It seems the BBC are mooting that the licence fee is included in council tax and that higher band council tax payers will pay more.
This seems unfair to me because many older people are stuck in large (higher council tax band) properties but live of a meagre pension.
There is no opt out. I pay the fee though I've only watched less than 5 hours of live TV over the last month (including iPlayer).
There are people who do not watch live TV and iPlayer. Why should they be forced to pay for a service that they don't use. It seems to be very unfair.
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsbirmingham/bbc-tv-licence-shake-up-could-see-uk-households-charged-depending-on-house-price/ar-AA1GuMqo?ocid=BingNewsVerp
|
Thats' been mooted/explored for a while, not sure how firm the plan is. It was around as long ago as 2022:
www.theguardian.com/media/2022/jul/18/council-tax-levy-bbc-tv-licence-fee-future-funding-model
I think some other countries fund their national broadcaster via local government taxes.
The older person in a large house is a criticism of Council Tax itself. Staying in a bigger house is a choice. My Mother stayed in a family sized place until her own perception of her infirmity lead her to downsize and move nearer me/my sister.
I watch more telly than you but by addiction is radio funded out of the same pot.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 13:16
|
>> Staying in a bigger house is a choice.
Not always. The cost of downsizing may prove to be prohibitive for many. You also get people out of work who don't qualify for full council tax relief because they live in a highly banded house. They may have cut out live TV use to save £170 odd a year, but under the new proposals would not be able to.
>>I watch more telly than you but by addiction is radio funded out of the same pot.
I have been streaming an awful lot over the last month hence the tiny amount of live TV, which I could easily cut out to save £170 a year.
|
As an aside, I visited both major TV companies for business reasons when I was working.
The differences between the two were astonishing.
The BBC buildings and facilities were astonishingly luxurious.Their "canteens" were on another level entirely.
The ITV ones were simple offices like other organisations that I visited, in fact were quite basic compared to many. The canteen, even where stars ate, was on the same level, as other companies.
There was also a huge difference in help offered to us when we were fact finding. One refused to give us information with negotiations required with each department for basic info. The other went as far as giving us a database expert and accountant for the duration of our visits.
Another observation is that if you have Virgin or Sky, you are paying for the BBC twice as the BBC (through a subsidiary) charges them to rebroadcast their signal on a per subscriber basis.
Basically, if the BBC cut back on extravagances, they could probably save a few tens of millions.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 14:13
|
>> The differences between the two were astonishing.
>>
>> The BBC buildings and facilities were astonishingly luxurious.Their "canteens" were on another level entirely.
>>
I worked for the BBC in the early 1960s and visited quite a few sites.
The waste and luxurious extras were staggering.
We made the very best loudspeakers so senior managers could listen to the radio.
Steel Dust lids for rack mounted equipment had x coats of paint all rubbed down to a mirror finish before the were installed where only the maintenance guys ever saw them.
They had there own unique colour codes for standard 100 pair cables rather than adopt the GPO
( by far the largest user) version.
They bought the best studio sound recorders that were totally over specified so they could tell the government that there were no UK versions. We then set about removing parts that the BBC never wanted,
The number of special orders for non standard parts was also very costly.
We had an engraving shop to produce smart labels for kit. A coil winding shop to make transformers etc.
One thing we did which was great was to take all their "midget " EMI L2 valve driven tape recorders and update them with transistors.
www.tvcameramuseum.org/emi/studioeqp/audio/l2taperecorder/emi-l2.pdfk
collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8355663/emi-l2b-midget-audio-tape-recorder-1957
A happy customer
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01n87d1/p01n73th
|
>> >> Staying in a bigger house is a choice.
>> Not always. The cost of downsizing may prove to be prohibitive for many. You also
>> get people out of work who don't qualify for full council tax relief because they
>> live in a highly banded house.
The start point was pensioners. Like so many things they do very well in Council Tax Relief as the start point, before any income taper, is full relief.
If you're working age most councils expect you to pay 20% plus of it. The number who restrict it to lower bands are very small and it affects higher bands, above D or E.
|
>>I think some other countries fund their national broadcaster via local government taxes.
Just because other countries do it, doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.
Some countries don't have TV licences with TV funded through advertising.
Subscription models also work and as the BBC chairman confirmed earlier this year, they are intending to transition to being entirely internet based by the 2030s. At this point there is no reason why they shouldn't be subscription only.
|
|
How are they “stuck” in large properties? They can sell them and buy a smaller property can’t they?
|
Not always. The cost of downsizing may prove to be prohibitive for many.
How so?
|
>> How are they “stuck” in large properties? They can sell them and buy a smaller
>> property can’t they?
>>
You need cash to sell a property. There's stamp duty, solicitors fees, moving fees, estate agent fees etc. that eat in to any potential savings. I can imagine that in many scenarios, that it's not worth it unless moving from a substantial home to a small flat.
|
No you don’t. Stamp duty, solicitor’s fees, estate agents fees can be deducted from
the proceeds of the sale. Normal practice.
People don’t downsize either because they like their house and don't want to move which is their choice or they can’t face the stress and hassle because they have left it too late. We need to plan ahead.
|
That still eats in to the difference between what you've sold for and what your buying - though and there are still moving costs, re-decoration costs if needed that come so the benefit of downsizing is not always as great as one might imagine and that's the point I was trying to make.
You also get the situations where you can't downsize but still would have to pay for a licence for a service that you might not use, and that seems to be very unfair.
I am not against the BBC, but if people want to opt out, to save some cash they should be allowed to.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 14:48
|
>> You need cash to sell a property. There's stamp duty, solicitors fees, moving fees, estate
>> agent fees etc. that eat in to any potential savings. I can imagine that in
>> many scenarios, that it's not worth it unless moving from a substantial home to a
>> small flat.
Not forgetting cleaning (some live as slobs), getting the place as you'd like it, garden and decorating.
We bought this place and it cost us £ thousands just getting it straight, before we started on kitchen and bathrooms. You just try finding a place you'd be happy to move straight into!
|
The council tax ploy is merely the BBC trying to find a different means of licence fee collection - more difficult to avoid than the current system, and distances them from the collection process.
As a method of fee collection it is plausible but we should first discuss:
1. What is the remit of the BBC given massive increases in other media
2. Why should the taxpayer to fund "me too" programming - no good reason IMHO
3. It is a tax for an unavoidable service over which the taxpayer has no control
4. Other public services are met through general taxation - what makes the BBC different
Personal view - BBC to produce ONLY high quality not already available elsewhere. Scrap all other output - eg: soaps, pop music, sport, etc. Retain, subject to robust quality standards, news output and some proven high quality drama and factual programming.
|
'Scrap all other output - eg: soaps, pop music, sport, etc.'
And the hoi polloi will quickly opt out.
|
>>And the hoi polloi will quickly opt out.
And it's the hoi polloi, as you put it, who currently pay the bulk of the bill so that the well paid fat cats can enjoy large salaries, directorships etc.
|
“Other public services are met through general taxation - what makes the BBC different”
The reason the BBC was funded by a licence fee rather than from taxation was to give it an independence from the government. There are many today across the political spectrum who dislike the independence of the BBC and who wouoknlike to exert more control over it.
|
>>The reason the BBC was funded by a licence fee rather...
And the licence fee was payable for having a radio or tv in the house. Then TVs only.
But then the definition of TV changed, people could use them as monitors only and never watch live TV or only watch pre-recorded content.
So those in authority decided that TV licences were needed for viewing live broadcasts only.
I don't think that they envisaged the dawn of Netflix, Prime etc. and people are happy to stream only.
Consequently revenue is dropping and those in charge of the BBC are looking for ways of forcing everyone to pay, even if they don't use the service.
If they had any sense, they would have offered a "Rediffusion" type service where you had to pay for a wired service to the house. My parents had to use Rediffusion in the '70s until a suitable transmitter was built locally, then if you wanted to watch TV, you would have to pay for it.
|
>The reason the BBC was funded by a licence fee..
And then there is an alternative explanation.
tinyurl.com/44bbybjt
|
>> “Other public services are met through general taxation - what makes the BBC different”
>>
>> The reason the BBC was funded by a licence fee rather than from taxation was
>> to give it an independence from the government. There are many today across the political
>> spectrum who dislike the independence of the BBC and who wouoknlike to exert more control
>> over it.
Not sure this is a robust argument - for instance the whole judicial process is also supposed to act independently of political bias.
Senior BBC board is in practice appointed on the recommendation of the responsible minister.
Like the judiciary the processes should be transparent (and mostly are). But it would be naïve to believe the governance is completely apolitical.
The original reason for licence fee funding - TV was for the relatively wealthy (mid 1950 ownership was ~30% of households), there were only 2 channels until 1964 (BBC 2 launched), and it was less controversial to simply keep the existing licence fee running.
|
There are people who do not watch live TV and iPlayer. Why should they be forced to pay for a service that they don't use. It seems to be very unfair.
There are people who don’t have children paying for schools from their taxes. There are people with private health insurance funding th NHS. There are people who don’t read funding libraries. How is funding the BBC out of taxation any different? Having an internationally respected broadcasting organisation available to all seems exactly the sort of thing our taxes should be paying for.
|
There are people who don't have children paying for schools from their taxes. There are people with private health insurance funding th NHS. There are people who don't read funding libraries. How is funding the BBC out of taxation any different? Having an internationally respected broadcasting organisation available to all seems exactly the sort of thing our taxes should be paying for.
And there are cases for arguing against all of those. Some people don't like the politics of the BBC, some see that unlike schools and the NHS, the BBC is far from an essential service and shouldn't be funded from near compulsory fees.
Is universally internationally respected? I think they dropped the ball several times, even with comedy shows when top gear for example mocked the locals in several counties - "slant", homosexual material in a religious belt in the USA, and in Argentina. Their news broadcasts aren't always free of bias and their programming doesn't appeal to many. I have only watched one series on the BBC this year (6 episodes) and one documentary. The rest just doesn't appeal so I feel cheated out of my £170.
|
Is universally internationally respected?
Well the likes of Putin, Trump, Farage and Reform don’ t I guess. We live in a democracy. If the majority are in favour of a BBC funded by some sort of universal charge or tax then that is what we should have. I think the majority of the population would like to keep the BBC. Personally having seen what the alternative is in places like the USA and Canada is I would think it extremely foolish to throw away one of the things that make this country distinctive and a decent place to live despite its shortcomings.
|
It's not very democratic when a third of women convicted were because they can't afford to pay the BBC!
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 15:45
|
>>we live in a democracy...
When did we last vote on the BBC specifically?
|
|
You obviously care about the issue and democracy. When did you last raise the issue with your MP?
|
>> You obviously care about the issue and democracy. When did you last raise the issue
>> with your MP?
>>
Last week.
Along with my concerns about the proposed Crime and Policing Bill that will allow organisations to get serious orders against an individual with out that individual having the chance to appear in court to defend themselves.
As well as my views on the need to have to retrospectively fit trackers to drones from 2026. No other private equipment requires retrospective fitting of extra equipment paid for by their owner and which are far more dangerous.
|
As well as my views on the need to have to retrospectively fit trackers to drones from 2026. No other private equipment requires retrospective fitting of extra equipment paid for by their owner and which are far more dangerous.
That a new one to me. What’s the issue?
|
>> That a new one to me. What’s the issue?
>>
The unfair cost. Including the scrapping of many totally legal and safe drones which cannot be retrofitted and will no longer be usable without any compensation. (They gave compensation to sword owners and gun owners who had to hand them in.)
Would have more benefit to society insisting that trackers be fitted to kitchen knives.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 20:01
|
Italy collects their TV Licence via Electricity Bills.
The TV Licence money goes to the BBC even if you never watch the BBC.
You can watch NetFlix and do not need a licence. You can watch Amazon Prime Movies and not need a licence BUT you need a TV licence to watch a live Boxing Match or the odd Premier League game on Amazon.
Question
If I press record a TV football game and then 2 mins later start to watch the recording would I need a TV Licence?
|
|
Yes you need a TV licence to watch or record TV programs.
|
>> It's not very democratic when a third of women convicted were because they can't afford
>> to pay the BBC!
>>
>> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html
>>
What is "Undemocratic" about that? The law says that if you watch the BBC you must have a licence and they broke it. Whether they are white male, black, Asian or transgender the same would apply.
|
>> >> It's not very democratic when a third of women convicted were because they can't
>> afford
>> >> to pay the BBC!
>> >>
>> >> www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tv-licence-fee-women-convictions-b1763192.html
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> What is "Undemocratic" about that? The law says that if you watch the BBC you
>> must have a licence and they broke it. Whether they are white male, black, Asian
>> or transgender the same would apply.
>>
Most get prosecuted under the single justice procedure which is acknowledged to be flawed as it is not easy to navigate for many.
TV licence operatives target women and ask questions that lead to prosecution often without the usual warnings and get them to sign for a licence, not realising that will lead to a prosecution.
Last edited by: zippy on Wed 11 Jun 25 at 16:44
|
The BBC is a very strong internationally recognised and respected brand, despite having been involved in a number of scandals in recent years.
For the UK of government it has a global reach in providing access, building UK reputation, influencing others, and is a powerful tool of international interaction and diplomacy.
Most countries have a state broadcaster. That the BBC has a regulatory regime which in principle should provide balanced output is to be commended. Retaining that reputation amongst the UK public is an important part of democracy in action.
For these reasons I think the future of the BBC should be secured and funded by the Treasury through general taxation. Programming of unremarkable quality or available through other media should not be taxpayer funded.
Licence fees are expensive to collect and currently riddled with inconsistency. A licence is needed to watch BBC catch-up but not other content providers. I can download a film from Netflix, yet the same film watched live requires a TV licence.
|
Probably the most valuable part of the BBC is its news arm. For most people it is the major source of news. Not always perfect by any means but amongst the best at least and most impartial source.
News costs money. It has to be paid for. Journalism costs. We now live in a world where many think you shouldn’t have to pay for broadcasting or newspapers. They tell you they get all their news from the internet for free. Well if it is genuine information it’s ultimate source will
almost certainly be a journalist.
Of course there’s plenty of other “news”out there on the internet if you like feeding your prejudices. You end up with Trump’s MAGA and lies
|
There are two fundamental choices - the first is to leave funding unchanged, although flawed, it is currently tolerated.
The alternative is a new basis of funding which much better reflects future output, This could be subscription services, taxpayer funding via Treasury, etc.
Funding should flow from agreement over the BBCs charter - eg: as state funded broadcaster, programming remit, governance arrangements etc. Agonising over minority groups - large houses, never watch TV, benefit claimants, pensioners etc - is cart before horse.
"House rich", "cash poor" is easily dealt with for those who may "qualify" - eg: pensioners. Any money owed for council tax, licence fees etc could be accumulated by a charge on the property, with interest at (say) 2% over base rate, repayable on death, transfer or sale.
The only losers may be the beneficiaries of an estate. The logical alternative is that benefits are increased or exceptions made. Effectively all taxpayers would be contributing to the inheritance of the few - neither equitable or logical.
|
|
It comes down to whether you want public service television or not. I think it should be funded from general taxation (but emphatically NOT controlled by the government).
|
TV Licences - to be included in council tax? - Bromptonaut
