Should over 75's get free TV licenses?

[Guest MattP]

The BBC is now two generations behind, let alone one.

 

Television is now starting to move towards things like Amazon Prime and Netflix, advertisments will soon be a thing of the past and people will just be paying for a direct service for the shows they want to watch without interruption.

 

That said I do love the BBC and it's content, Daily and Sunday Politics/Only Connect/University Challenge/MOTD/Countryfile/Great Train Journeys/HIGNFY etc - The stuff they have grabbed from America like The Wire and the current OJ Simpson series, when they get it right they can nail it.

[Rincewind]

I break it down to what I watch. There may be a dozen films on throughout the year, some decent documentaries dramas and sport. If you look at the license as a subscription it is no more than a sports package from Sky. However personally I have been watching it less of late so the value is going down. Would people complain so much if the license was rebranded as a subscription where you could choose your own content?

[Benguin]

Nobody, be that someone with disabilities or an elderly person or any other kind of person, should get any thing free, with the exception of what is free to everyone else i.e NHS services etc, without being means tested. If an elderly chap is a millionaire he should cough up.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

I personally don't think anyone should be forced to pay TV licence. Why not be like sky and have people subscribe to the BBC? It's a piss take that everyone who has a TV or radio need a licence regardless of whether you watch or listen to the BBC. It's like paying mandatory road tax purely for the M1 and M6 whether you use them or not.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I personally don't think anyone should be forced to pay TV licence. Why not be like sky and have people subscribe to the BBC? It's a piss take that everyone who has a TV or radio need a licence regardless of whether you watch or listen to the BBC. It's like paying mandatory road tax purely for the M1 and M6 whether you use them or not.

You pay mandatory road tax if you are a registered owner of a car and you wish to be able to drive it on the UK's roads - which includes the M1 and M6, regardless of whether you use them or not.

Perhaps not the best analogy you could have given.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

You pay mandatory road tax if you are a registered owner of a car and you wish to be able to drive it on the UK's roads - which includes the M1 and M6, regardless of whether you use them or not.

Perhaps not the best analogy you could have given.

All I'm saying is its wrong to have to pay for something if you use it or not. So my analogy is right if you have a open mind and not so pedantic.

I will reword it for you though, it's like having a mandatory motorway (M1 and M6) tax that everyone has to pay whether they use the motorways or not.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

All I'm saying is its wrong to have to pay for something if you use it or not. So my analogy is right if you have a open mind and not so pedantic.

I will reword it for you though, it's like having a mandatory motorway (M1 and M6) tax that everyone has to pay whether they use the motorways or not.

I'm going to pedantic again, because in your first sentence you're saying it's wrong for you to pay for something if you use it... Or if you don't? So when do you pay for something?

I don't actually believe that's what you mean - you mean it's wrong to have to pay for something you don't use, so in theory I guess you are suggesting someone could own a TV and/or radio but never let their eyes or ears pass the content provided by the BBC.

However, that still makes your road / motorway argument a poor analogy to the situation you are trying to champion because everyone pays road tax and even if there are some people that religiously choose to not use motorways, they would still indirectly benefit from the fact that motorways exist (for example, diverting capacity from the non motorways they wish to use).

OR maybe your analogy is appropiate... but it just points to how flawed your argument is that someone might own a TV/radio but not benefit from the output of the BBC (i.e. Setting standards that commercial stations need to live up to) even if they're not directly consuming?

If your argument is people should only pay for the things they use, you could reason that the TV licence is the fairest and easiest way to apply this thinking in this situation - moving to a general taxation scenario would actually mean more people paying for something they don't use.

And so whilst I'm happy for you to have your own opinion on the subject, what I'm now highlighting to you is how confused your thinking is given the analogy you've provided - and I hope this actually makes you consider your position on this issue a little deeper, even if you don't change your mind.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

I'm going to pedantic again, because in your first sentence you're saying it's wrong for you to pay for something if you use it... Or if you don't? So when do you pay for something?

I don't actually believe that's what you mean - you mean it's wrong to have to pay for something you don't use, so in theory I guess you are suggesting someone could own a TV and/or radio but never let their eyes or ears pass the content provided by the BBC.

However, that still makes your road / motorway argument a poor analogy to the situation you are trying to champion because everyone pays road tax and even if there are some people that religiously choose to not use motorways, they would still indirectly benefit from the fact that motorways exist (for example, diverting capacity from the non motorways they wish to use).

OR maybe your analogy is appropiate... but it just points to how flawed your argument is that someone might own a TV/radio but not benefit from the output of the BBC (i.e. Setting standards that commercial stations need to live up to) even if they're not directly consuming?

If your argument is people should only pay for the things they use, you could reason that the TV licence is the fairest and easiest way to apply this thinking in this situation - moving to a general taxation scenario would actually mean more people paying for something they don't use.

And so whilst I'm happy for you to have your own opinion on the subject, what I'm now highlighting to you is how confused your thinking is given the analogy you've provided - and I hope this actually makes you consider your position on this issue a little deeper, even if you don't change your mind.

So what your saying is if the government decided to bring in a motorway tax for the M1 and M6 (separate to road tax) you'd be happy to pay it?

I'm just irked by the fact there is no opt out of BBC services.

The motorway tax makes sense in my head so I won't be changing my mind on it. I understand road tax is for everyone that drives a car but that's not what I'm saying.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

A motorway tax... Like the M6 toll maybe?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Oh and there is an opt out of BBC services... but involves completely opting out of TV.

You may not see that as an ideal scenario, but your view on use and benefiting is a narrow one of direct consumption - whereas you can benefit from something even if you don't directly consume and that's something that's certainly true when it comes to the BBC.

[Rincewind]

I pay taxes towards child services child hospitals and maternity wards but have no children. Could I opt out on paying for those?

What do Sky charge for their services per month? People are happy to pay for them.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

A motorway tax... Like the M6 toll maybe?

Do you pay that if you don't use the roll road? Poor reference

[Rincewind]

I think he is trying to say if they brought in something like a Superior Tax' for the M1 a sliding scale for roads like VAT.

 

Not saying I agree though.

[The Quick Brown Fox]

All I'm trying to say is you should be able to opt in or out of the BBC services

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Do you pay that if you don't use the roll road? Poor reference

Its not, it's a perfect reference for the scenario you've mixed up to try and form your argument.

The M6 toll road is an additional service that you can choose to use - so in the TV scenario, that's your Sky / Netflix / BT whatever... However, you can't use the M6 Toll without having first paid for the universal tax of car tax - so that's akin to the TV licence.

Road tax is a universal tax that is paid by all that wish to use it regardless of the degree of use. Those who drive 1 mile and 100,000 miles in the year can pay the same rate - so hopefully you can see how closely it links with the concept of a TV licence.

Yet you are against the concept of the TV licence (flat tax for all users) siting your preference for a subscription based alternative based on consumption - so my main point to you is that your analogy doesn't fit very well, it actually fits better to the argument you're against. A better anology for your stance would be electricity, where you are charged based on direct consumption - from the provider you choose.

But to also come round to the subscription based argument you support there is a problem with this when you consider the prime purpose of a public broadcaster over a commercial station is to produce unquie less mainstream programming that caters to a wider audience rather than produce things that appeal to the popular majority.

One final thing to consider... The TV licence debate has gone on for years and years and yet it's still in place at the moment - which probably suggests no ones really come up with a fool proof replacement that could work, otherwise it would be in place by now.

Is it ideal - well some could argue a flat tax like this is unfair on the poorest because it's a bigger proportion of their income, but I'm not sure there's actually a fairer way to obtain the funding to maintain the excellent service the BBC supplies. If you consider a TV licence over a year costs less than buying a newspaper each day of the year, it is astounding value for money in that sense (even if you feel the corporation 'wastes' money in certain areas).

[Rincewind]

The cost of going to the cinema twice a week and you can watch at least two a week. albeit old ones. 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

Its not, it's a perfect reference for the scenario you've mixed up to try and form your argument.

The M6 toll road is an additional service that you can choose to use - so in the TV scenario, that's your Sky / Netflix / BT whatever... However, you can't use the M6 Toll without having first paid for the universal tax of car tax - so that's akin to the TV licence.

Road tax is a universal tax that is paid by all that wish to use it regardless of the degree of use. Those who drive 1 mile and 100,000 miles in the year can pay the same rate - so hopefully you can see how closely it links with the concept of a TV licence.

Yet you are against the concept of the TV licence (flat tax for all users) siting your preference for a subscription based alternative based on consumption - so my main point to you is that your analogy doesn't fit very well, it actually fits better to the argument you're against. A better anology for your stance would be electricity, where you are charged based on direct consumption - from the provider you choose.

But to also come round to the subscription based argument you support there is a problem with this when you consider the prime purpose of a public broadcaster over a commercial station is to produce unquie less mainstream programming that caters to a wider audience rather than produce things that appeal to the popular majority.

One final thing to consider... The TV licence debate has gone on for years and years and yet it's still in place at the moment - which probably suggests no ones really come up with a fool proof replacement that could work, otherwise it would be in place by now.

Is it ideal - well some could argue a flat tax like this is unfair on the poorest because it's a bigger proportion of their income, but I'm not sure there's actually a fairer way to obtain the funding to maintain the excellent service the BBC supplies. If you consider a TV licence over a year costs less than buying a newspaper each day of the year, it is astounding value for money in that sense (even if you feel the corporation 'wastes' money in certain areas).

Sadly your argument isn't answering what I'm asking. I'm not talking about road tax I'm talking about an additional tax, but twist it all you like.

To say there is no alternative is ridiculous, itv and channel 4 manage without tv licence funding. The BBC should sell their airtime for adverts like every other channel.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Sadly your argument isn't answering what I'm asking. I'm not talking about road tax I'm talking about an additional tax, but twist it all you like.

To say there is no alternative is ridiculous, itv and channel 4 manage without tv licence funding. The BBC should sell their airtime for adverts like every other channel.

The point I was making about road tax was tackling your bad anology - but I can see your refusing to see my point, possibly out of embrassement, so let's move on.

The adverts suggestion is a silly one.

It is clear to anyone the vast difference in type and overall quality of programming between ITV / Channel 4 than the Beeb, and the reason for that is the differing funding models. The difference can also be witnessed between our public and commercial radio stations.

Additionally, a lot of commercial stations would be dismayed at this suggestion, as there's only so much market share in advertising revenue and that pot is decreasing given new streams of marketing - and you add the BBC in the mix, with its long established audience, you actually risk the futures of Channel 4, ITV and a lot of the freeview channels.

So I think in most circles, moving the BBC to an advertising revenue is off the table as an option. Next suggestion!

[The Quick Brown Fox]

The point I was making about road tax was tackling your bad anology - but I can see your refusing to see my point, possibly out of embrassement, so let's move on.

The adverts suggestion is a silly one.

It is clear to anyone the vast difference in type and overall quality of programming between ITV / Channel 4 than the Beeb, and the reason for that is the differing funding models. The difference can also be witnessed between our public and commercial radio stations.

Additionally, a lot of commercial stations would be dismayed at this suggestion, as there's only so much market share in advertising revenue and that pot is decreasing given new streams of marketing - and you add the BBC in the mix, with its long established audience, you actually risk the futures of Channel 4, ITV and a lot of the freeview channels.

So I think in most circles, moving the BBC to an advertising revenue is off the table as an option. Next suggestion!

That's your opinion, I would just like to see an opt out option. If there was one then all arguments are null and void. Sky charge what they like and there is millions of people silly enough to pay it. To be able to choose if you watch the BBC live should be choice you're allowed to make.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

That's your opinion, I would just like to see an opt out option. If there was one then all arguments are null and void. Sky charge what they like and there is millions of people silly enough to pay it. To be able to choose if you watch the BBC live should be choice you're allowed to make.

The opt out option is to not watch live TV (note, I believe you can watch subscription services such as Netflix without a TV licence).

You may feel that's unfair if you just want to watch just ITV / Sky or something other - but those channels and the viewer get an indirect benefit from the BBC existing as an independent public service broadcaster as it does.

There may well be a move for funding into general taxation at some point - I could see that happening - but that doesn't help you in a way because you'd still be paying for something you don't use, it'd just be lumped in with other services.