TV Licenses

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Ste

Unless you can get it through a normal aerial in which case I have no idea...

I think that accounts for alot of it, tv signals cant really be contained as such and there will always be a bleed into areas that shouldnt really get it. It was actaully one of the reasons the BBC lost the 24 rights a few years back as the broadcast encrouched on other areas and for free Fox upped the asking price to account for 'lost revenue from the affected areas'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

It seems disingenuous of you to ignore the discounts given to those on benefits as well as to those over a certain age. There are also several flexible payment methods.

I may be wrong, but I do not think there is a discount available to those on most benefits. My mother who receives a state pension as her only income does not receive any discount that I am aware of. There is a discount (or it's free, I forget) for those over 75, but that's of no use to people on incapacity benefits or whatever. The only other discounts I'm aware of are for blind people or those in residential care. The installment plan does allow people to pay the fee over a different period, but afaik it does not reduce the overall charge levied.

It also seems slightly disingenuous to complain about the cost when people are clearly prepared to shell out the cash on the TV in the first place ...

Well, I have no idea how much individual people paid for a television. Considering you can get a TV for £40 or so new from Tesco (and probably a lot less second hand) that's somewhat dwarfed by the cost of a licence for a single year. Our first 3 televisions in my family home were hand-me-downs from others and cost nothing, so I can't presume they've "shelled out" much for anything.

if living without a television is such an appalling situation then I expect you to shower me with sympathy

I never said it was. I don't own a television either. However I work, I have many social activities in my life. I have a computer and internet access. Not having a television brings me no problems at all. However, a friends mother is medically retired, has limited mobility, is on benefits and she depends on the television to a certain extent to keep her entertained. Yes, of course she could survive without it (obviously) but it would be pretty annoying.

Obviously we simply disagree here, my only point is that I would not single out regressive taxes like this as shining examples of fairness.

(There's also a side issue where some of the BBC's expenditure goes on services which are probably more likely to be received / accessed by those with higher incomes - internet and digital services being the obvious examples)

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's fair in the sense you can avoid paying it if you choose (by not owning a television) but the effects are pretty regressive.

I pay about 0.13% of my monthly salary to the TV licence, someone on benefits could be paying something like 5%. That doesn't seem fair to me.

(Again, I realise people don't have to have a telly, but it probably does increase a sense of isolation if you don't have other things - e.g. work - going on in their lives)

Theres a reason its a static fee and isnt just collected as part of income tax and thats the fact that the funding wouldnt then be independant. If it came via income tax then the BBC would overnight become the state broadcaster and would be able to be used as a propaganda machine for the government

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wakey

If it came via income tax then the BBC would overnight become the state broadcaster and would be able to be used as a propaganda machine for the government

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

[Shyne]

Originally Posted by Shadow1980

Any idea what the deal is with the ability to watch BBC in other countries without a license though? What does the license actually pay for?

I think the idea is that the BBC can't enforce a TV license in other countries for obvious reasons, and it probably doesn't cost the BBC any extra to broadcast there - either the networks pay or they deem it worth it. The cost to broadcast a digital channel is tiny either way.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Do you have any evidence for this statement?

Well lets see.

Income tax charged by government
Government decideds how thats distributed
Government funds the BBC
BBC is then in the Governments pocked
They critise the Government, bye bye some funding
The Government wants them to spout something in their favour, they do it and get more funding

The example of this on a smaller scale is Fox news. Theres a documentary about Fox News which I think is called "Outfoxed" and it basically blows the lid of their "fair and balanced" claims. Murdoch tells them what agendas to push, they dont and someones head is on the chopping block

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wakey

Income tax charged by government
Government decideds how thats distributed
Government funds the BBC
BBC is then in the Governments pocked
They critise the Government, bye bye some funding
The Government wants them to spout something in their favour, they do it and get more funding

Who do you think sets the licence fee?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I may be wrong, but I do not think there is a discount available to those on most benefits. My mother who receives a state pension as her only income does not receive any discount that I am aware of. There is a discount (or it's free, I forget) for those over 75, but that's of no use to people on incapacity benefits or whatever. The only other discounts I'm aware of are for blind people or those in residential care. The installment plan does allow people to pay the fee over a different period, but afaik it does not reduce the overall charge levied.

put the leg work in; find the Act, research the payment schemes etc. etc. then we can discuss it.

I had a devil of a time finding it all last time i looked and I'm not going to start researching it all again just because you have a whim.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, I have no idea how much individual people paid for a television. Considering you can get a TV for £40 or so new from Tesco (and probably a lot less second hand) that's somewhat dwarfed by the cost of a licence for a single year. Our first 3 televisions in my family home were hand-me-downs from others and cost nothing, so I can't presume they've "shelled out" much for anything.

Until you pin down the 'benefits' you refer to your false maths is rather defunct.

Also ... darling .... playing the 'i was so poor' card ... one does so hate cliches - especially given that I can not actually play the violin (regardless of how small it may be)

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I never said it was. I don't own a television either. However I work, I have many social activities in my life. I have a computer and internet access. Not having a television brings me no problems at all. However, a friends mother is medically retired, has limited mobility, is on benefits and she depends on the television to a certain extent to keep her entertained. Yes, of course she could survive without it (obviously) but it would be pretty annoying.

Playing the heart strings is all very well but you don't actually know that she has to pay for a licence, nor do you know her benefit structure. Do please try to restrain your desire to prosletise.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Obviously we simply disagree here, my only point is that I would not single out regressive taxes like this as shining examples of fairness.

You've said regressive twice now. Not quite sure why: given we haven't even settled on the facts yet it seems rather rum of you to start jumping to conclusions.

May I remind you that GD is not the 'Mail on Sunday'.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

(There's also a side issue where some of the BBC's expenditure goes on services which are probably more likely to be received / accessed by those with higher incomes - internet and digital services being the obvious examples)

You don't think that perhaps it is to be applauded that the money raised by the licence, when found to be more than needed, is re-invested in further improving the service?

Does it not strike you as rather good that one can live without a licence (or tv) yet still recieve bbc radio perfectly free?

I do rather think the world service has done more for the poor.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You do know that the cost of a license is currently set by the government, right?

No it isn't.

And when you work out why you are wrong you may return to this thread. Until then you can continue to live under your bridge

[Nodrog]

Yes it is.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

(There's also a side issue where some of the BBC's expenditure goes on services which are probably more likely to be received / accessed by those with higher incomes - internet and digital services being the obvious examples)

The BBC's mandate isnt to just appeal to the masses, in fact its at the other end of the scale. They are supposed to be doing TV that commerical TV cant do (although the BBC gets critsised for doing TV that commercial stations are doing but 9/10 thats just because the commerical station rips the ideas off). Now I don't know about you but appealing to niche markets means having some programming that appeals almost exclusivly to the higher income people.

As for the digital issue appealing more to higher eaners, the BBC needed to invest into digital channels to boost the move to digital that ITV tried to royally screw up. If the BBC hadnt been the major player in getting Freeview up and running after ITV digital failed it would have put this coubtry behind most other nations which obviously isnt a good thing. If the country were however going to buy into freeview after the ITV fiasco they needed the BBC so that people saw that a respected broadcaster was willing to put their weight behind it

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Who do you think sets the licence fee?

The charter that allows the BBC to charge a licence fee has to be ratified by the Government, however the money doesnt actually ever pass through the the governments bank. And while the government could over turn any attempt to raise the licence fee if it thought it was excessive it acts on the BBC's recommdation and as the money is specifically earmarked for the desired purpose it adds a level of protection from interferance as they dont have to decide how its split as such (although the other terriestrial broadcasters do get a cut also, and they are also having their digital switch over costs paid out of the licence fee also)

[Mistwraith]

My boss bought a new TV for her house .. the TV license was in her partners name .. spam and threatening letters ensued ..

warnings that people would turn up ..

she ignored them...

eventually someone came to the door and asked to see the TV licence...

it was produced ... along with a lecture from my boss's partner about how they were wasting his money by not checking if the *house* had one first.

[wakey]

Originally Posted by Mistwraith

it was produced ... along with a lecture from my boss's partner about how they were wasting his money by not checking if the *house* had one first.

Does it actually waste "our" money though. Collection is after all handled not by the BBC who the fee goes to but its farmed out to other parties. I would imagine that thes collection agencies are probally paid a flat fee to undertake the collection and as such if they waste their time on things like this its not the licence fee being wasted but their own profit

[Mistwraith]

well even better then :-)

[A2]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There is a discount (or it's free, I forget) for those over 75, but that's of no use to people on incapacity benefits or whatever.

People 75 and over get a free TV licence, People who are 74 get a discounted license to last them until they are 75.

Originally Posted by TV Licensing website

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp

Am I entitled to a concession?

In some circumstances, you may qualify for a concessionary licence. For example, if you are over 74, you can apply for a Short Term Licence, which will cover you until the month you turn 75, at this point you become entitled to a free Over 75 Licence. If you are blind, you can apply for a Blind Concessionary Licence at 50% of the full licence fee. And if you live in residential care, you may qualify for a licence at £5 per year.

For more information on any of these concessions, and to see if you qualify, please choose from the options on the left.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

put the leg work in; find the Act, research the payment schemes etc. etc. then we can discuss it.

Well, the only scheme I can find is the Cash Easy Entry scheme. Details here. To quote the site :

It's a payment scheme open to people receiving income-related state benefits who are applying for a colour TV Licence. It allows you to spread the cost of your TV Licence fee by paying regular weekly or fortnightly payments.

Notice it says "spread the cost of your TV licence". Strange it does not say "reduce the cost". There is no discount given that I can find. The scanned letter they have on their site lists a schedule of payments which would bring the total payment charged to pretty much the full cost of the licence.

I presume the Act covering this is here : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm (this is old though, so there may be new benefits / discounts available, I'd like to know - if nothing else I know people who would benefit).

It outlines a number of scenarios relating to installment payments but yet again I see no specific discount available for those receiving JSA, income support or whatnot. The linked document explicitly says :

[for the blind]...the fee payable (including the amount of any instalment payments) shall be 50 per cent of the amount which would otherwise be payable for the licence in accordance with regulation

So that's blind folks out of the way. What about the oldies?

No fee shall be payable for a TV licence of a type referred to in the first or second entry in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 where -
(a) the licence is issued to a person aged 75 years or more or to a person who will attain that age in the calendar month in which the licence is issued;

So, no fee for them. Hurrah! People in residential care?

in the case of accommodation described or referred to in paragraph (a) of any of the definitions of "accommodation for residential care" in paragraphs 4 and 7 to 11 of this Schedule, the fee shall be £5.00 for each unit of accommodation specified in the licence.

So, as stated - it's a fiver for them. Once again, no gripes there.

Now, what about people on benefits? There is a mention of "Easy entry television licence" as already discussed and indeed, that applies to :

(a) the person to whom the licence is issued is in receipt of one or more income-related state benefits; and

Now, the way this is described is fairly complicated but it basically boils down to how payments are made. To be sure, the fact weekly / fortnightly payment options exist is a wonderful thing for people who receive their benefits weekly/fortnightly but this is not the same thing as a discount. Let's work through a couple of examples.

Option 1 : Where no payment is made in receipt of the licence before the due date - the first installment is to be £5. 25 further installments are payable weekly - 24 of £4.70 and 1 final payment of £3.20. So £121. Which is also the same value as the full cost of the licence listed earlier in the act.

Option 2 : Where the issue fee is £61.40. 10 further installments - 8 installments of £6 and 2 final installments of £5.80. Or...£121.

I could go on. Suffice to say, I am not intelligent enough to work out which options are available for those on income related benefits that I mentioned. You said

Originally Posted by Yahwe

It seems disingenuous of you to ignore the discounts given to those on benefits

All I ask if you explain which discounts are available to those on benefits (excluding the blindness / residential care / over 75 I've already covered). If they are then it is criminal that these discounts are not listed on the TV Licencing website. I know that our Welfare Benefits advisor where I work always advises people to pay their TV licence (for obvious reasons) and I am not aware of any discount he advises them to apply for (aside from the installment program of course).

I had a devil of a time finding it all last time i looked and I'm not going to start researching it all again just because you have a whim.

Fair enough, but I would appreciate your comment on the above.

Also ... darling .... playing the 'i was so poor' card ... one does so hate cliches - especially given that I can not actually play the violin (regardless of how small it may be)

Yawn. No-one is looking for sympathy dearest, I am merely countering your point of "They shelled out for a television" point. My point is merely that TVs can be absurdly cheap (when compared to the cost of the licence) and the fact someone has a television does not mean they have spent anything at all. We all benefit from sharing life experiences, and I am certainly not looking for sympathy. As I implied earlier, I pay an absolutley tiny proportion of my earnings towards a TV licence, and for the BBC News website alone I would happily pay more out of general taxation. I am merely outlining the scenarios endured by others.

Does it not strike you as rather good that one can live without a licence (or tv) yet still recieve bbc radio perfectly free?

Absolutley. And I am not saying the BBC is evil. I despise advertising and dearly love much of the BBC's cultural output (admittedly not much recently). Once again, I just don't like the fact the cost of the licence hits the poorer members of our society disproportionately hard. No, it's not driving anyone into homelessness (well, almost certainly not anyway) and no-one is starving because they paid their TV licence (again, one would think). But that doesn't mean it's a fair system.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by wakey

The charter that allows the BBC to charge a licence fee has to be ratified by the Government, however the money doesnt actually ever pass through the the governments bank.

It's pretty trivial to imagine some ring-fenced system of taxation where the government would be forbidden without an act of parliament in interfering in the finances of the BBC.

Yes, if the government were determined they could overturn the funding of the BBC, but that could be said now (after all, have not the Conservatives mooted the idea of scrapping the licence fee before?).

I understand your concern about impartiality and independence but the courts are funded partially through taxation and yet we trust them to act reasonably independently, do we not?

Ultimately, it's not just finances which will help retain independence of public bodies - it's legal structures, public scrutiny, proper governance and oversight, balance of political forces, etc. I can't be bothered to research but there's probably examples of publicly funded broadcasters overseas who retain a degree of independence.

(obviously this is probably exaggerating the existing independence of the BBC as it stands. Our government have acted criminally in Iraq and while I have read many criticisms of their actions I have not read a BBC headline wihch reflected the viewpoint of the majority of UK citizens - i.e. that we have acted criminally and Tony Blair should face some sort of charges for his actions. Ultimatley if we are to have publicly funded media then I would prefer to see this money distributed to a number of sources. The BBC may be independent but their overall editorial line on most issues is very similar to the broadsheets or to their commercial competetitors. As such, while there is debate it is only on a relatively narrow range of topics. This does not seem particularly healthy in a democratic society.)

14k posts mother-****er!

[furball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

14k posts mother-****er!

Congrats Dante.

[nick]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Nonsense. Selling price isnt directly linked to costs like that; a company will charge as much as the market will bear.

A company is quite free to set a price linked to costs, I am sure some do.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by nick

A company is quite free to set a price linked to costs, I am sure some do.

Yes, just as they're free to sell at a loss.

Cost-plus pricing and even selling at a loss can offer some benefits in certain situations; but generally and in the longer-term these are sub-optimal strategies.

[nick]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, just as they're free to sell at a loss.

Cost-plus pricing and even selling at a loss can offer some benefits in certain situations; but generally and in the longer-term these are sub-optimal strategies.

I made no claim that it was beneficial. I was just trying to assure nodrog that 'free market economics' isn't how the world works.