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.

Thanks @VeniVidiWeeWee that's a great few examples, but some people don't seem to be able to cope with the idea that this thread is specifically for pondering how to fairly dubd the bbc in the context of accepting that it is a genuine public good. Anyone who takes issue with that concept is welcome to start a different thread on that topic, not derail this one. Its not lazy to refuse to be derailed onto an entirely different question.

Advertising is not a solution. The private businesses that pay for advertising are not going to suddenly increase their advertising budget by £250million a year to replace the funding lost from licence fees, any funding the bbc got from advertising would just be taking money away from the existing commercial broadcasters. The money does need to come from the general public somehow. We need a hook to identify how to fairly apportion the cost among the public which I would like to be based on something that is proportional to the level of luxury in general in a household lifestyle. I recognise that council tax isn't a good candidate for that but I don't think income tax does the job either as I've seen too many people who are allegedly on the breadline for income but yet manage to drive expensive cars and have big houses and nice holidays due to clever accounting.

The idea of a tax on broadband provision might work, possibly. Might also need to apply to unlimited data mobile plans.

Advertising is not a solution. The private businesses that pay for advertising are not going to suddenly increase their advertising budget by £250million a year

They don't need to increase their budget. They'd stop advertising on channels like Gold and Watch. They'd happily stop advertising across 5 lesser watched channels for a prime time spot on BBC One.

The World Cup finals half time advertising spots are about £500,000 for 20 seconds.

Soft power projection, World Service.

I do believe a certain sun has set.

I mean it's quite a lovely map, but it's not what you would call up-to-date.

Better idea: scrap the license fee entirely and fund it through normal tax. The Track and Trace system cost £22 billion, we can't find £3 billion for the BBC budget?

I used to resent the license (and, by the time i emigrated from the UK, didn’t actually need one and stopped paying).

Having now lived in the US for a few years, I’ve completely flipped. If I was in the UK now, I’d pay for the license even if I didn’t need it, it’s such a social good.

No. Just make it subscription and pay it yourself OP. Why should other people subsidise your likes! I think Netflix is great but I don't expect you to pay towards it because I like it. Why do people who love the BBC not want to pay for it themselves and expect others who don't like it/don't watch to sub them? Just make it subscription only and if it's as popular as all the BBC employees make out then it will be fine.

@Hont1986

Better idea: scrap the license fee entirely and fund it through normal tax. The Track and Trace system cost £22 billion, we can't find £3 billion for the BBC budget?

But then taxes rise and it's still the lower and mid-level earners who are most impacted, and it still means everyone's paying for a service that not everyone uses.

So cut the military budget 5% to make up for it then, I'm paying for that and I don't use it.

There obviously isn't a fair way to force people to pay for the BBC. If you want it, you pay for it. Feel free to donate for the rest of us who don't care.

@Broblem

I used to resent the license (and, by the time i emigrated from the UK, didn’t actually need one and stopped paying).

Having now lived in the US for a few years, I’ve completely flipped. If I was in the UK now, I’d pay for the license even if I didn’t need it, it’s such a social good.

I'd be interested to hear more about this if you feel like sharing.

@Hont1986

So cut the military budget 5% to make up for it then, I'm paying for that and I don't use it.

Oh yeah, that's very similar .

Everyone keeps saying it's a social good but not elaborating. What do they actually mean? No-one cares about the World Service any more, BBC1 through 3 are full of shite and 95% repeats. I don't use BBC Bitesize and it sounds like something parents should be paying for if they particularly want it. If I needed to find out about road closures and school snow cancellations then I would use the internet, not the local radio. I'm definitely not seeing £160/yr of value.

I'd be interested to hear more about this if you feel like sharing.
Sure.

In the US, most people get their news from the major networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC et al).

I’d say that every one of those networks is inherently more biased than the BBC. Fox is obviously hugely biased towards the American right, and MSNBC to the left. The divide is so stark that it’s almost like the viewerships are living in two completely separate realities. Not only is there no common ground on opinion, but almost none on basic facts. That in turn helps promote a fractured society.

Also, because channels have to compete for viewership (and therefore money), there’s no real incentive to be factual - instead it’s better to tell your audience what they want to hear. Extreme pandering.

And on top of that, the networks all have presenters who are basically celebrities, and deal in opinion as much as they do fact. Yes the networks do try and pretend that there’s a difference between their news output and opinion output, and use that as an excuse to opt out of basic journalistic integrity, but viewers often don’t do well distinguishing between fact and opinion on those channels (and understandably so).

Basically, it’s the difference between news and partisan news-entertainment.

There’s plenty of good that the BBC does that we’d get along just fine without, but leaving that aside, no. Too many people have the asset but not the income to match the already ever increasing costs, despite working and through no fault of their own.

@Broblem

I'd be interested to hear more about this if you feel like sharing. Sure.

In the US, most people get their news from the major networks (Fox, CNN, MSNBC et al).

I’d say that every one of those networks is inherently more biased than the BBC. Fox is obviously hugely biased towards the American right, and MSNBC to the left. The divide is so stark that it’s almost like the viewerships are living in two completely separate realities. Not only is there no common ground on opinion, but almost none on basic facts. That in turn helps promote a fractured society.

Also, because channels have to compete for viewership (and therefore money), there’s no real incentive to be factual - instead it’s better to tell your audience what they want to hear. Extreme pandering.

And on top of that, the networks all have presenters who are basically celebrities, and deal in opinion as much as they do fact. Yes the networks do try and pretend that there’s a difference between their news output and opinion output, and use that as an excuse to opt out of basic journalistic integrity, but viewers often don’t do well distinguishing between fact and opinion on those channels (and understandably so).

Basically, it’s the difference between news and partisan news-entertainment.

I don’t disagree with you, but if that’s the social good of the bbc then it should be held to an extremely high standard. Any hint of bias should be subject to review and amendment. And any show that costs more than it makes should have to justify how it fits into that mission of social good. I’m thinking strictly, eastenders, bargain hunters, etc. I realise some of these shows make money, but many cost more than they make.

I don’t disagree with you, but if that’s the social good of the bbc then it should be held to an extremely high standard. Any hint of bias should be subject to review and amendment.
I think it is held to an extremely high standard (particularly with references to most other news sources).

And for all the accusations people make of bias on behalf of the BBC, most independent media-monitoring organizations consider it to be pretty much down the middle.

I’m less fussed about the entertainment arm, but I imagine people who work in the arts might have stronger opinions than I.

You think the TV licence is regressive, but you don't think council tax is regressive? lol.

I'm not sure on a solution but I'd hate to lose the bbc. And I'd HATE adverts in the radio!!!!

I would not want to see payment for BBC attached to a mandatory tax. The current licensing system - which made non-payment a criminal offence - was bad enough.

Subscription model is the way ahead I think, so people can choose whether they want it and when

Subscription model is the way to go, for me. There seems to be a lot of people who value the BBC’s output enough to pay it. I might even pay it myself if the standard of programmes went up and the salaries of presenters went down.
Being asked to subscribe to Britbox for programmes we’ve already paid for via the licence fee was the last straw for me. Pretty damn cheeky.

@EdithWeston

I would not want to see payment for BBC attached to a mandatory tax. The current licensing system - which made non-payment a criminal offence - was bad enough.

Subscription model is the way ahead I think, so people can choose whether they want it and when

And how do you subscribe to a radio channel?

The only way to go is subscribing and or voluntarily donating.

I don’t watch a single bbc Chanel I don’t listen to any radio at all. Why should I have to pay a broadband tax or increased tax at all to fund it?

Hospitals, schools, police, firemen etc are all needed so of cause we pay via tax. Eastenders isn’t needed. Bargain hunt isn’t needed. Dancing isn’t needed. If they cut all the crap that’s not needed you’d be left with the news and educational shows.

Bbc could save themselves a fortune on all those overpaid idiots and maybe more people would actually care about it again.

No thank you. I already barely watch BBC aside from HIGNFY and the odd animal documentary. I've already been considering dropping it altogether as we're almost never watching broadcast telly and not using iPlayer etc either. The only reason I've kept paying is because I generally appreciate the BBC, but in terms of value for money for us personally, we aren't getting the most out of it. Raising the price would cinch it.

(I wouldn't class us as 'rich' but we're in one of the top bands in our East Midlands council area so I'm responding as such. I realise it's all relative, but just because we're relatively better off than some others doesn't mean we want to sink money into more services we aren't using, ourselves.)