4 ms·

I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget. Like Norway did last year. Now they have it

by flurdy 7y ago

I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget. Like Norway did last year. Now they have it as part of your income tax. [1] This will save a lot of expenses in informing, collecting, organising, prosecuting etc. I know that means everyone pays even though you don't own a TV, but that is fine by me. You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well. (Note, their license fee was about £300 per year last year.) Scrapping the BBC license fee and not fund it the same via a budget, but instead, a subscription-only will be awful. It will then join the other commercial channels which is 99% reality TV and gameshows. * [1] https://info.nrk.no/faq/the-tv-licence-will-cease/ https://info.nrk.no/faq/the-tv-licence-will-cease/

dependenttypes 7y ago
This might be fine with you but I do not think that this would be fine by everyone else paying taxes. > You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well. And this is a bad thing. No need to make it even worse.
- iso1631 7y ago
  No, it's not a bad thing. You may not have kids, but you rely on a society that educates children, as employees, as people making goods, providing services etc. You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club. You want to live in your Randian distopia, go and make one.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    > but you rely on a society that educates children, as employees, as people making goods, providing services etc The whole "educating people in order to become good wageslaves" thing, yes. Anyway, these that directly benefit from their education (their parents? the companies that they will work on?) could as well fund their education. Using my hard earned money however to inefficiently fund some low-quality education for someone else's child (who might not even be interested in it) under the threat of violence when I did not have the same luck as them is at the very least unfair. > You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club. You want to live in your Randian distopia, go and make one. Ah yes, the native Americans in the trail of tears were also expelled in the name of civilization. Don't you think it is time to stop expelling people from the clay that they were born on in order to bring an abstract concept such as "civilization" (as defined by you ofc) to the lands? Also, I love it how you focused on the most sensationalist part of the story, that is, the education of the children. But failed to mention how everyone being forced to fund -for example- opera houses from their labour is an integral part of society. Or how when the UK joined the war against iraq under false pretences and their taxes were funding war crimes helped our civilization prosper - "You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club", including war crimes. Honestly, it feels like the entire argument is basically "pay your taxes even if it funds things you don't like, because those are things I like". BBC these days with the rise of the internet only benefits the few who watch TV, forcing everyone to fund it is basically thief.
    - lol768 7y ago
      There are many things which I disagree with in this comment and some things that I don't think are relevant at all, but the statement that "[sic: The] BBC these days with the rise of the internet only benefits the few who watch TV, forcing everyone to fund it is basically thief" is particularly problematic. The BBC does a lot more than just produce content for TV broadcast. BBC News, BBC Weather, BBC Sport, Bitesize (online educational resources), all of the radio stations.
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        > BBC News, BBC Weather, BBC Sport, ... A similar argument can be applied there. They could adopt an online subscription model like other similar companies (NYTimes, etc) did, or they could have ads or whatever. There is no reason to have every taxpayer pay for something that they do not need. So let me correct what I said: "BBC only benefits the few who use its services". > There are many things which I disagree with in this comment and some things that I don't think are relevant at all Such as?
        lol768 7y ago
        >So let me correct what I said: "BBC only benefits the few who use its services". Except it's not "the few". The BBC has 81% audience reach amongst adults in the UK across different mediums (source: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/news-consumption-2018.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/...) and 62% reach for the flagship BBC One channel. It's simply not comparable to American newspapers with as little as 3% audience (source: (5 / (0.76239))100 - https://nytmediakit.com/newspaper/ https://nytmediakit.com/newspaper/ and https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/ https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ag...) reach across the country's adult population. Out of interest, do you yourself live in the UK? I suspect you don't from the way you've written your comment, but I do genuinely think you might have a different opinion if you consumed its output in the same way as the vast majority of people do.
        7y ago
- duckmysick 7y ago
  You can vote for people who set the budget. If the issue (let's say defunding a local opera house you don't attend) is important enough, you can form a voting bloc and get your way. You might need to spend some time and money on raising awareness among local voters. And you will definitely face some opposition, but it's doable.
wccrawford 7y ago
IMO, it's even better to be in the government budget, because those who can't afford the TV license probably already don't end up paying much taxes in the first place, putting more of the burden for the TV on the people who can afford it, instead of the people who use it. Normally I'd say that's a little backwards, but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing, and that firmly belongs in the "benefits everyone" category, IMO.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing Before the the dawn of the internet, sure. Now not so much, I would say it is more of a political tool that sometimes produces some low quality educational content.
rickdeckard 7y ago
> I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget. This would mean the funding of the BBC would be under direct control of the ruling government, which creates a conflict of interest (no positive coverage -> no money next year). > Like Norway did last year. Now they have it as part of your income tax. Norway TV isn't funded by government budget, they just streamlined the calculation and payment process into your income tax procedure. The budget is still dedicated to TV licensing and owned by the broadcaster. That's a big big BIG difference. In one case only the financial process is optimized, in the other case you turn the broadcaster into a "national propaganda station". As a citizen, keep an eye on this distinction on every proposal that is made, and speak up against every step the government takes to gain more control over the budget.
- thu2111 7y ago
  The idea of arms length funding doesn't make sense. The conflict of interest already exists. The government can and does control the license fee, hence the recent kerfuffle about decriminalisation (many more people just won't pay if there's no consequence to not doing so). Ultimately the BBC is funded by government mandate. What government giveth, government can take away. Additionally, the BBC has lost the argument that the license fee makes it neutral and independent to the betterment of all. More than half of the British population perceive it as being untrustworthy and biased (in favour of London metro media studies grad type viewpoints). This phenomenon is especially strong amongst the kinds of people who voted Tory for the first time and gave Boris his big majority, so their views are seen as very important. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/16/do-britons-trust-press https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial. The loss of BBC market share to other services is being raised as a justification for attacking the license fee here, but the ground is filled with kindling. Both the Tories and Labour see the BBC as ideologically opposed to them now.
vixen99 7y ago
'You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well'. Yes but that's not by itself an argument to bung even more services, used or not, into the mix.
- PaulRobinson 7y ago
  As a Brit, I consider the BBC to be at least as essential as most schools. Life without it is really hard for some of us to imagine.

by flurdy 7y ago

dependenttypes 7y ago

This might be fine with you but I do not think that this would be fine by everyone else paying taxes. > You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well. And this is a bad thing. No need to make it even worse.

iso1631 7y ago
No, it's not a bad thing. You may not have kids, but you rely on a society that educates children, as employees, as people making goods, providing services etc. You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club. You want to live in your Randian distopia, go and make one.
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > but you rely on a society that educates children, as employees, as people making goods, providing services etc The whole "educating people in order to become good wageslaves" thing, yes. Anyway, these that directly benefit from their education (their parents? the companies that they will work on?) could as well fund their education. Using my hard earned money however to inefficiently fund some low-quality education for someone else's child (who might not even be interested in it) under the threat of violence when I did not have the same luck as them is at the very least unfair. > You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club. You want to live in your Randian distopia, go and make one. Ah yes, the native Americans in the trail of tears were also expelled in the name of civilization. Don't you think it is time to stop expelling people from the clay that they were born on in order to bring an abstract concept such as "civilization" (as defined by you ofc) to the lands? Also, I love it how you focused on the most sensationalist part of the story, that is, the education of the children. But failed to mention how everyone being forced to fund -for example- opera houses from their labour is an integral part of society. Or how when the UK joined the war against iraq under false pretences and their taxes were funding war crimes helped our civilization prosper - "You want to live in a civilised society, you pay the membership club", including war crimes. Honestly, it feels like the entire argument is basically "pay your taxes even if it funds things you don't like, because those are things I like". BBC these days with the rise of the internet only benefits the few who watch TV, forcing everyone to fund it is basically thief.
  - lol768 7y ago
    There are many things which I disagree with in this comment and some things that I don't think are relevant at all, but the statement that "[sic: The] BBC these days with the rise of the internet only benefits the few who watch TV, forcing everyone to fund it is basically thief" is particularly problematic. The BBC does a lot more than just produce content for TV broadcast. BBC News, BBC Weather, BBC Sport, Bitesize (online educational resources), all of the radio stations.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > BBC News, BBC Weather, BBC Sport, ... A similar argument can be applied there. They could adopt an online subscription model like other similar companies (NYTimes, etc) did, or they could have ads or whatever. There is no reason to have every taxpayer pay for something that they do not need. So let me correct what I said: "BBC only benefits the few who use its services". > There are many things which I disagree with in this comment and some things that I don't think are relevant at all Such as?
      - lol768 7y ago
        >So let me correct what I said: "BBC only benefits the few who use its services". Except it's not "the few". The BBC has 81% audience reach amongst adults in the UK across different mediums (source: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/news-consumption-2018.pdf https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/116529/...) and 62% reach for the flagship BBC One channel. It's simply not comparable to American newspapers with as little as 3% audience (source: (5 / (0.76239))100 - https://nytmediakit.com/newspaper/ https://nytmediakit.com/newspaper/ and https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-age/ https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ag...) reach across the country's adult population. Out of interest, do you yourself live in the UK? I suspect you don't from the way you've written your comment, but I do genuinely think you might have a different opinion if you consumed its output in the same way as the vast majority of people do.
        7y ago
duckmysick 7y ago
You can vote for people who set the budget. If the issue (let's say defunding a local opera house you don't attend) is important enough, you can form a voting bloc and get your way. You might need to spend some time and money on raising awareness among local voters. And you will definitely face some opposition, but it's doable.

wccrawford 7y ago

IMO, it's even better to be in the government budget, because those who can't afford the TV license probably already don't end up paying much taxes in the first place, putting more of the burden for the TV on the people who can afford it, instead of the people who use it. Normally I'd say that's a little backwards, but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing, and that firmly belongs in the "benefits everyone" category, IMO.

dependenttypes 7y ago
> but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing Before the the dawn of the internet, sure. Now not so much, I would say it is more of a political tool that sometimes produces some low quality educational content.

rickdeckard 7y ago

> I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget. This would mean the funding of the BBC would be under direct control of the ruling government, which creates a conflict of interest (no positive coverage -> no money next year). > Like Norway did last year. Now they have it as part of your income tax. Norway TV isn't funded by government budget, they just streamlined the calculation and payment process into your income tax procedure. The budget is still dedicated to TV licensing and owned by the broadcaster. That's a big big BIG difference. In one case only the financial process is optimized, in the other case you turn the broadcaster into a "national propaganda station". As a citizen, keep an eye on this distinction on every proposal that is made, and speak up against every step the government takes to gain more control over the budget.

thu2111 7y ago
The idea of arms length funding doesn't make sense. The conflict of interest already exists. The government can and does control the license fee, hence the recent kerfuffle about decriminalisation (many more people just won't pay if there's no consequence to not doing so). Ultimately the BBC is funded by government mandate. What government giveth, government can take away. Additionally, the BBC has lost the argument that the license fee makes it neutral and independent to the betterment of all. More than half of the British population perceive it as being untrustworthy and biased (in favour of London metro media studies grad type viewpoints). This phenomenon is especially strong amongst the kinds of people who voted Tory for the first time and gave Boris his big majority, so their views are seen as very important. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/12/16/do-britons-trust-press https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1... YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial. The loss of BBC market share to other services is being raised as a justification for attacking the license fee here, but the ground is filled with kindling. Both the Tories and Labour see the BBC as ideologically opposed to them now.

vixen99 7y ago

'You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well'. Yes but that's not by itself an argument to bung even more services, used or not, into the mix.

PaulRobinson 7y ago
As a Brit, I consider the BBC to be at least as essential as most schools. Life without it is really hard for some of us to imagine.