Science0 min ago
Ukip Bbc
i agree its an outdated tax in the modern age, i suppose you could argue..well dont have a tv
http://
http://
Answers
“…so it's not really a tax as such - it's simply a payment.” It is a tax because it is compulsory (if you want to watch TV). I don’t watch football so I don’t subscribe to sports channels. I don’t watch films so I don’t subscribe to movie channels. However, if I don’t want to watch BBC output I still have to pay the BBC. Not only that, I cannot even...
16:34 Sun 30th Apr 2017
The TV licence fee should have been scrapped years ago. In this day and age there is no real argument for it, unless you are a liberal, left winger or luvvie type in which case it is your propaganda machine.
No need to it to be abolished, just make it subscription. If it is a popular as some claim then there wont be a problem will there?
No need to it to be abolished, just make it subscription. If it is a popular as some claim then there wont be a problem will there?
I disagree.
Part of the licence fee supports the digital infrastructure which is key to the UK online economy.
At the moment 96% of UK adults access BBC services, so it's not really a tax as such - it's simply a payment.
If the licence fee were scrapped, and the BBC had to roll out commercial funding, it would mean a wholesale 'race to the bottom' for ratings. What I mean is this - right now, the big broadcasters are BBC, ITV, C4 and Channel Five. If the BBC were to be funded by advertising, then quality (admittedly, difficult to define) would decrease. There's a reason why we rarely see Channel Five, ITV or C4 winning awards at the Baftas or Emmys. It's because they have to build huge audiences for shows in order to attract advertising revenue.
The BBC have the funding and talent to give us Taboo, Doctor Foster, The Hunt, The Missing, Call The Midwife, The Fall, The Night Manager, Planet Earth II, Sherlock, Happy Valley, Poldark, War & Peace, Top of the Lake, Wallander, Life Stories, Department Q, The Killing, The Bridge, Line of Duty etc, without having to keep an eye on what advertisers demand.
Also, with regard to 'tax', we pay indirectly for all commercial television shows, because advertisers have to factor in the cost of tv commercials into the cost of goods and services.
There's the argument that the BBC should be funded like Netflix or Sky - but this means that a significant number of people would then miss out on their favourite shows because they could either not afford the increased costs or they would not receive their free licence (at the moment people over 70 get their licence for free).
Part of the licence fee supports the digital infrastructure which is key to the UK online economy.
At the moment 96% of UK adults access BBC services, so it's not really a tax as such - it's simply a payment.
If the licence fee were scrapped, and the BBC had to roll out commercial funding, it would mean a wholesale 'race to the bottom' for ratings. What I mean is this - right now, the big broadcasters are BBC, ITV, C4 and Channel Five. If the BBC were to be funded by advertising, then quality (admittedly, difficult to define) would decrease. There's a reason why we rarely see Channel Five, ITV or C4 winning awards at the Baftas or Emmys. It's because they have to build huge audiences for shows in order to attract advertising revenue.
The BBC have the funding and talent to give us Taboo, Doctor Foster, The Hunt, The Missing, Call The Midwife, The Fall, The Night Manager, Planet Earth II, Sherlock, Happy Valley, Poldark, War & Peace, Top of the Lake, Wallander, Life Stories, Department Q, The Killing, The Bridge, Line of Duty etc, without having to keep an eye on what advertisers demand.
Also, with regard to 'tax', we pay indirectly for all commercial television shows, because advertisers have to factor in the cost of tv commercials into the cost of goods and services.
There's the argument that the BBC should be funded like Netflix or Sky - but this means that a significant number of people would then miss out on their favourite shows because they could either not afford the increased costs or they would not receive their free licence (at the moment people over 70 get their licence for free).
Also Nuttall effectively admits that it's political. He knows fine well that this might appeal to the 'biased anti Brexit BBC ' brigade that he seee as Brexit's constituency. Not only is it therefore divisive but also of course smacks of trying to silence what he sees as opposition to its own world view.
We'll probably see more of this nonsense from UKIP as they seek other 'popular' causes to espouse.
We'll probably see more of this nonsense from UKIP as they seek other 'popular' causes to espouse.
“…so it's not really a tax as such - it's simply a payment.”
It is a tax because it is compulsory (if you want to watch TV). I don’t watch football so I don’t subscribe to sports channels. I don’t watch films so I don’t subscribe to movie channels. However, if I don’t want to watch BBC output I still have to pay the BBC. Not only that, I cannot even watch the broadcast programmes for which I pay a subscription without paying the BBC. It’s akin to having to pay to publish the Grauniad because I want to read the Torygraph.
Sunny-dave is quite right in that the BBC should have become a subscription service when their TV went digital. I don’t agree with funding it via tax and NI but it should be paid for by subscription of about £147 per year. If enough people want to watch the BBC their budget would not be in jeopardy. If they didn’t the BBC would have to consider its output. It would not be beyond the wit of man to arrange for government to continue to pay the fee for the over 75s (not, incidentally, over 70s as sp implies) if they decide it is justified. The problem at the moment is that the BBC has a guaranteed income of £3.5bn, imposed by the threat of criminal prosecution of people who may want to watch TV but not their output. It can thus pay for programmes that few people want to watch with no fear that their funding is in jeopardy.
It’s time for a change.
It is a tax because it is compulsory (if you want to watch TV). I don’t watch football so I don’t subscribe to sports channels. I don’t watch films so I don’t subscribe to movie channels. However, if I don’t want to watch BBC output I still have to pay the BBC. Not only that, I cannot even watch the broadcast programmes for which I pay a subscription without paying the BBC. It’s akin to having to pay to publish the Grauniad because I want to read the Torygraph.
Sunny-dave is quite right in that the BBC should have become a subscription service when their TV went digital. I don’t agree with funding it via tax and NI but it should be paid for by subscription of about £147 per year. If enough people want to watch the BBC their budget would not be in jeopardy. If they didn’t the BBC would have to consider its output. It would not be beyond the wit of man to arrange for government to continue to pay the fee for the over 75s (not, incidentally, over 70s as sp implies) if they decide it is justified. The problem at the moment is that the BBC has a guaranteed income of £3.5bn, imposed by the threat of criminal prosecution of people who may want to watch TV but not their output. It can thus pay for programmes that few people want to watch with no fear that their funding is in jeopardy.
It’s time for a change.
-- answer removed --
NJ
Even if you don't watch (or listen to) a second of BBC output, you still use cable infrastructure (to get online) which is funded by the licence fee.
The mixed funding model in UK broadcasting has meant two things – a bigger overall pot for investment in content, and better, more varied programmes, because of competition for quality (but not funding) between the BBC, advertiser-funded public service broadcasters and subscription-funded channels.
The licence fee acts as the risk capital for the British creative sector – allowing the BBC to invest for the long-term, to discover and take risks with new talent and to support British ideas, writers, artists and musicians. The BBC accounts for over 40% of total investment in UK original content yet only 22% of total TV revenues.
Even if you don't watch (or listen to) a second of BBC output, you still use cable infrastructure (to get online) which is funded by the licence fee.
The mixed funding model in UK broadcasting has meant two things – a bigger overall pot for investment in content, and better, more varied programmes, because of competition for quality (but not funding) between the BBC, advertiser-funded public service broadcasters and subscription-funded channels.
The licence fee acts as the risk capital for the British creative sector – allowing the BBC to invest for the long-term, to discover and take risks with new talent and to support British ideas, writers, artists and musicians. The BBC accounts for over 40% of total investment in UK original content yet only 22% of total TV revenues.
//Even if you don't watch (or listen to) a second of BBC output, you still use cable infrastructure (to get online) which is funded by the licence fee//
Freeview, FreeSat ??? Why do I have to pay the BBS to watch ITV?
Anyway I can find nothing around that says the BBC pay for cable infrastructure. Are you saying Virgin Media get some of the licence fee? Perhaps you can yo provide a link to the claim?
Freeview, FreeSat ??? Why do I have to pay the BBS to watch ITV?
Anyway I can find nothing around that says the BBC pay for cable infrastructure. Are you saying Virgin Media get some of the licence fee? Perhaps you can yo provide a link to the claim?
Latest Posts
Business & Finance1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank38 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago