Presidential Candidate Mimics A Sex Act
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Funding the BBC
10 Answers
The usual entrenched positions are being deployed elsewhere (rows about licence necessity/avoidance/evasion).
Factor30 suggested that the current system is not the best way to fund the BBC (and certain other services) ... I tend to agree - it's an outdated model and ripe for reform.
Advertising ? I think not - it would simply suck budget from ITV and elsewhere and the overall pot would not increase.
Assuming the BBC could get guarantees about security of funding and lack of government interference, then general taxation looks the easiest option.
I've found a few figures (in a hurry, so apologies if they're wrong) :
VAT brings in £86bn and is difficult to avoid - it also bears hardest on the people who spend most on non-food-items.
The licence fee brings in about £3bn - switching it onto VAT would mean 20.7% VAT instead of 20%
Income tax is easier for the rich to avoid, but is by and large not paid by the poorest in society. It brings in around £155bn.
Adding TV funding to Income Tax is more difficult to calculate - depends so much on who gets hit. But if added pro rata it would move the basic rate from 20% to about 20.4%.
Are either of the above scenarios fairer and/or more acceptable than the current licensing regime?
Factor30 suggested that the current system is not the best way to fund the BBC (and certain other services) ... I tend to agree - it's an outdated model and ripe for reform.
Advertising ? I think not - it would simply suck budget from ITV and elsewhere and the overall pot would not increase.
Assuming the BBC could get guarantees about security of funding and lack of government interference, then general taxation looks the easiest option.
I've found a few figures (in a hurry, so apologies if they're wrong) :
VAT brings in £86bn and is difficult to avoid - it also bears hardest on the people who spend most on non-food-items.
The licence fee brings in about £3bn - switching it onto VAT would mean 20.7% VAT instead of 20%
Income tax is easier for the rich to avoid, but is by and large not paid by the poorest in society. It brings in around £155bn.
Adding TV funding to Income Tax is more difficult to calculate - depends so much on who gets hit. But if added pro rata it would move the basic rate from 20% to about 20.4%.
Are either of the above scenarios fairer and/or more acceptable than the current licensing regime?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Subscription or advertising is a reasonable suggestion if just the consumer benefits, but the whole point of a national broadcasting station is that it is seen to be a benefit for the country as a whole. Otherwise one would just leave the task to commercial concerns; and clearly that is not the desire.
20:52 Tue 10th Apr 2012
Many will advocate a subscription model - but such a model would struggle to cope with an advert - free service with a remit to innovate, educate and entertain.
I think it would prove difficult, for instance, for a subscription funded BBC to make those fabulous David Attenborough Natural World documentaries, to state just one example. I think the live broadcasts, such as springwatch, autumnwatch etc would prove equally difficult to fund.
So, were we to scrap the iicence fee, then public funding would need to be found. Not at all sure what the fairest route for that funding would be though.....
I think it would prove difficult, for instance, for a subscription funded BBC to make those fabulous David Attenborough Natural World documentaries, to state just one example. I think the live broadcasts, such as springwatch, autumnwatch etc would prove equally difficult to fund.
So, were we to scrap the iicence fee, then public funding would need to be found. Not at all sure what the fairest route for that funding would be though.....
Let's broaden the debate - if all forms of taxation were scrapped except for VAT, those who spent the most would pay the most.
The super rich wouldn't be able to avoid paying tax as they do now.
The tax you pay would be out in the open - as it is now, we pay tax on income, then more tax, VAT, petrol, tobacco and alcohol among other duties, stamp duty and a whole swad of hidden charges.
Of course, every country would have to sign up, so it's pie very high in the sky...
The super rich wouldn't be able to avoid paying tax as they do now.
The tax you pay would be out in the open - as it is now, we pay tax on income, then more tax, VAT, petrol, tobacco and alcohol among other duties, stamp duty and a whole swad of hidden charges.
Of course, every country would have to sign up, so it's pie very high in the sky...
I agree of course with either option Similarly I think car tax should be replaced by a higher levy on fuel. But I doubt these changes will happen. The trend over many years has been for governments to hide the true extent of tax by spreading it around- insurance premium tax, 5% ACT on gas/electricty, air passenger/fuel duty, car fuel duty, stamp duty, taxes on pension funds, etc.
.
.
How about a small surcharge on the cost of electricity. The more you watch the more you pay. You cant avoid it. The cost of administrating the licence would be saved. No need for detector vans and enforcement officers. Yes i know this seems unfair on those who do not use the bbc services but the bbc is a public service available to all. If only 3 people used it we could hardly expect them to pay 1 bn each
Subscription or advertising is a reasonable suggestion if just the consumer benefits, but the whole point of a national broadcasting station is that it is seen to be a benefit for the country as a whole. Otherwise one would just leave the task to commercial concerns; and clearly that is not the desire.
As for funding, and switch to general taxation would be the sensible option. It doesn't have to be covered by a specific tax, ultimately it is all the same kitty. Just create an algorithm to calculate the yearly budget, vote it in, and let the system do the rest. Then one can get rid of all the expense of a separate collection and persecuting those without TV with threatening letters, and remove the cost of the detector nonsense etc. etc. etc.
As for funding, and switch to general taxation would be the sensible option. It doesn't have to be covered by a specific tax, ultimately it is all the same kitty. Just create an algorithm to calculate the yearly budget, vote it in, and let the system do the rest. Then one can get rid of all the expense of a separate collection and persecuting those without TV with threatening letters, and remove the cost of the detector nonsense etc. etc. etc.
Give the bbc a nominal amount from tax to put out a news channel of say around £10 per head then make them put the other channels on a pay for view subscription.
This would make them get there act together and they would have to stop wasting money.
http://www.dailymail....oss-18m-contract.html
This would make them get there act together and they would have to stop wasting money.
http://www.dailymail....oss-18m-contract.html
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
News4 mins ago
Why Is The "Police Watchdog...
News12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
