Funding of the BBC

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Chris

Not really ... Tony Hall agrees a universal precept is a means of doing it, nothing I’ve said above contradicts that. I’m thinking more along the lines of which authority should collect and distribute money collected in that way. I think it would be politically awkward for the BBC to do so directly.

Ah yeah i see what you mean now, totally agree with you.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

The complaints commonly fielded include, "not watching the BBC" and being chased for non-payment. How does the BBC's DG claim about the German household tax fit in with that?
People currently dodge and are chased over council tax.
Link

Regulation 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 allows magistrates to commit someone with council tax debt to prison. Individuals can be jailed for up to three months and, as it is a civil offence, they do not get a criminal record. While the prison term does not clear the debt, once someone has been imprisoned, the council cannot use further enforcement measures.
Campaigners have also criticised local authorities’ regular use of bailiffs to collect debts. Research by the Money Advice Trust found local authorities in England and Wales referred 2.3m debts to bailiffs in 2016-17, an increase of 14% on 2014-15.

Not seeing anywhere in Europe where the council are responsible for administering and collecting the "TV Licence". Simply not their responsibility.
Just pointing that adding to Council Tax doesn't solve the main complaints about the current system, and is far from being a viable solution.

Again ... you're asking me to explain and defend other people's practices and opinions. Respectfully I point out that's your task, not mine.

[nomadking]

So you didn't say this in post #324?

It would be difficult politically to put a BBC precept on every council tax bill across the UK, however wholesale reform, creating a broadcasting authority with broad responsibility for public tv, radio and communications infrastructure and allowing that to set precepts might work.

And this in #327?

Not really ... Tony Hall agrees a universal precept is a means of doing it, nothing I’ve said above contradicts that. I’m thinking more along the lines of which authority should collect and distribute money collected in that way. I think it would be politically awkward for the BBC to do so directly.

post #335.

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.

Pointing out that it doesn't address the main complaints about the current system, and that no other European country(including Germany) use councils to collect it, is perfectly valid.

At least, when the question arose about the German household tax, I asked the question and did the research for, "how does it work", only to find it has no connection at all. It is the German system of registering your address that has any connection. In the UK, people often don't register a change of address to any authorities. Eg Somebody can be chased for council tax at their old address, because they haven't told the council they've moved out, and the new occupant hasn't told them they've moved in.

Again ... what’s your point? All I’m seeing is you apparently suggesting we can only pick a carbon copy of something done in some other country already. But you’re so fond of massive lists of links and quotes it’s phenomenally hard to understand what you’re driving at.

It is possible for us -as we are a sovereign state with power to legislate over our tax system - to put a precept on council tax that collects the same amount of money from every household in the U.K. it just is. Nothing done in any other country affects that in any way.

[1andrew1]

Chris's proposal makes sense to me and I'm not fussed by what our central European friends do.
The only obvious downside is that opposition parties could put charts and slogans in their election materials to state "under X party council tax has risen by X% during their term"

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.

It will never be sorted out, because, for some people*, unless the BBC totally agrees with and supports what their viewpoint is (and by corollary doesn’t show anything that disagrees with their viewpoint), it will be seen as "biased".

*this applies to all parts of the political spectrum

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Regardless of how the money is spent, or by whom, the licence fee simply is not a simple subscription to the BBC.

Over 90% of the funding goes to the BBC. We can debate how the remaining 10% is raised.

Once again, I don't think anyone on here has suggested that the BBC is abolished. But we want to choose whether or not as individuals we pay for it.

I certainly would, and so would most others. But why should those who don't want it pay? That is the question.

I don't buy the 'quality assurance' angle, particularly when you look at all the junk you can find on there as well as the better stuff. If that's what people want, they will be prepared to pay for it.

I'm afraid I don't believe in the Nanny State. Maybe we should have a referendum on it!

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Chris's proposal makes sense to me and I'm not fussed by what our central European friends do.
The only obvious downside is that opposition parties could put charts and slogans in their election materials to state "under X party council tax has risen by X% during their term"

I'm sorry but I don't agree. What's the point of scrapping the TV license only to slap the cost onto another tax we all have to pay? That is just creative accounting and also shifts a tax burden onto those who genuinely do not have to pay for a TV license at present.

[papa smurf]

Sell it.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I'm sorry but I don't agree. What's the point of scrapping the TV license only to slap the cost onto another tax we all have to pay? That is just creative accounting and also shifts a tax burden onto those who genuinely do not have to pay for a TV license at present.

Yes, and it doesn't address the argument that some people don't use these entertainment services. It is fundamentally unfair, and the Corporation also has an in-built advantage against its commercial rivals with the shedloads of money it gets from the licence fee.

I really don't see the logic of applying a national tax through the council tax, which by its very nature, is for local needs.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

It will never be sorted out, because, for some people*, unless the BBC totally agrees with and supports what their viewpoint is (and by corollary doesn’t show anything that disagrees with their viewpoint), it will be seen as "biased".

*this applies to all parts of the political spectrum

You are twisting it. The bias can be seen on programmes like 'Question Time', where those with opinions towards the right and towards Brexit are sneered at and cut off, whereas those to the left are allowed to drone on without interruption.

If you think that's balanced.....!

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, and it doesn't address the argument that some people don't use these entertainment services. It is fundamentally unfair, and the Corporation also has an in-built advantage against its commercial rivals with the shedloads of money it gets from the licence fee.

I really don't see the logic of applying a national tax through the council tax, which by its very nature, is for local needs.

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------



You are twisting it. The bias can be seen on programmes like 'Question Time', where those with opinions towards the right and towards Brexit are sneered at and cut off, whereas those to the left are allowed to drone on without interruption.

If you think that's balanced.....!

If it's balanced in remains favour he'll be happy

We are all Leavers now, but that doesn’t mean the Government shouldn’t be held to account for pushing through the WA Bill this year, only allowing 3 days debate on it, saying it was "an oven ready deal", and then complain later it wasn’t what they wanted.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

We are all Leavers now, but that doesn’t mean the Government shouldn’t be held to account for pushing through the WA Bill this year, only allowing 3 days debate on it, saying it was "an oven ready deal", and then complain later it wasn’t what they wanted.

Surely, the expectation, as included in the political declaration, was that there would be a no-tariff trade deal. The government is getting the impression the EU may take the surprising decision to renege on that. So the government is simply adjusting to accommodate that. Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Anyway, having got that sorted out, what's this got to do with the BBC?

I suspect this was posted in the wrong thread accidentally. Let’s move along ...