5 ms·

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, w

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it from political interference.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people to pay a “TV license” and legislation forcing people to pay more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC is effectively the same thing. Except the latter is more efficient.
- caspper69 6y ago
  Despite your feelings on the issue, the difference is quite stark. Relying on allocations in yearly budgets, subject to the political whims of lawmakers, is clearly a different animal altogether.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    This is the reason why court fees and PACER fees exist in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Why can’t the law be written so that the allocation can’t be changed (as easily)? Even right now, the politicians can choose to enact legislation to modify or remove the tv license fee.
    - SllX 6y ago
      During renegotiation, sure Parliament can opt not to renew. But for the duration of the charter, the BBC has an uninterrupted period of collections beyond the fiscal year of the government, which cannot be raided to fund the new social program of the day.
      - saberdancer 6y ago
        Couldn't the Parliament negotiate with BBC to allow them funding of XY pounds per citizen. Amount to be transferred monthly from the taxes. It would have the same effect. For the duration of the charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without interference from the government. Only difference is method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of collection.
        SllX 6y ago
        Wouldn’t be much of a Royal charter if the BBC became an Office of the Government. If you are an agency which wishes to retain some modicum of control over your own destiny, then you most likely wish to retain some modicum of control over your sources of revenue.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  Forcing people to pay a TV license means you need to send the bills to people, you need to enforce payment, you need to track payment, you need to sue people who do not pay. All just so that you get an illusion of independence from political power.
antihero 6y ago
Yet they appoint right-wing Tory donors as their chairmen. https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-donated-more-than-400000-to-conservative-party/ https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...
52-6F-62 6y ago
It's how the CBC is structured. They receive funding from taxes and their own revenue streams: merchandizing, advertising, syndication, and so on. It works. That is, it works until it doesn't. The CBC is entirely "free" to every Canadian who wants to use it, and it is fantastic. I wish it were expanded in scope. But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. Usually, the opposition is purely along political lines which is disappointing. So, I suppose the argument against it being tax-funded is that it become yet another chip in the political game. An argument for tax-funded is that there are no additional fees awaiting those who cannot afford them. Seems like something of a tossup or...yet to be determined. The added separation from political influence is big points, but it's rather moot when one group who've already made their mind up will just shout "conspiracy" and then the facts don't matter anyway. That happens here in Canada, to be sure.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  I understand the logic between removing it from taxes, but I find it hard to accept that this gave it any degree of independence. If opposition got in power and wanted to dismantle BBC or CBC, I'm sure that the fact that they gain their funding through a fee rather than tax is not something that would stop them. In the end, the fee was specified and allowed them to use it by some law that was passed in the parliament.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    Yeah true enough. I don't know enough about the intricacies of their structure to have a strong opinion.
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  > But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. I'm still not sure why entertainment needs public money. I mean just look at Marvel, Netflix, Disney... they are all insanely profitable. Billion dollars profitable. When you make content that people want to watch, it just works.
dehrmann 6y ago
At last from an American perspective, that seems like a technicality, and it uses government enforcement tools. The US funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting directly, and even under Trump, there wasn't much pressure around changing its funding--I guess defunding Sesame Street looks bad. Of course, public broadcast stations turn into panhandlers once every few months, so it's not without its faults.
- comex 6y ago
  For some definition of “wasn’t much pressure”. All four of Trump’s yearly budget requests zeroed out the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, though Congress wasn’t interested.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people to pay a “TV license” and legislation forcing people to pay more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC is effectively the same thing. Except the latter is more efficient.

caspper69 6y ago
Despite your feelings on the issue, the difference is quite stark. Relying on allocations in yearly budgets, subject to the political whims of lawmakers, is clearly a different animal altogether.
- afarrell 6y ago
  This is the reason why court fees and PACER fees exist in the US.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Why can’t the law be written so that the allocation can’t be changed (as easily)? Even right now, the politicians can choose to enact legislation to modify or remove the tv license fee.
  - SllX 6y ago
    During renegotiation, sure Parliament can opt not to renew. But for the duration of the charter, the BBC has an uninterrupted period of collections beyond the fiscal year of the government, which cannot be raided to fund the new social program of the day.
    - saberdancer 6y ago
      Couldn't the Parliament negotiate with BBC to allow them funding of XY pounds per citizen. Amount to be transferred monthly from the taxes. It would have the same effect. For the duration of the charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without interference from the government. Only difference is method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of collection.
      - SllX 6y ago
        Wouldn’t be much of a Royal charter if the BBC became an Office of the Government. If you are an agency which wishes to retain some modicum of control over your own destiny, then you most likely wish to retain some modicum of control over your sources of revenue.
saberdancer 6y ago
Forcing people to pay a TV license means you need to send the bills to people, you need to enforce payment, you need to track payment, you need to sue people who do not pay. All just so that you get an illusion of independence from political power.

antihero 6y ago

Yet they appoint right-wing Tory donors as their chairmen. https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-sharp-donated-more-than-400000-to-conservative-party/ https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...

52-6F-62 6y ago

It's how the CBC is structured. They receive funding from taxes and their own revenue streams: merchandizing, advertising, syndication, and so on. It works. That is, it works until it doesn't. The CBC is entirely "free" to every Canadian who wants to use it, and it is fantastic. I wish it were expanded in scope. But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. Usually, the opposition is purely along political lines which is disappointing. So, I suppose the argument against it being tax-funded is that it become yet another chip in the political game. An argument for tax-funded is that there are no additional fees awaiting those who cannot afford them. Seems like something of a tossup or...yet to be determined. The added separation from political influence is big points, but it's rather moot when one group who've already made their mind up will just shout "conspiracy" and then the facts don't matter anyway. That happens here in Canada, to be sure.

saberdancer 6y ago
I understand the logic between removing it from taxes, but I find it hard to accept that this gave it any degree of independence. If opposition got in power and wanted to dismantle BBC or CBC, I'm sure that the fact that they gain their funding through a fee rather than tax is not something that would stop them. In the end, the fee was specified and allowed them to use it by some law that was passed in the parliament.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  Yeah true enough. I don't know enough about the intricacies of their structure to have a strong opinion.
908B64B197 6y ago
> But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. I'm still not sure why entertainment needs public money. I mean just look at Marvel, Netflix, Disney... they are all insanely profitable. Billion dollars profitable. When you make content that people want to watch, it just works.

dehrmann 6y ago

At last from an American perspective, that seems like a technicality, and it uses government enforcement tools. The US funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting directly, and even under Trump, there wasn't much pressure around changing its funding--I guess defunding Sesame Street looks bad. Of course, public broadcast stations turn into panhandlers once every few months, so it's not without its faults.

comex 6y ago
For some definition of “wasn’t much pressure”. All four of Trump’s yearly budget requests zeroed out the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, though Congress wasn’t interested.