Funding of the BBC

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wrong in multiple ways. The reason I mentioned Conservative Party is that they are the ones in power and unlikely to act against the interests of those who voted for them.

Would you mind posting that in the Brexit Transition thread, where you seem to think the opposite?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Wrong in multiple ways. The reason I mentioned Conservative Party is that they are the ones in power and unlikely to act against the interests of those who voted for them.

You cannot lump all people over a certain age together like that as if they all have the same view! Ask Rupert Murdoch!! His view would be the same as it's always been even if he benefited from a free liicence by living in this country!

The Labour Party took the view that the voters in their heartlands only had eyes for them, and look how wrong they were! Live and learn, Andrew, and do something about your democratic instincts, please.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Would you mind posting that in the Brexit Transition thread, where you seem to think the opposite?

I'll open a hypocrisy thread if it helps

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I'll open a hypocrisy thread if it helps

It helps! Don't forget to set the rules for referrals to the thread.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That's just a fudge. Taxation should not be used to fund TV channels, radio stations and media websites. Taxation should be reserved for essential spending, such as education and social care. The government needs to stop using the taxpayer as a cash cow and let us spend more of our money how we want.

Not at all - it’s arguably just a more honest way of reflecting what is already the case. The licence fee is supposed to be universal, insofar as everyone who has a TV has a licence. The licence fee funds the BBC because the BBC provides the marker for quality public service broadcasting, serving both mass and niche audiences, across TV, radio and web. Parliament has repeatedly determined that this is a public good, worthy of funding by public means, by regular renewal of the BBC’s charter.

Regardless of how the money is spent, or by whom, the licence fee simply is not a simple subscription to the BBC. It never has been. To hold that it is, simply hinders understanding of why the BBC is not ever going to disappear behind a subscription paywall. In return for being funded this way the BBC is obliged to fulfil charter obligations that ensure a broad public service and also prevent the other commercial operators from pursuing a race to the bottom, chasing only mass audiences and serving them content made as cheaply as possible. (If you think this is fanciful, try visiting the USA and watching what’s actually on their free-to-air tv services on a weekday evening. It’s appalling.).

A thing does not have to be equally virtuous as a hospital in order to be worthy of public funding. We fund libraries out of council tax; national museums are funded by central government tax funds. This is the category the BBC has been put in by parliament’s repeated renewal of the BBC charter. Changes in technology may now mean the licence fee mechanism is no longer fit for purpose but it does not follow that the concept of publicly funded, public service broadcasting is no longer fit for purpose. A different means of collecting public funds may be required, and a precept on council tax is a way of doing it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Carth

Would you mind posting that in the Brexit Transition thread, where you seem to think the opposite?

Fair cop, I almost added except Brexit obviously.

---------- Post added at 09:38 ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all - it’s arguably just a more honest way of reflecting what is already the case. The licence fee is supposed to be universal, insofar as everyone who has a TV has a licence. The licence fee funds the BBC because the BBC provides the marker for quality public service broadcasting, serving both mass and niche audiences, across TV, radio and web. Parliament has repeatedly determined that this is a public good, worthy of funding by public means, by regular renewal of the BBC’s charter.

Regardless of how the money is spent, or by whom, the licence fee simply is not a simple subscription to the BBC. It never has been. To hold that it is, simply hinders understanding of why the BBC is not ever going to disappear behind a subscription paywall. In return for being funded this way the BBC is obliged to fulfil charter obligations that ensure a broad public service and also prevent the other commercial operators from pursuing a race to the bottom, chasing only mass audiences and serving them content made as cheaply as possible. (If you think this is fanciful, try visiting the USA and watching what’s actually on their free-to-air tv services on a weekday evening. It’s appalling.).

A thing does not have to be equally virtuous as a hospital in order to be worthy of public funding. We fund libraries out of council tax; national museums are funded by central government tax funds. This is the category the BBC has been put in by parliament’s repeated renewal of the BBC charter. Changes in technology may now mean the licence fee mechanism is no longer fit for purpose but it does not follow that the concept of publicly funded, public service broadcasting is no longer fit for purpose. A different means of collecting public funds may be required, and a precept on council tax is a way of doing it.

A great post.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not at all - it’s arguably just a more honest way of reflecting what is already the case. The licence fee is supposed to be universal, insofar as everyone who has a TV has a licence. The licence fee funds the BBC because the BBC provides the marker for quality public service broadcasting, serving both mass and niche audiences, across TV, radio and web. Parliament has repeatedly determined that this is a public good, worthy of funding by public means, by regular renewal of the BBC’s charter.

Regardless of how the money is spent, or by whom, the licence fee simply is not a simple subscription to the BBC. It never has been. To hold that it is, simply hinders understanding of why the BBC is not ever going to disappear behind a subscription paywall. In return for being funded this way the BBC is obliged to fulfil charter obligations that ensure a broad public service and also prevent the other commercial operators from pursuing a race to the bottom, chasing only mass audiences and serving them content made as cheaply as possible. (If you think this is fanciful, try visiting the USA and watching what’s actually on their free-to-air tv services on a weekday evening. It’s appalling.).

A thing does not have to be equally virtuous as a hospital in order to be worthy of public funding. We fund libraries out of council tax; national museums are funded by central government tax funds. This is the category the BBC has been put in by parliament’s repeated renewal of the BBC charter. Changes in technology may now mean the licence fee mechanism is no longer fit for purpose but it does not follow that the concept of publicly funded, public service broadcasting is no longer fit for purpose. A different means of collecting public funds may be required, and a precept on council tax is a way of doing it.

I've no problem with your logic - if it applied to an ideal situation.

The furore at the moment is about the obvious political bias, amounting to interference, that the BBC has demonstrated in recent years, coupled with an extreme wokeness that grates with the population at large.

Sort that out and the furore will die down.

[nomadking]

So instead the idea is that the taxpayer subsidies the BBC even more? Councils don't receive no money at all from those on benefits, they receive it from central government instead.
Council tax levels vary across the country, how would that be factored in?
You can be hauled up before magistrates for non-payment of council tax, so what happens when this is included?
Councils are the ones chasing the debts.

It would seem the Germans have a TV licence system. It is NOT included in their property tax.
Link.

The licence fee is a legally prescribed contribution for citizens, companies and institutions as well as for public interest bodies. For private households, the current fee is 17.50 euros per month.
The contribution serves to finance public broadcasting service based on a contributory model. Contributory means that in principle all adult citizens, companies and institutions as well as public interest bodies in Germany should make a contribution – regardless of their actual media use. In this way, everyone can benefit from the variety and quality of the freely available public broadcasting services – even those who pay a reduced licence fee or none at all. The objective is to ensure the highest possible level of fairness in the financing.
...
The fee is paid directly to the public broadcasting service and not to the revenue office, for example. This ensures that the public radio, television and internetservices can be produced independently of government influence.
...
The contribution service checks its database on a regular basis
If citizens move into a dwelling and legally register their new place of residence, the residents’ registration office will notify the contribution service of this. The latter will then write to the persons concerned in order to clarify the contribution obligation for the dwelling.
In addition, a nationwide registration data matching takes place at regular intervals. On a specified reporting date, all residents’ registration offices submit the registration data of all adults in Germany to the contribution service. In the course of this, those persons whose dwelling had no record of a contribution account when the data were matched are contacted.

Link

What happens if I don’t pay it?
If you choose to ignore the correspondence from the Rundfunkbeitragsservice, usually the process is as follows:
You will receive numerous reminders to register, which will ultimately result in them forcibly registering you and assigning a number to your case. You will then receive demands for payment, which will have late fees added to them if you don’t pay. If you ignore these, your case will be referred to a collection agency who will then pursue the payment through the legal channels available to them.
Ultimately, they will give your case to a bailiff. If you continue to refuse to pay, or do not allow the bailiff access to your apartment, then they may freeze your bank account and take what is owed plus any administration fees they have incurred for collecting the money.

So apart from the discounts, what is meant to be that great about the German system?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've no problem with your logic - if it applied to an ideal situation.

The furore at the moment is about the obvious political bias, amounting to interference, that the BBC has demonstrated in recent years, coupled with an extreme wokeness that grates with the population at large.

Sort that out and the furore will die down.

The BBC is getting better on the bias front but still takes a consumer understanding of business affairs too often.
In terms of wokeness, I think you'd need to substantiate your claim of grating with the population at large rather than a quick poll down the local Waitrose.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So instead the idea is that the taxpayer subsidies the BBC even more? Councils don't receive no money at all from those on benefits, they receive it from central government instead.
Council tax levels vary across the country, how would that be factored in?
You can be hauled up before magistrates for non-payment of council tax, so what happens when this is included?
Councils are the ones chasing the debts.

It would seem the Germans have a TV licence system. It is NOT included in their property tax.
Link.
Link
So apart from the discounts, what is meant to be that great about the German system?

Obviously, persistent offenders will be shot!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So instead the idea is that the taxpayer subsidies the BBC even more? Councils don't receive no money at all from those on benefits, they receive it from central government instead.
Council tax levels vary across the country, how would that be factored in?
You can be hauled up before magistrates for non-payment of council tax, so what happens when this is included?
Councils are the ones chasing the debts.

It would seem the Germans have a TV licence system. It is NOT included in their property tax.
Link.
Link
So apart from the discounts, what is meant to be that great about the German system?

Maybe it's me, but where is Chris advocating the German system?

Originally Posted by nomadking

So instead the idea is that the taxpayer subsidies the BBC even more? Councils don't receive no money at all from those on benefits, they receive it from central government instead.
Council tax levels vary across the country, how would that be factored in?
You can be hauled up before magistrates for non-payment of council tax, so what happens when this is included?
Councils are the ones chasing the debts.

It would seem the Germans have a TV licence system. It is NOT included in their property tax.
Link.
Link
So apart from the discounts, what is meant to be that great about the German system?

Precepting through council tax raises the intriguing possibility of free tv as a benefit for those on low incomes. That could be a good thing.

I’d also encourage you to look at your annual council tax bill and try to get a handle on how precepting works. You should see there an amount requested from your fire and police authorities. If your local district council is not a unitary authority (I.e. you also have a county council) then you will see a precept from the county as well. If the BBC were to become a precepting authority, then your contribution to them would simply become another line on your council tax bill. Note that the amount your fire and police authorities ask for is not connected to the council’s own funding requirements in any way. There is therefore no need for a broadcasting precept to vary from council area to council area. Council tax bills vary from place to place largely because of decisions taken by the council.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Maybe it's me, but where is Chris advocating the German system?

Never said he did.
The notion has been raised of adding to the council tax, and "The Mirror" article mentions the German Property Tax as an example of how it could work.
Link

In the interview, Hall agreed that Germany's household tax, which all homes must pay even if they don't own a TV, radio or smartphone, might make more sense than the TV Licence.
He said: "I think finding ways in which the licence fee can be charged progressively so those who can afford to pay more and those who can’t afford to pay less, should be looked at."

I did some research to see how it is supposed to work in Germany, only to find that isn't the system they use. There is no connection between the German household tax and their equivalent of the TV licence. In Germany, you have to register where you live. That forms the basis for receiving the bill. It is more obligatory than the UK TV Licence. In Germany there is no link between the amount of household tax paid and the amount charged for the "TV Licence". In Germany you are still chased for non-payment.


The only real difference appears to be establishing liability to pay. In the UK, its gone from owning broadcast receiving equipment, and become more complicated by online services. People complain enough about being asked to pay when they "don't watch the BBC". In that sense. the German system is worse, as far as the complainers are concerned.



All in all, not much of a "sea-change" with the German system.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Precepting through council tax raises the intriguing possibility of free tv as a benefit for those on low incomes. That could be a good thing.

I’d also encourage you to look at your annual council tax bill and try to get a handle on how precepting works. You should see there an amount requested from your fire and police authorities. If your local district council is not a unitary authority (I.e. you also have a county council) then you will see a precept from the county as well. If the BBC were to become a precepting authority, then your contribution to them would simply become another line on your council tax bill. Note that the amount your fire and police authorities ask for is not connected to the council’s own funding requirements in any way. There is therefore no need for a broadcasting precept to vary from council area to council area. Council tax bills vary from place to place largely because of decisions taken by the council.

Why does the Austrian version vary depending on where you live? If it's linked to property values, then it would automatically vary according to where you live.

Would still mean the council were responsible for collecting the TV licence debt.

[Sephiroth]

Austria?

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why does the Austrian version vary depending on where you live? If it's linked to property values, then it would automatically vary according to where you live.

Would still mean the council were responsible for collecting the TV licence debt.

Dude ... this is where you come unstuck, just pasting endless links to other sites and expecting other people to make inferences and draw conclusions for you. What the merry heck has Austria got to do with anything? And why is it my job to answer that for you?

We're a sovereign state and we can set up our tax affairs any way we like. If we want to create a Public Broadcasting Authority to precept district councils to collect the same amount of money from every household in the UK, then we can. Equally, if we think it's better for it to reflect ability to pay, we can tap in to the council tax banding mechanism. It's for us to decide.

Your point about who has to collect the debt is neither here nor there, seeing as the council is already collecting fire and police authority debt (in England and Wales) and water/sewage company debt (in Scotland). The council would still have to go through the same process even without any precepts because the vast bulk of the debt arises from the single largest figure on the bill, which is their own council tax.