Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 11:16:03 GMT
Endeavour is ITV ... nearly a good point.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 22, 2019 11:43:21 GMT
My reasoning to comparing the tv licence to the poll tax: The fee is fixed at one amount, regardless of wealth, salary or ability to pay. Taxes of this nature are generally deemed to be unfair and have disappeared from modern society. Income tax is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, and the rate becomes higher for higher earners. Council tax is 'banded' with the intention of those with more resources paying more, on the assumption that those with big houses have more money. Discounts are available off the banded rates for those with lower incomes 'council tax benefit'.
The TV licence, if viewed as a tax, which is the way I and many others view it, is regressive. Regressive taxation is seen as being a bad thing by the majority of people in our modern day society.
I accept that the licence fee is different from the pool tax in that the latter applied to individuals rather than households but this does not change the regressive nature of the fee.
I hope that explains it.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 22, 2019 13:37:01 GMT
One thing I think is wrong, if I want to watch nothing but sky sports, why should I have to pay the BBC anything?
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 22, 2019 13:45:35 GMT
One thing I think is wrong, if I want to watch nothing but sky sports, why should I have to pay the BBC anything? Because it's a TV licence, not a BBC licence. It's a tax on TV (including internet TV) or radio ownership. The only reason it still exists is because it generates £3.8 billion pounds a year that no government wants to loose out on - quite a sum. And somehow the BBC manage to spend £5 billion a year making Songs of praise and the antiques roadshow. Personally I don't think their output justifies this enormous figure.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 22, 2019 14:44:38 GMT
My reasoning to comparing the tv licence to the poll tax: The fee is fixed at one amount, regardless of wealth, salary or ability to pay. Taxes of this nature are generally deemed to be unfair and have disappeared from modern society. Income tax is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, and the rate becomes higher for higher earners. Council tax is 'banded' with the intention of those with more resources paying more, on the assumption that those with big houses have more money. Discounts are available off the banded rates for those with lower incomes 'council tax benefit'. The TV licence, if viewed as a tax, which is the way I and many others view it, is regressive. Regressive taxation is seen as being a bad thing by the majority of people in our modern day society. I accept that the licence fee is different from the pool tax in that the latter applied to individuals rather than households but this does not change the regressive nature of the fee. I hope that explains it. Tv licence isn’t a tax. A tax is something you have to pay, for no direct benefit. Like income and council taxes that get used to educate children (that I don’t have). Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I get a tax reduction. A tv licence is a licence to watch tv - entirely optional and if you don’t want to watch tv you don’t have to have one. When you go to the supermarket to buy a bag of sugar, would you expect it to be cheaper for a poor person than for a rich person?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 14:47:17 GMT
I'm not licensed to buy sugar. I have to get a certificate for it.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Sept 22, 2019 15:37:02 GMT
My reasoning to comparing the tv licence to the poll tax: The fee is fixed at one amount, regardless of wealth, salary or ability to pay. Taxes of this nature are generally deemed to be unfair and have disappeared from modern society. Income tax is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, and the rate becomes higher for higher earners. Council tax is 'banded' with the intention of those with more resources paying more, on the assumption that those with big houses have more money. Discounts are available off the banded rates for those with lower incomes 'council tax benefit'. The TV licence, if viewed as a tax, which is the way I and many others view it, is regressive. Regressive taxation is seen as being a bad thing by the majority of people in our modern day society. I accept that the licence fee is different from the pool tax in that the latter applied to individuals rather than households but this does not change the regressive nature of the fee. I hope that explains it. Tv licence isn’t a tax. A tax is something you have to pay, for no direct benefit. Like income and council taxes that get used to educate children (that I don’t have). Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I get a tax reduction. A tv licence is a licence to watch tv - entirely optional and if you don’t want to watch tv you don’t have to have one. When you go to the supermarket to buy a bag of sugar, would you expect it to be cheaper for a poor person than for a rich person? Any discussion about different priced goods for different groups of people, depending on their ability to pay, would be a long one. Happy to go there and I'd probably be on your side but that's not what's being discussed here. Here we are discussing a charge all who watch television must pay, regardless of whether they watch the service the charge is earmarked for. If you don't pay the charge, and watch t.v., you are committing a criminal offense. There's no competition for the charge, you can't, for example, choose to support a different t.v. station with your money, rather than the BBC. The BBC is an organisation created and supported by government charter. It has a funding formula supported by government and subject to protections (criminal offense not to pay and possible prison) that no other commercial organisation enjoys. You have to pay council tax if you live in a house, regardless of whether you use the services it pays for, or not. You have to pay the t.v. licence tax if you watch television, whether you watch the BBC, or not. It's the same, they are both taxes, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 15:56:19 GMT
Apparently if you just tell them to fuck off you don't have to pay.
I was tempted to tell them I do not have a telly but I'm sure they would see that as a scam as everyone has a telly so it would be pointless.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 22, 2019 16:21:26 GMT
Apparently if you just tell them to fuck off you don't have to pay. I was tempted to tell them I do not have a telly but I'm sure they would see that as a scam as everyone has a telly so it would be pointless. Best avoided by not having an address.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:40:33 GMT
Apparently if you just tell them to fuck off you don't have to pay. I was tempted to tell them I do not have a telly but I'm sure they would see that as a scam as everyone has a telly so it would be pointless. Best avoided by not having an address. I have a postal address but as it is a boat it is not accessible in the same way as a normal dwelling.
|
|
|
Post by deadly on Sept 22, 2019 16:47:05 GMT
My reasoning to comparing the tv licence to the poll tax: The fee is fixed at one amount, regardless of wealth, salary or ability to pay. Taxes of this nature are generally deemed to be unfair and have disappeared from modern society. Income tax is a percentage rather than a fixed amount, and the rate becomes higher for higher earners. Council tax is 'banded' with the intention of those with more resources paying more, on the assumption that those with big houses have more money. Discounts are available off the banded rates for those with lower incomes 'council tax benefit'. The TV licence, if viewed as a tax, which is the way I and many others view it, is regressive. Regressive taxation is seen as being a bad thing by the majority of people in our modern day society. I accept that the licence fee is different from the pool tax in that the latter applied to individuals rather than households but this does not change the regressive nature of the fee. I hope that explains it. Tv licence isn’t a tax. A tax is something you have to pay, for no direct benefit. Like income and council taxes that get used to educate children (that I don’t have). Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I get a tax reduction. A tv licence is a licence to watch tv - entirely optional and if you don’t want to watch tv you don’t have to have one. When you go to the supermarket to buy a bag of sugar, would you expect it to be cheaper for a poor person than for a rich person? Does the supermarket act like it has the right to search your home for sugar? does it insist you must be a sugar user and treat you like a liar if you're not? does it send you hate mail and repeatedly harass you at home ignoring all requests to stop?
I'm pretty sure this supermarket sugar analogy is broken. Sugar does none of those things, and its vendor lets you opt completely out of its use without expecting a right to periodically harass you. If TV License did likewise, you'd have a point.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Sept 22, 2019 16:52:31 GMT
Best avoided by not having an address. I have a postal address but as it is a boat it is not accessible in the same way as a normal dwelling. But they can send demands to your address, if you didn't have one they wouldn't know your "dwelling" existed. Or ignore them. When I was feeling, let's just say rather low for a couple of years, I let everything spiral ever so slightly out of control. I only opened letters if they had a court stamp on them for instance. When I finally caught up I had a pile of 24 monthly letters from HMRC demanding national insurance basic payments. Each one was identical and threatened court action and dire consequences if I didn't pay up within a month. Nothing ever happened so I guessed that it only would have if I'd responded in some way. I think a lot of small debt things work like that - computer sends threatening letter and the actual real people do nothing but wait with their fingers crossed. I expect if any human did look at it, it was for seconds and they probably assumed I'd moved.* *Not recommending such behaviour of course, I'm normally on the ball and paid up, I hate debt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:55:46 GMT
One thing I think is wrong, if I want to watch nothing but sky sports, why should I have to pay the BBC anything? Because it's a TV licence, not a BBC licence. It's a tax on TV (including internet TV). Bullshit right there. You only need a licence for watching or recording content as it's broadcast live on TV. If you're streaming on-demand movies or TV shows on Netflix, YouTube or Amazon Instant Video (or any other online video service) you don't currently need a licence. source: which.co.uk
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Sept 22, 2019 17:00:22 GMT
Because it's a TV licence, not a BBC licence. It's a tax on TV (including internet TV). Bullshit right there. You only need a licence for watching or recording content as it's broadcast live on TV. If you're streaming on-demand movies or TV shows on Netflix, YouTube or Amazon Instant Video (or any other online video service) you don't currently need a licence. source: which.co.uk Any on demand service except bbc iplayer
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 22, 2019 17:07:06 GMT
Tv licence isn’t a tax. A tax is something you have to pay, for no direct benefit. Like income and council taxes that get used to educate children (that I don’t have). Just because I don’t have children doesn’t mean I get a tax reduction. A tv licence is a licence to watch tv - entirely optional and if you don’t want to watch tv you don’t have to have one. When you go to the supermarket to buy a bag of sugar, would you expect it to be cheaper for a poor person than for a rich person? Does the supermarket act like it has the right to search your home for sugar? does it insist you must be a sugar user and treat you like a liar if you're not? does it send you hate mail and repeatedly harass you at home ignoring all requests to stop?
I'm pretty sure this supermarket sugar analogy is broken. Sugar does none of those things, and its vendor lets you opt completely out of its use without expecting a right to periodically harass you. If TV License did likewise, you'd have a point.
If you get a bag of sugar from the supermarket and try to leave without paying for it, they can detain you and you can be prosecuted. Seems pretty indistinguishable from watching tv without paying, except that the crime occurs in your own home, not as you try to leave the supermarket. As you say, the private company that has the enforcement contract do push their luck, but that is nothing to do with the concept of having a tv licence, only a bit of detail about how it is enforced.
|
|