Scrap TV license fees?

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Graham

So if you don't have a car, you don't pay tax on it.

If you don't want to be taxed on your TV (which is, of course, what the licence is) don't own one.

Why not it makes a great dvd movie veiwer and an even better screen for computer games plus the added benefit of ocasional sky usage, but your saying dont own one to avoid a TAX that is in reality illegal, but because the tv is capable of recieving something which i dont want I have to pay.

You would begrudge paying a smokers tax just because you own lungs which is why tax is applied to cigarettes not if you own lungs, its a fairer way of taxing those who use what they want to use.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Why not it makes a great dvd movie veiwer and an even better screen for computer games plus the added benefit of ocasional sky usage, but your saying dont own one to avoid a TAX that is in reality illegal, but because the tv is capable of recieving something which i dont want I have to pay.

You would begrudge paying a smokers tax just because you own lungs which is why tax is applied to cigarettes not if you own lungs, its a fairer way of taxing those who use what they want to use.

Nope, you don't pay tax on cigarettes, you pay duty. There is a small but significant difference, you pay a fixed amount of duty every time you buy the specific product to which duty has been applied.

The TV licence is not a tax on TV ownership, it is a licence to use a TV within the UK to receive broadcast television signals. The drivers' licence is not a tax on being allowed to drive or own a car. You can know how to drive and yet be unlicenced, and you can own a car yet be unlicenced. The drivers' licence is a document that entitles you to drive on British roads.

The difference between the TV licence and the drivers' licence is the proceeds of the TV licence fund some of the services you are then entitled to view, while the cost of a drivers licence AFAIK is enough to cover the cost of providing it to you.

The TV licence is not by any means unique as a licence to use radio receiving or transmitting equipment. Most of the broadcast spectrum is licenced in one way or another, be it for radio stations or mobile phone companies.

In what way is the TV licence an 'illegal' tax? It was set by Parliament and has never been overturned by the Law Lords, by definition it is therefore legal.

Commercial Tv is funded by advertising which we all pay for, like it or not. Let's call that a commercial tax!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Why not it makes a great dvd movie veiwer and an even better screen for computer games plus the added benefit of ocasional sky usage, but your saying dont own one to avoid a TAX that is in reality illegal, but because the tv is capable of recieving something which i dont want I have to pay.

If you do not watch any kind of broadcast TV (ie use your TV only for watching DVDs/Videos or computer/console games, but not for viewing any terrestrial, cable or satellite channels) you do not need to pay a licence.. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1

Mind you, it would be interesting to see what happens if you go to court challenging the TV licence company because the tax they impose is "illegal".

Originally Posted by scastle

it would be interesting to see what happens if you go to court challenging the TV licence company because the tax they impose is "illegal".

The magistrates would completely ignore an attempt like that to argue a point of law, in all likelihood. You would have to appeal the conviction they gave you all the way to the Lords, spending a small fortune and wasting years of your life in the process. And at the end of it all I'm pretty sure the Lords would be unimpressed too.

If the TV licence were an 'illegal tax', I think committed BBC-haters like Gerald Kaufman would have been pursuing that angle decades ago.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Nope, you don't pay tax on cigarettes, you pay duty. There is a small but significant difference, you pay a fixed amount of duty every time you buy the specific product to which duty has been applied.

The TV licence is not a tax on TV ownership, it is a licence to use a TV within the UK to receive broadcast television signals. The drivers' licence is not a tax on being allowed to drive or own a car. You can know how to drive and yet be unlicenced, and you can own a car yet be unlicenced. The drivers' licence is a document that entitles you to drive on British roads.

The difference between the TV licence and the drivers' licence is the proceeds of the TV licence fund some of the services you are then entitled to view, while the cost of a drivers licence AFAIK is enough to cover the cost of providing it to you.

The TV licence is not by any means unique as a licence to use radio receiving or transmitting equipment. Most of the broadcast spectrum is licenced in one way or another, be it for radio stations or mobile phone companies.

In what way is the TV licence an 'illegal' tax? It was set by Parliament and has never been overturned by the Law Lords, by definition it is therefore legal.

Dont know where you got drivers licence from car tax aka vehicle licence duty was brought into the discusion and I pointed out that is also yet another unfair taxation method. Drivers licence is purely a permit to drive. Car tax is a fixed fee no matter how much you use your car, unfair on many who subsidise those who hammer our roads, kind of like the way some users hammer unlimited internet disrupting those who use unlimited internet within reason.

As your only choice is to pay a tv licence or not own any kind of broadcast accepting equipment which is now extended to computers hooked up to the internet, it is an undemocratic fee applied to all despite wetehr they wish to have BBC or not.
We dont watch BBC much at all if it was an option to pay £10 a month subscription or not have bbc we would yes do without bbc. It is not an option and therefore does not fit in a democratic society which we are supposed to be. The way it is forced upon us pay, go to court and get fined extensivly or have no tv is none other than legalised extortion, the only reason it being legal is because the government say so. So the government is yes imo guilty of extortion because they are the law.

You want BBC you pay for it. I do not owe you BBC so I dont see why I should subsidise your pleasure.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Dont know where you got drivers licence from car tax aka vehicle licence duty was brought into the discusion and I pointed out that is also yet another unfair taxation method. Drivers licence is purely a permit to drive. Car tax is a fixed fee no matter how much you use your car, unfair on many who subsidise those who hammer our roads, kind of like the way some users hammer unlimited internet disrupting those who use unlimited internet within reason.

As your only choice is to pay a tv licence or not own any kind of broadcast accepting equipment which is now extended to computers hooked up to the internet, it is an undemocratic fee applied to all despite wetehr they wish to have BBC or not.
We dont watch BBC much at all if it was an option to pay £10 a month subscription or not have bbc we would yes do without bbc. It is not an option and therefore does not fit in a democratic society which we are supposed to be. The way it is forced upon us pay, go to court and get fined extensivly or have no tv is none other than legalised extortion, the only reason it being legal is because the government say so. So the government is yes imo guilty of extortion because they are the law.

You want BBC you pay for it. I do not owe you BBC so I dont see why I should subsidise your pleasure.

I never mentioned VED, or 'car tax'. I drew a parallel between a driver's licence and a TV licence. As you say, a drivers licence is a permit to drive. A TV licence is a permit to watch TV. Simple, really.

It is not undemocratic to impose something on everyone. Democracy is the rule of the majority, not the consensus of the whole. Therefore the majority is entitled to impose its will on the whole. The TV licence, as an Act of Parliament, is therefore quite democratic.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I never mentioned VED, or 'car tax'. I drew a parallel between a driver's licence and a TV licence. As you say, a drivers licence is a permit to drive. A TV licence is a permit to watch TV. Simple, really.

It is not undemocratic to impose something on everyone. Democracy is the rule of the majority, not the consensus of the whole. Therefore the majority is entitled to impose its will on the whole. The TV licence, as an Act of Parliament, is therefore quite democratic.

Hi, I'm starting up some new TV channels, Radio Stations and Web Sites and the government have agreed to add another £120 a year on to yours and everyone elses licence fee to subsidise me, hope that's ok with you, even if it isn't let's face it, you're not going to have a say in the matter.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I never mentioned VED, or 'car tax'. I drew a parallel between a driver's licence and a TV licence. As you say, a drivers licence is a permit to drive. A TV licence is a permit to watch TV. Simple, really.

It is not undemocratic to impose something on everyone. Democracy is the rule of the majority, not the consensus of the whole. Therefore the majority is entitled to impose its will on the whole. The TV licence, as an Act of Parliament, is therefore quite democratic.

And just how many acts of parliament do we have that breach human rights.

Edit and to boot yet another very poor peice of comparison

Drivers licence £38 which lasts till what about age 70 free renewal

TV licence anually recurring and increasing till your 75 where you will get it free if your still alive or not in an old peoples home
Nice how we treat the aged in Britain.

[me283]

Originally Posted by altis

No.

Aren't we being a bit licentious here?
__________________

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

And just how many acts of parliament do we have that breach human rights.

Plenty, I believe. And whilst we're on the subject, an Act of Parliament is not necessarily democratic, any more than day to day acts BY our Government. They may be democratically elected, but they sure as Hell follow an agenda that most of us would never vote for. From time to time that is...

Originally Posted by Bifta

Hi, I'm starting up some new TV channels, Radio Stations and Web Sites and the government have agreed to add another £120 a year on to yours and everyone elses licence fee to subsidise me, hope that's ok with you, even if it isn't let's face it, you're not going to have a say in the matter.

Of course I have. Come the election I can vote for a party that agrees with me that the Bifta Broadcasting Corporation is a waste of licence-fee-payer's money and plans to replace the licence with a subscription.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Of course I have. Come the election I can vote for a party that agrees with me that the Bifta Broadcasting Corporation is a waste of licence-fee-payer's money and plans to replace the licence with a subscription.

But my party is the only one that isnt going to grant yet another decade of as you say democtratic (extortion) on you with Biftas BC and my other policies stink :P

Well I'm off to use up my 30 pence a day at BBC online. H2G2 the best site at the BBC.

See ya later.

Fact:

The BBC will keep the licence free for at least 10 Years

like it or not, theres nothing you can do.

Wehay for the BBC

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Of course I have. Come the election I can vote for a party that agrees with me that the Bifta Broadcasting Corporation is a waste of licence-fee-payer's money and plans to replace the licence with a subscription.

I must attach more importance to a vote than your good self, I'm certainly not likely to change it over a license fee, but still, you get my point, I personally could live without the BBC and I want that choice, I should be entitled to make that choice and not have someone make it for me.