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.

Don’t people who say use adverts ever think about things? There is not enough advertising to go round, let alone fund the BBC. Advertising budgets are not endless. The idea of tying it to council taxis basically sound, although need some tweaking.

I really don't understand why anyone pays it. I stopped watching any kind of live TV a while ago, and stopped paying for the TV licence. I was warned (threatened...?) someone would come round and check but as yet no one has. I'm not sure the BBC could create any content I'd deem to be worth that amount of money.

Also OP linking it yo the council tax banding is a terrible idea. Whilst I'm certainly not against the idea of those on lower incomes paying less, the squeeze on those in the middle would be deeply unpopular.

@stitchmaker85

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

This I don't pay the licence now, legally, because I don't use the services so filled in the relevant paperwork

Your suggestion is literally making it the law to pay the licence if you don't use it.

I live alone, and Council Tax doesn't reflect that either fully either .

You've actually come up with a worse model than the one we have.

And if you think the BBC has "global benefits" what else do you want us to pay for, on that basis? Bizarre.

That's a heck of a jump between B and C (and again between A and B despite them both being single figures). What's the thinking there?

I'd rather see a pick 'n' mix subscription service.

Tier 1 - basic access, BBC News, BBC Parliament, website access and limited iPlayer that shows catch-up for seven days, with programmes perhaps being delayed so not available until a month or few after broadcast (except news stuff because you've already paid for that). Perhaps there could be a "BBC catchup" channel like 4seven showing highlights of the week's programming.

Tier 2 - above plus BBC1/2/4/CBBC/Red Button

Tier 3 - above plus full iPlayer which combines the current service plus all available archive programmes, not just the curated selection on ShitBox but everything that has been digitised, with part of the fee going to fund further digitisation.

Tier 1 should be perhaps £40 a year, tier 2 basically the current licence fee cost and tier 3 more expensive at about £200.

It's easy enough to scramble broadcasts even on Freeview so there is no technical reason to prevent this kind of subscription service.

@GreenWhiteViolet

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.

^^

This.

I could live quite happily without the BBC or any of its services.

@granny24

Don’t people who say use adverts ever think about things? There is not enough advertising to go round, let alone fund the BBC. Advertising budgets are not endless. The idea of tying it to council taxis basically sound, although need some tweaking.

Where do you get the idea of there not being enough advertising to go around?

Budgets aren't endless but if you had any idea how much companies do pay, you'd know there's plenty of advertising enough to keep the BBC afloat.

@MorningStarling

I'd rather see a pick 'n' mix subscription service.

Tier 1 - basic access, BBC News, BBC Parliament, website access and limited iPlayer that shows catch-up for seven days, with programmes perhaps being delayed so not available until a month or few after broadcast (except news stuff because you've already paid for that). Perhaps there could be a "BBC catchup" channel like 4seven showing highlights of the week's programming.

Tier 2 - above plus BBC1/2/4/CBBC/Red Button

Tier 3 - above plus full iPlayer which combines the current service plus all available archive programmes, not just the curated selection on ShitBox but everything that has been digitised, with part of the fee going to fund further digitisation.

Tier 1 should be perhaps £40 a year, tier 2 basically the current licence fee cost and tier 3 more expensive at about £200.

It's easy enough to scramble broadcasts even on Freeview so there is no technical reason to prevent this kind of subscription service.

Such a strange suggestion. Tier 3 is more expensive than now!!

@110APiccadilly

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?

Nearly everyone has a TV, so I couldn't call it a luxury. Even prisons with standard status have a TV in their room.

Now if you said a Playstation, then yes I would agree with you. The only prisoners that have access to one are those with enhanced status. You have to work for it.

I think a tier system would be the best option. Perhaps a free section with news, radio, and big important national event coverage, and children's programming. Maybe some educational stuff like the science and environment items, the arts etc.

Then another tier which is paid for with the entertainment. This would subsidise the free items. I think it would also be worth reviewing whether adverts could be allowed in this tier, and there would also be income generated from worldwide sales of their content.

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

It leaves them vulnerable to boycotts and market forces.
Look at how Mumsnet is often targeted by activists contacting their advertisers.

No you'll just get rich people complaining about subsidising the poor.

Love the fact that someone thinks there wouldn't be enough advertising interest to make advertising viable

@TrickorTreacle Maybe I'm biased because I've not had one for most of my life, but I don't see how you can call it a necessity really.

@Whammyyammy

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?

Completely agree with this. Cancelled mine a few years ago when the Savile coverup came to light. Quite happy with Netflix and catchup on itv hub now and again. Why should we be forced to pay for these smug, self-satisfied arseholes?

So you want to hit first time buyers in new builds? The council tax banding needs to be changed anyway in my opinion because the older house now worth over 1 million in the Surrey area I live in are band A, which makes no sense.

No.

I don't have a TV licence because I don't use their chargeable services. I'm not going to start paying for one with my council tax because I don't use their chargeable services.

If you want to use them, you pay.

We don’t watch much bbc but we are happy enough paying the licence

But we have a higher tax band house and there is no way dh will pay more than we do now

I think its going to have to be some sort of subscription service or adverts unfortunately

what's the problem with adverts anyway? You can fast-forward through them if you prerecord, even just pause when something begins, go and do the bins and the washing up, then come back, play, and FF as necessary.

I think the problem with the license fee is that it’s unclear if it’s a payment for services or a tax.

If it’s a payment for services, you should be able to opt out without threatening letters that people are going to come round to your home and check (imagine netflix coming round to check you aren’t borrowing someone’s password, I mean wtf).

Most of the people who are pro license fee say that it has wider benefits. 7% is on the world service, which by definition is used by people who don’t pay the license fee. Another 23% is for online and radio, which you can use if you pay the fee or not. This is more like a tax - we as a society think these are good things to pay for.

Unfortunately if it’s a tax it’s not working well. It’s completely undemocratic and it’s unclear who controls it. It also has ridiculous costs - 6% in collection (and pension deficit) costs. For context HMRC’s collection cost is about 0.5%.

So OP, I think it’s sensible to acknowledge that it is a tax, put it firmly under the control of the elected representatives, and save collection costs by tying it to another payment. You’d have to fight about the amounts but it’s not a bad idea.

I’m against this. We don’t pay as it’s terrible value for money at £150 or whatever it is at present and don’t use the services. There is no way in hell we would pay more than twice that when better value content is available elsewhere at a far more competitive price.

Let the consumer pay for what they value, for us paying for services we neither want or use won’t change with an increase in price, but will put off some marginal cases who currently do pay.

If people are spending hours a day using the services they could reasonably be expected the value it at the cost of a pint each week, if not the market has provided a range of other options at different price points. Why force consumers to chose one particular product if it’s not what the market wants?

Netflix 5.99 a month
Amazon 7.99 a month
Apple TV 4.99 a month
BBC 13.25 a month
ITV online free
Channel 4 online free
Channel 5 free
Many many free web radio stations and other video services
Sky 36+ a month
Etc

Makes no sense. The amount of BBC services you use has nothing to do with the size of your house or its value.

I personally don't think the traditional 'ad break' advertising model is a goer either. I work in this industry; ad revenues from 'traditional' TV advertising have been dropping massively for a while now. People simply don't want to sit through four minutes of people flogging yoghurt, discount sofas and aspirational Hyundais when they're watching TV.

Besides, the BBC has all kinds of rules around impartiality which aren't going to go away just because the licence fee does, and are incompatible with an advertiser-funded model.

I think this whole thing is a great big raspberry being blown by the government to deflect from Johnson's current problems, and will be reasonably surprised if it actually happens.

I'd fisher having to pay for adverts!
While I'm sure we'd all other no adverts in an ideal world
They're not that much of an inconvenience