To think the BBC license fee should be scrapped

[Flashbangandgone]

Don't get me wrong, I love the BBC, and would pay a subscription if required, but I can't see any justification in continuing with a licence fee in the age of satellite and youtube. It's a stealth tax that needs to go.

It would be a bit like British Gas charging everyone a flat fee for using gas irrespective of how much gas they used or whether they used oil, coal or electric to hear their homes. It's bat-shit crazy anachronism and must surely go.

At the very least it could be pared down drastically from its current excesses.

If we had purely commercial TV it would be a race to the bottom. The direness of Australian TV is an awful warning of what would happen if the BBC were abolished or reliant on adverts.

The direness of Australian TV is an awful warning of what would happen if the BBC were abolished or reliant on adverts.

Not sure Australia is a good example - Australian commercial TV is pretty bad (esp because not as regulated as British TV - news and current affairs are especially bad) but the ABC and SBS have great stuff, albeit underfunded and with greater political threat as funding is from general revenue and not ring fenced.

I fail to understand gripes such as the OP's.

The BBC is probably the finest broadcasting organisation in the world. For a modest fee, we get access to excellent television programmes, several radio stations and a world-class news website. Look at the alternatives - Sky is much more expensive and you get advertising too.

And don't imagine that commercial channels are free - you pay for that advertising in the cost of the products (not to mention the tedium of having good programmes interrupted by adverts).

There must only be a tiny minority of people in this country who never watch BBC tv, never listen to BBC radio, never visit the BBC website. And as far as I'm concerned, they can still contribute to funding the BBC, in the same way that people who never go to hospital fund the NHS and people without children fund the education system. And that's because the BBC is a good thing in itself, massively enriching the cultural life of this country and providing a relatively independent news service that is not shackled by the biases of wealthy media owners. Why on earth people would want to blithely throw that away is beyond me.

wasonthelist what would you listen to if Radio 4 went? I can't find a single other channel that isn't music or 'talk'.

I agree with your sentiment hackmum. God help us if we had to rely on Sky

It's not unreasonable, but it is stupid.
Licence fee is for all aspects of the BBC, it's the best broadcasting outfit in the world. The lack of adverts alone is worth the fee. What do you pay to sky or Virgin for the privilege of watching adverts?
And what are people watching on freeview? Yes, that's right A load of old BBC programmes. From Attenborough to Fools and Horses, Top Geat to HIGNFY.

in the same way that people who never go to hospital fund the NHS and people without children fund the education system

Which would be through general taxation, not through a seperate licence.

Sky is much more expensive and you get advertising too

Not that much more expensive - my Sky costs £22 a month compared to £15 a month on the TV licence.

For my £22 I get Sky plus - so I can record all the shows I have want to watch (and fast forward all the adverts ). I get access to the type of TV I like, as it is broadcast (rather than a year behind the U.S.). DH gets his Sports fix and DD her Disney fix.

The BBC is great for the people that like the programmes & radio it produces. I can understand that and I don't feel the need to sneer at people that like that sort of thing - I don't and I don't see why I should have to pay a fixed fee for something that I don't want or need.

Would non-sky users be happy to pay a fixed fee for sky programming if they didn't watch it - simply because they could watch it? I don't think so.

Nobody else does anything equivalent to BBC Four or Radio 4. The BBC has always provided access to high quality programmes that are not commercially viable. That is what will disappear.

Which would be through general taxation, not through a seperate licence.

But there are many taxes that are collected in different ways - Council Tax, VAT, VED, etc etc. The licence fee is unquestionably a tax.

I agree that the basis on which it's collected is outmoded - and that the tax itself is regressive - but I would worry deeply about it simply being folded into general taxation, as I've said previously.

Jeffrey It is of course sleight of hand and semantics. But the license is levied to give viewers legal access to 'as it airs' television. The government then uses that money to support, not fully pay for, the BBC. But the point still stands, the levy is a legal requirement, not a subscription one. That is one reason it is not as simple as 'find a subscription model'. There is a lot of other stuff that has to be sorted, over an above the broadcasts.

OP I don't think I said I didn't think the individual companies should not pay for the antenna rent and usage...left wing/right wing whatever. Not a comment I have made. But I do know how complicated that would be, partly as I am old enough to remember the cost to the user for the early mobile phones - one company would build the mast and the next had to pay rent for its space. That, on top of the huge licence fees crippled most of them, put them out of business. I also now the chaos on the broadcast side, that is what DH does for a living.

This is one of the aspects the general public is unaware of, but the select committee will fully understand. A replay of that would open us up to wholly imported programming, Aussie and US tv would be even more ubiquitous. Surely something to be considered...?

I also know that the outcome will NOT be based on what is fair for someone on JSA. Nice and fluffy cuddlesome as that thought is, it is not financially sustainable!

And you do remember that your parents have paid for a tv licence for decades, don't you? Do you truly begrudge that benefit? It makes you sound oddly ageist and bitter - which undermines your arguments, to be honest!

I haven't rtft, but you have to pay a licence fee in most countries, it's just that they don't have a BBC. I think people seem to think we shouldn't have to pay any licence fee, but in reality this would not be the case.

I really resent having to pay for the BBC, so that my kids can watch Disney XD and Cartoon Network.

I never watch any TV. They only every watch american children's channels.

I don't listen to radio. I do sometimes use the BBC News site, but wouldn't pay a fee for it. I'd just use another site.

I don't watch the BBC. I don't listen to the BBC, I rarely read the BBC, so why do I have to pay for others to benefit from it? I don't ask for my Netflix to be subsidised by the tax payer.

Not that much more expensive - my Sky costs £22 a month compared to £15 a month on the TV licence.

£12.13 a month, in fact. So that's getting close to double.

LostMySanity: do you resent paying for other things you don't use that others benefit from? And can you 100% guarantee that no-one in your family will watch or listen to anything produced by the BBC? Do you think it might perhaps be in your DC's interests to wean them away from Disney and cartoons?

Yes, almost double but for me it's the difference between playing for programmes I dont watch and paying for programmes I do watch - so £22 for something (plus sports and series recording/box sets) or £15 for nothing

Which makes more sense?

If you mean do I resent paying tax, based upon my income at an affordable level, then no I don't.

But I consider the benefits system and the NHS to be of more value and necessity than a TV station.

I'm not sure what else I pay into that others benefit from? Quite possibly I would resent it, yes.

We rarely watch any TV, so I don't see the need to stop their occasional viewing of Finneus and Ferb or Adventure Time, in order to what? Educate them? We do plenty of that. Cartoons and education are not mutually exclusive.

I cannot guarantee that my children won't ever take a liking to BBC, however if they did then I wouldn't have reason to resent paying for it, would I?

I don't think anyone is suggesting the BBC be scrapped but it should be opt in, like other flat fee paying TV is. My neighbors do not contribute to my Netflix subscription, why should I help pay for their love of Eastenders?

I'm not sure what else I pay into that others benefit from? Quite possibly I would resent it, yes.

Theatre companies (that then charge admission)? Museums? Libraries? Elite sport? Tax breaks for oil companies, film companies, religions, private schools?

I don't remember anyone ever asking me to pay £145 per year for their child to attend theatre school, so I assume you are referring to tax, which as I've said I don't mind paying, although I don't agree that it should be used to subsidise private education or religious organisations.

The rest I have no issue with, but would resent paying a flat fee irregardless of my income, for any of those things.

The licence fee is classified as a tax. I agree it's regressive, but the best mode of collection is a different argument from 'should it be publicly funded'.

Does tax really subsidise private education though or is the £200 per child tax break actually a huge saving over the cost of educating a child in a state school?

Two wrongs -Dunno what I'd listen to instead of R4 (or R5). I would pay a sub for that (although as I said, it is very London centric and Southern English middle class) - but I am not paying for the BBC to piss money up the wall in million pound (plus millions in pensions) payoffs, so I have stopped watching live telly. I don't want to watch bake off (or any of the other cooking/game/talent/antique) shows. I have no interest in Sport on TV and I don't have any interest in Natural History programming, or period dramas, or repeats of Dad's Army etc.

We all pay for things we don't use but that contribute to the needs of our community.

Does tax really subsidise private education though or is the £200 per child tax break actually a huge saving over the cost of educating a child in a state school?

Unless there's evidence that without the tax break there would be a significant shift towards the state sector, I'd go with the former.

There would be a significant shift towards the state sector because in order to get rid of the tax breaks we would have to scrap the private schools charitable status which means the 'charity' has to close and dispose of all assets ( including the buildings), so there would be a mass influx into state schools and the cost would be far more than £200 per pupil.

I think it's an argument for another thread but there would be legislative ways to avoid such impacts.

However - it's still one of those things our taxes fund...