General : Crackdown as the number of homes without a TV licence increases to 7%.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I agree. I think that petrol tax should be increased and the tax abolished.

It almost is anyway. 68% of the cost of petrol is tax. Every time I fill my car, I pay more tax on the fuel than I pay for a whole year of VED.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

It almost is anyway. 68% of the cost of petrol is tax.

And petrol in the EU is not even 100% petrol, it is 10% plant ethanol, rising to 15% soon.

[Stephen]

TV detector vans did exist, but they were there as a deterant or scare tactic.

They had no equipment, besides a useless arial and couldnt detect squat.

[jb66]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Transferring the tax to fuel is also fairer, because this would recognise that the more you travelled, the more you paid. A disability badge could be provided to reduce the cost for disabled people, if necessary.

The tax system does need a shake up and the BBC is a good example of how it is not working and is not accepted by so many people, who either evade it altogether or are simply resentful of the charge because they don't use BBC output.

And we end up with a country full of old bangers sitting on the roads and scrap cars

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Transferring the tax to fuel is also fairer, because this would recognise that the more you travelled, the more you paid. A disability badge could be provided to reduce the cost for disabled people, if necessary.

The tax system does need a shake up and the BBC is a good example of how it is not working and is not accepted by so many people, who either evade it altogether or are simply resentful of the charge because they don't use BBC output.

Tv licence is the most resented tax of all according to a newspaper article I posted on here not so long ago, more than council tax, income tax, fuel duty etc, about time the authorities woke up and realised that fact and if it's size and scope have to be reduced then tough, it's not 1960 anymore, time for a bygone relic that is the tv licence to be consigned to history

[tweetiepooh]

I wonder though how many people do consume the BBC without knowing about it? Or how happy people would be with a purely commercial system and what that really means?

I don't resent license fee, don't really notice it but if income was dropped I can afford the license but not all the other stuff that adds up.

And with insertion of ad's into catchup/OD what will people think then about ad free content from the BBC?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

I wonder though how many people do consume the BBC without knowing about it? Or how happy people would be with a purely commercial system and what that really means?

I don't resent license fee, don't really notice it but if income was dropped I can afford the license but not all the other stuff that adds up.

And with insertion of ad's into catchup/OD what will people think then about ad free content from the BBC?

Absolutely - eg. BBC website,local and national radio. Do we really want down-market channels full of ads? The BBC is unique in its content it's not reliant on viewing figures/advertisers so it provides programming and public service broadcasting that others don't.

There is a case for those on the lowest of incomes to be exempt from the licence but exempting rich pensioners is crazy, they use it most !

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Absolutely - eg. BBC website,local and national radio. Do we really want down-market channels full of ads? The BBC is unique in its content it's not reliant on viewing figures/advertisers so it provides programming and public service broadcasting that others don't.

There is a case for those on the lowest of incomes to be exempt from the licence but exempting rich pensioners is crazy, they use it most !

Its 2019, we should be able to implement an infrastructure that allows people who pay the license to watch BBC and those that don't watch it not to pay. The likes of Sky channels and similar should not be 'locked' to those that pay a licence as those channels don't receive money from the license fee.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mythica

Its 2019, we should be able to implement an infrastructure that allows people who pay the license to watch BBC and those that don't watch it not to pay. The likes of Sky channels and similar should not be 'locked' to those that pay a licence as those channels don't receive money from the license fee.

Would it stop them using BBC radio/website? We need a public broadcaster.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Would it stop them using BBC radio/website? We need a public broadcaster.

If we lock it behind the license fee then yes, which would be harder for radio obviously. But then you don't need a licence for those things.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mythica

If we lock it behind the license fee then yes, which would be harder for radio obviously. But then you don't need a licence for those things.

Even though you don't need a licence, these services have to be funded. They might just disappear without a licence fee.

We might be going round in circle with BBC threads. But worth pointing out it's £13 a month, for mostly unique quality content, plus all the extra non TV services. It compares very favourably with Sky/VM subs, who are mostly showing repeats/imported content or reruns of BBC stuff !

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Even though you don't need a licence, these services have to be funded. They might just disappear without a licence fee.

We might be going round in circle with BBC threads. But worth pointing out it's £13 a month, for mostly unique quality content, plus all the extra non TV services. It compares very favourably with Sky/VM subs, who are mostly showing repeats/imported content or reruns of BBC stuff !

Sky/VM subs fund the costs of buying in and broadcasting the content. Freview is relatively cheap to physically broadcast.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Sky/VM subs fund the costs of buying in and broadcasting the content. Freview is relatively cheap to physically broadcast.

The BBC actually make new programmes, a heck of a lot more than Sky/VM. That's what costs money.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Even though you don't need a licence, these services have to be funded. They might just disappear without a licence fee.

We might be going round in circle with BBC threads. But worth pointing out it's £13 a month, for mostly unique quality content, plus all the extra non TV services. It compares very favourably with Sky/VM subs, who are mostly showing repeats/imported content or reruns of BBC stuff !

Then let's keep it at £13 a month but don't punish those who want to watch Sky Sports but not the BBC.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Absolutely - eg. BBC website,local and national radio. Do we really want down-market channels full of ads? The BBC is unique in its content it's not reliant on viewing figures/advertisers so it provides programming and public service broadcasting that others don't.

There is a case for those on the lowest of incomes to be exempt from the licence but exempting rich pensioners is crazy, they use it most !

I think that concessionary licenses should be abolished and the charge added to the council tax. This way it would be cheaper to administer, reduce evasion to virtually zero and stop TVL inspectors harassing those who do not need a licence.

Also, the extra charge would then be eligible for the Council Tax Reduction scheme, meaning that those on low incomes could qualify for up to 70/80% off the charge.