that each and every household is contributing, directly or indirectly, £165 per year to independent “free” TV, whether or not they even have a television

cmcclung

Households don’t contribute to TV advertising, commercial companies decide to pay for advertising out of choice to get their products and services in front of what they judge will be a buying audience.

Athar

Yes, there should be TV licence in UK. But way they charge is outdated. Every device now a days has MAC address, TV licencing fee should be on the basis of the MAC address of the Device that using Media. The fee should be reduced and should be charged on the MAC address of device. Govt. can get massive money by using this method and actually they can widen the tax net by reducing the tax on individuals and increasing the number of people. A part of the money should go to BBC or Govt. broadcasting or Media services and rest of money should be for the strictly for the welfare of the people. For example, we could use the money for the better health services that are of very low standard particularly at GP level.

wpDiscuz
Category: