AIBU to propose this idea for replacing the BBC Licence Fee?

[BuanoKubiamVej]

The BBC is brilliant, and those who are against it are either swallowing the propoganda of media outlets who know they could make more money if the BBC is overthrown, or simply don't realise the huge global benefits that the BBC creates. But that's not my AIBU so please don't vote on the basis of whether or not you believe this.

However, it's true that the current licence fee is effectively a regressive tax - it is a significant amount of money to the poorest households, but is a negligible amount for the comfortably off.

A subscription or opt-in version isn't the solution, because the universal accessibility of BBC services needs to be maintained. The BBC does a huge amount more than just make TV programmes and even those who never watch TV are getting a lot of benefit from it.

So here's my idea for creating a progressive replacement for the TV licence - tie it in to the Council Tax, putting it on the same bill and collecting it at the same time.

There can then be bands for TV licence payments according to the Council Tax band of each residence. Families on a low income occupying a high-band property would get relief under the same structure as normal council tax relief, meaning that broadly those of us with larger and more comfortable homes and lifestyles pay more, and those who are on the lowest incomes pay the least.

The table in the attached image shows in the 4th column the revenue that would be generated if 100% of properties liable for council tax paid the new progressive TV licence fee in the 3rd column. The total raised this way would be significantly more than the amount that is currently generated by the TV licence fee - there would be plenty of flex to (a) use some of the exess income for the reasonable costs of administering the new scheme and (b) have a system for exempting some properties, according to whatever criteria are necessary to ensure that all situations where it would be unfair for the TV Fee.to be applied could be given a zero rate.

Data for the number of properties in each Council Tax band got from here: on gov.uk

Please vote - YANBU = "This is a good idea" (you can vote YANBU if you think it's a good idea but would never be implemented because of the machinations of those who just want the BBC dead - that doesn't stop it from being a good idea)

YABU = "This is seriously flawed and I will post below as to why."

NB this is specifically about how to address the regressive nature of current BBC funding whereby the poor and the rich pay the same. If your gripe is with the existence of the BBC at all, please use a different thread for that.

doesn't work. I live in SH. if I google it my rented house is worth half a million.yet its SH.

I live in a band D rental property, don't qualify as low income (just) so would have to pay more than I do now?!

I don't know. My house is a band B property but that's based on a massively outdated survey.

I can comfortably afford the TV licence as it is, but I know people with newer houses whose house is officially a higher council tax band who can't comfortably afford it.

I think your massive leap in pricing is extortionate.

Squeezed middle once again

Not without completely redoing the council tax bandings! There are some serious anomalies.

But I don’t think I’d be in favour of it anyway. I’d prefer a subscription model and / or for the BBC to really slim down what they offer - I still have a licence but it feels expensive for about 2 programmes a year and access to the BBC News website.

I don't have a TV or watch live broadcasts so would prefer not to have the licence fee added to council tax.

Why can't the BBC just allow adverts like ITV do and pay for it that way?

So pensioners who now have to pay tv license and may have a decent house but a low income would now have to pay even more for their tv license?

I don't want the BBC to have more money so they can waste it on the likes of Gary Lineker and Zoe Ball paying them millions. I think it's a terrible idea. The universal accessibility of the BBC will continue with subscription, everyone can still access it, it just gives you the choice to not access it and so not pay. You can't force other people to appreciate it in the way you obviously do OP.

No thanks, I don't watch TV so don't need a TV license but under these rules I'd be forced to pay for it lumped in with council tax

So pensioners who now have to pay tv license and may have a decent house but a low income would now have to pay even more for their tv license?

Very good point.
Work hard all your life. Pay off your massive mortgage. Get a reduction in council tax.

Get screwed over by having to pay your own massive care costs, huge hikes in fuel and now get screwed over by an extortionate TV license too.

@girlmom21

Why can't the BBC just allow adverts like ITV do and pay for it that way?

Agree Would rather this I do watch BBC and so does my child so I wouldn't want to lose it personally

Council tax can be pretty regressive though, particularly for renters.

I'd prefer a subscription model, but if you're going to insist everyone has to pay, just take it out of general taxation.

No, if it continues it needs to be a simple opt in monthly subscription like Amazon/Netflix. Stop and start when you want, and you can't watch without it. We don't watch much TV, so have a month with Amazon, then a month with Netflix, and so on, easy to cancel/renew, and we only need one of them at a time. When we decided to cancel the licence some years back we realised how complicated they deliberately made it, some months paid in advance, but on cancellation however they said they were not able to give refunds for anything less than a full quarter. Thieving bastards. It's an anachronism and well past time it was done away with.

@Shitfuckcommaetc

Squeezed middle once again

Yep, as ever!

Ot we could just abolish it. If you don't watch or want sky, you're not forced to pay it. If you don't watch Netflix, you're not forced to pay it. If you don't watch Disney +, you're it forced.....

However, the BBC.... although I stopped paying years ago and just bin the letters. BBC is outdated and so is the licence fee/tax. .. both need to go

No way. I don't watch British TV and don't want to be charged for it through council taxes. It annoys me enough having to pay money to the council for the police force who have allowed my family member's killer to still be on the streets. (They also stood around in the local park last year while a mob hacked someone's leg off.)

Being forced to pay for Eastenders and Homes under the Hammer would tip me over the edge!

I would also add that I think TV is a luxury. It's a good idea to let people stop spending money on luxuries if they want to. In fact, it's downright cruel to make other people pay for your chosen luxury through council tax, even if they don't have to pay much.

I would support the idea of funding a very small part of the BBC through herbal taxation (primarily news services). But do you really think everyone should be forced to pay for The Apprentice? Or Strictly?

Umm, general taxation. I imagine herbal taxation would be a whole different thing!

I think people are just fed up of the BBC taking the piss with how they spend the money we have to pay them.

I think it would be simplest to have it as a levy/tax on broadband revenues. (Not just broadband, the data part of mobile revenue as well.)

I do think it's a good idea for everyone to pay, so there is no longer an option to opt out. But there needs to be monitoring to make sure everyone is getting some value out of it, so the BBC actively works out who is not using it, and starts producing something that appeals to those people.

I don't understand the love for this biased broadcaster of repeats and Eastenders. If you want to continue to support this shambles that stick by Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris, that's fine, but the ones of of us that don't shouldn't be forced.
I use Spotify a lot, does that mean everyone else should be forced to pay for it too?

No, if it continues it needs to be a simple opt in monthly subscription like Amazon/Netflix. Stop and start when you want, and you can't watch without it.

That's not the same thing though. The point of the BBC should be to bind the nation together with a common experience, that doesn't work if not everyone shares the experience. (I admit it's sort of failing at its job at the moment, because it doesn't produce anything that everyone wants to watch. Maybe what I want from it is no longer possible, in that case the BBC doesn't need to exist, even for subscribers. That doesn't mean abolish it, just that we don't have to discuss it, any more than we discuss whether Disney channel should exist.)

A subscription or opt-in version isn't the solution, because the universal accessibility of BBC services needs to be maintained.
Why?

The BBC does a huge amount more than just make TV programmes and even those who never watch TV are getting a lot of benefit from it.
Could you elaborate on these "benefits" we're all getting OP?

But they will never please everyone!
There will always be people out there who aren't bothered about watching BBC just like there will be people who aren't bothered about other channels!
It's unrealistic to expect them to produce things that appeal to everyone

YABU, because I think your first paragraph is utterly wrong and so can't use it as an accepted premise for the rest of the post. There's no need for 'universal accessibility'. Those who like watching the BBC and think it's fantastic can subscribe to it. Those who never watch it (or indeed, never watch TV at all, under your council tax system) should not be forced to subsidise them. If there are enough people in the first category, it'll thrive. If not, it clearly wasn't worth propping up.