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.

"Evasion" is a tricky concept for the BBC. They don't have a good view of the numbers concerned, and of their split between people who don't need a Licence and actual evasion.

The best "number" is around 4 million domestic households overall. That's split between 1.8 million who have told TV Licensing that they do not require a Licence, and 2.8 million "others". Neither of these categories relate to meaningful segmentation of the population.

Sorry 2.2 million ^^

It’s far too expensive for what it is. Can’t believe they waste a fuck tonne of our money on EastEnders, what a pile of shite that is!
I’m still seething that so many women have been imprisoned for tv licence evasion

@Kshhuxnxk

Why don't those who want it pay for it by subscription like Netflix or Sky or whatever else you can get. Seems most straightforward way. Oh, and I wouldn't subscribe so can't wait to see the back of it for something I don't need but am forced to pay for..

If you don't need it, you don't HAVE to pay it! Go online and complete a declaration form which states you don't watch any live TV, or any BBC iplayer, and they have to accept that and not charge you.

You don't even have to fill in the TVL form.

I actually have been thinking this is a good idea for ages.

I lived in a european country a while back where there was a tv licence fee and it was automatically added within the equivalent of our council tax.

If you didn't have a tv you can opt out and its taken off the councii tax.

exceptions included for the elderly, those on low incomes, on disability allowance and also those diagnosed with a terminal illness.

It was based on household income though I think, not property bandings (so number of people in the household divided by income, so if you had a couple with 6 kids and earned 40,000 they would pay less then a couple with 1 kid on 40,000 for example as they would be deemed as having less income per head in the property)

Seemed to work great.

I am hugely in favour of keeping the BBC.
As Broblem and others have explained, imperfect though BBC news may be, it is still soooooo much better than elsewhere. Plus local news is something that many want, and would be lost if the BBC is lost. Then there is the much used saying of it is worth paying the licence fee for David Attenborough alone. When any big event is covered, from state funerals to sporting events, the public overwhelmingly prefer BBC coverage to ITV - I think people would hugely miss it if it goes. Then there are all the websites and information they put out. Radio stations. Probably so much more I can't remember. I happen to think the 43p a day it costs for a licence to be incredibly good value. More so when people go on TV to talk about their "elderly relatives for whom the TV is a lifeline" -well, what a fabulously cheap lifeline it is if you watch it every day!

I'm very open to funding it in different ways BUT I do think Council Tax Bands really do need a massive overhaul. I don't think they reflect a person's wealth, but am interested in the concept of people paying more in line with their wealth (or lack of wealth).

Of course there will be winners and losers whatever scheme you use, but it is something I think most people would regret once they realise what it really would mean to lose the BBC.

I think that linking to Council Tax with the opt-outs and exemptions mentioned would probably work. The only issue (which applies to any solution with a variable payment) is that to cover lots of exemptions and means-testing it means that some people will pay more. Not sure how palatable that would be.

Unfortunately, keeping the current scheme without a major overhaul wouldn't work. It's fundamentally based in 1950s thinking where you can tell the Public any old nonsense and they will not only believe you, but they will do what they're told. That doesn't work in 2022.

It's also under attack from technology too - more and more people who only use video-on-demand from Netflix, Amazon, Disney etc. who now know that means they don't need a Licence.