Yearly TV Licence? ...Really?

[Steve]

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve:
> > > It seems you are required to pay a £139 ($279) annual fee for 
> > > the privilege of watching Television in the UK. And, all that 
> > > money goes to non-profit 'public' television.
> > 
> > Goddlefrood:
> > 
> > It goes to the BBC, which also makes money on other projects. 
> > It means there are NO advertisements on the channel. Many in 
> > the UK grumble about the licence fee, but it's a small price 
> > to pay for what is a quality service (BBC). Or rather was a 
> > quality service.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry, that's it? $279 dollars a year ( sorry typing in dollars 
> since I cannot find pound site on my keyboard) is all that is 
> required?
> 
> Or is it in addition to cable TV fee? But even if it is in addition 
> to cable service, myself I would soooo pay it in order not to see 
> stupid advertisement, honestly.
> 
> Alla, dreams of no ads on TV.
>


bboyminn:

As someone else pointed out this $279/yr pays for 5 channels, some
radio, and a few other things, but 3 of those 5 channels are
commercial, so really it's only two channels. 

That's what I get for free here in the USA, meaning two commercial
free channels (PBS), though today's PBS can hardly be called commerial
free. They do have short, mostly unobtrusive, commercials for
organization who make extremely generous donations to PBS and would
like the world to know.

So, that's $279 if you have a TV, even if you don't watch it. This is
unrelated to Cable, satellite, or video from other sources. You pay
for those source independently.

As someone also pointed out my estimate of 15,000,000 UK households
was a bit conservative. They estimated 25,000,000 households which
comes to 6,975 Billion dollars per year. And as Goddlefrood pointed
out, BBC generates revenue from other source. That seems a lot of
money for what is essentially 2 commercial free channels.

Is this a tax? Well, it is mandated by law, and there are people with
police authority roaming the streets searching for TV Scofflaws, there
are penalties for non-compliance, so yes, I would say it is a tax.

My next and most important concern is that it is a mandatory tax that
burdens the poor. If you are middle class or rich, $279 is nothing.
But if you are down on the bottom of the economic ladder, that is a
substantial outlay of money. Especially when it is for channels that
you may not even watch. Though even I will admit that most likely you do. 

And even more so in an economy where housing prices are already
through the roof, gas is insanely expensive and always has been, food
I suspect is not cheap, utilities are outrageous, even garbage service
has turned near draconian with penalties and fines. Over all, on top
of the routine expenses of living, these poor people must now pay $279
a year when they are scraping by week to week. That just doesn't seem
right. 

Still, if that is how the do it, then that is how they do it. But I
can't help wonder whether the cost of enforcing the law is generating
enough revenue to pay for that enforcement. If seems like a system
that is ripe for a huge bureaucracy. A bureaucracy to collect and
account for the money. A bureaucracy to enforce collection and catch
scofflaws. Some on to collect those non-compliance penalties. Some one
to keep track of it all, and keep track of all the people, and people
to watch the people who watch the people. 

I just strikes me more as a system that consumes money rather than a
system that collects money with some assurance that the money actually
goes to the necessary cause.

Still, if that's the way it is, then that's the way it is. It doesn't
seem fair to the economically disadvantaged though.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bluewizard