4 ms·

If a state wants to fund public radio and TV stations, it doesn't need to do it through a mandatory, regardless of use flat fee. I would argue that that is the

If a state wants to fund public radio and TV stations, it doesn't need to do it through a mandatory, regardless of use flat fee. I would argue that that is the worse possible way to do it: * Increased bureaucracy (why not add a 0.1% to an existing tax?) * Regressive taxation (you pay the same amount regardless of your income; if you used the income tax, you would distribute it more fairly) * No market shaping (you could instead fund it with a tax on, say, TV ads for high-calories sodas, or whatever as a society you decide should not be forbidden but discouraged)

_ph_ 6y ago
The point of having a fee vs. a tax is, that the government has no direct control of it. So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for inflation etc. But it is an independant entitiy deciding about this.
- zelos 6y ago
  Could you have the same independent entity decide the total funding for the BBC and then have the government pay for that out of general taxation?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  > So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for inflation etc. What stops legislators from adjusting the fee at will? There’s legislation enacting the fee, defining the fee, enforcing the fee. Surely, there can be legislation to modify the fee and remove the fee. Same as any other tax.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    No, the fee is not decided by the legislators. Of course they can remove the whole system or pass new laws for its mechanics, but the fee itself is not under direct government control. The effect is, that they can just sneakily shave off the budget by 10% for the next year like with budgets under government control. They would have to fundamentally change the system first, which would create a lot of opposition, as a result, so far no government hasn't done that.
- msla 6y ago
  Parliament can pass any law it wants. That's central to the system the UK has. The BBC is dependent on a fee collected by the government, as regulated by laws the government has passed and the government enforces. Insisting it's not government funded is trying to invent a distinction where none exists.

_ph_ 6y ago

The point of having a fee vs. a tax is, that the government has no direct control of it. So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for inflation etc. But it is an independant entitiy deciding about this.

zelos 6y ago
Could you have the same independent entity decide the total funding for the BBC and then have the government pay for that out of general taxation?
lotsofpulp 6y ago
> So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for inflation etc. What stops legislators from adjusting the fee at will? There’s legislation enacting the fee, defining the fee, enforcing the fee. Surely, there can be legislation to modify the fee and remove the fee. Same as any other tax.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  No, the fee is not decided by the legislators. Of course they can remove the whole system or pass new laws for its mechanics, but the fee itself is not under direct government control. The effect is, that they can just sneakily shave off the budget by 10% for the next year like with budgets under government control. They would have to fundamentally change the system first, which would create a lot of opposition, as a result, so far no government hasn't done that.
msla 6y ago
Parliament can pass any law it wants. That's central to the system the UK has. The BBC is dependent on a fee collected by the government, as regulated by laws the government has passed and the government enforces. Insisting it's not government funded is trying to invent a distinction where none exists.