TV licence fee to be scrapped

[PF62]

And replaced with a TV tax payable by every household that “ is likely to cost some viewers more” as “wealthier people to pay more” with “ those on benefits paying less”

https://inews.co.uk/news/media/new-tv-tax-replace-...

[Lotusgone]

I think that's speculation rather than news.

[cuprabob]

Another ball of string to distract the media

[PF62]

Lotusgone said:

I think that's speculation rather than news.

True, but nonetheless interesting to see which way the speculation is going.

And It will be amusing seeing the reaction of the licence refuseniks to having to pay a household TV tax (which undoubtedly will just be added onto something else - Council Tax is being mooted) and will thus far more difficult to avoid paying.

[Wonderman]

Says subscription only article (one for Alanis)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/new-tv-...

This feels like one of their scatter gun approaches and see which annoys less. How do you spin that one, we take away BBC funding but tax your broadband/ add to council tax/ and means tested (because that costs nothing in admin) in return for fk all, sound like trying to make subscription more palatable or just another fiscal illusion to squeeze more out without taking it out as income / NI tax.

[General Price]

PF62 said:

True, but nonetheless interesting to see which way the speculation is going.

And It will be amusing seeing the reaction of the licence refuseniks to having to pay a household TV tax (which undoubtedly will just be added onto something else - Council Tax is being mooted) and will thus far more difficult to avoid paying.

What happens if people genuinely don't watch tv?

[PF62]

General Price said:

PF62 said:

True, but nonetheless interesting to see which way the speculation is going.

And It will be amusing seeing the reaction of the licence refuseniks to having to pay a household TV tax (which undoubtedly will just be added onto something else - Council Tax is being mooted) and will thus far more difficult to avoid paying.

What happens if people genuinely don't watch tv?

Tough luck.

As you can see from the proposals it might even be linked to a broadband levy, so easy enough to de-link the tax from TV viewing even though it will mostly be used to pay for the BBC.

Wonderman said:

Says subscription only article (one for Alanis)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/new-tv-...

This feels like one of their scatter gun approaches and see which annoys less. How do you spin that one, we take away BBC funding but tax your broadband/ add to council tax/ and means tested (because that costs nothing in admin) in return for fk all, sound like trying to make subscription more palatable or just another fiscal illusion to squeeze more out without taking it out as income / NI tax.

Subscription would never raise enough money - current BBC funding from licence fees from around 25 million homes is £3.75 billion.

How many would pay to subscribe to the BBC if you could watch other channels without paying?
1 in 10? - If so then subscription fee now £132.50 PER MONTH.

Edited by PF62 on Wednesday 8th June 17:57

[jameswills]

Impossible. With the advent of 4g and 5g you don't need conventional broadband services. Sure if they tack it onto council tax, that's the way to force people into paying the licence fee, but that will be a hard sell.

[PF62]

jameswills said:

Impossible. With the advent of 4g and 5g you don't need conventional broadband services. Sure if they tack it onto council tax, that's the way to force people into paying the licence fee, but that will be a hard sell.

So tack it onto all forms of data transmission, wired and wireless. You don't think the government would mind getting more tax, and only giving some to the BBC, do you?

And if they have already decided the licence fee is going, then unless they shut the BBC down, it is going to be added onto some tax somewhere.

[jameswills]

PF62 said:

So tack it onto all forms of data transmission, wired and wireless. You don't think the government would mind getting more tax, and only giving some to the BBC, do you?

And if they have already decided the licence fee is going, then unless they shut the BBC down, it is going to be added onto some tax somewhere.

I've always thought that they'd bring broadband services into the government fold, so I don't disagree it's beyond the realms of possibility.

However I think the horse has bolted, they are chasing their tails over something that the government don't understand, and are left floundering on how to tax it.

[PF62]

jameswills said:

I've always thought that they'd bring broadband services into the government fold, so I don't disagree it's beyond the realms of possibility.

However I think the horse has bolted, they are chasing their tails over something that the government don't understand, and are left floundering on how to tax it.

But do they need to tax *it*.

The government paying for something specific (the BBC) and having a specific tax for that thing is pretty unique - even the oft quoted 'road tax' doesn't pay for roads, but just goes into the big pot of money.

[jameswills]

PF62 said:

But do they need to tax *it*.

The government paying for something specific (the BBC) and having a specific tax for that thing is pretty unique - even the oft quoted 'road tax' doesn't pay for roads, but just goes into the big pot of money.

No, I'd argue the only tax we should pay is National Insurance. The rest should be locally sourced and raised. Income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax. Like all of them.

Tax is a scam, very very very small amount of it benefits you or your community.

[PF62]

jameswills said:

PF62 said:

But do they need to tax *it*.

The government paying for something specific (the BBC) and having a specific tax for that thing is pretty unique - even the oft quoted 'road tax' doesn't pay for roads, but just goes into the big pot of money.

No, I'd argue the only tax we should pay is National Insurance. The rest should be locally sourced and raised. Income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax. Like all of them.

Tax is a scam, very very very small amount of it benefits you or your community.

Nope. I have received far far more out of the system than I have ever paid in tax (and I have paid a lot of tax).

[jameswills]

You think you have. When you actually add it up you probably could have run your own island

[Countdown]

PF62 said:

Nope. I have received far far more out of the system than I have ever paid in tax (and I have paid a lot of tax).

Most people are net beneficiaries. The ones who state they're "Net Contributors" are either pretending or are st at costing stuff.

In relation to the original topic - if it goes on Council Tax the main people who'll be worse off are those who pretend they don't need one. You could add a flat rate levy to every CT bill.

[PF62]

Countdown said:

In relation to the original topic - if it goes on Council Tax the main people who'll be worse off are those who pretend they don't need one. You could add a flat rate levy to every CT bill.

That would be my bet. Easy to administrate, difficult to avoid, and deniability from the government as they are not the ones sending the bills.

[BossHogg]

I don't know why it can't sell advertising slots like commercial TV, they wouldn't need to charge any licence fee then.

[Mr.Chips]

So this is business as usual for Boris and Co. What a crock!

[Randy Winkman]

Mr.Chips said:

So this is business as usual for Boris and Co. What a crock!

With Nadine Dories in charge of this particular issue I think. When I say "in charge" I'm using the term loosely.

[Countdown]

BossHogg said:

I don't know why it can't sell advertising slots like commercial TV, they wouldn't need to charge any licence fee then.

I think that would upset ITV, Sky etc as well. The main impact would be advertisers spending less with them.