Yearly TV Licence? ...Really?

[Mary Ann]

Steve wrote:
 
> 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. 

Mary Ann:

With Freeview, as I explained earlier, it's 5 BBC channels, a few 
dozen commercial channels (mostly crap IMO, but that's neither here 
nor there) and a good number of radio stations.  Granted, not 
everyone has Freeview yet, but, as I also mentioned earlier, the 
entire country's changing to digital within the next few years.  If 
one's telly set doesn't support Freeview, and practically any 
purchased within the past few years will, then boxes can be picked up 
for about £20.  The government has mentioned giving free boxes to 
senior citizens as pension money is tight and many of these people 
still have older sets.

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

And let's not forget what is lovingly called the BegFests.  In 
Toronto cable TV gets you the Buffalo PBS channel.  Goldie and Susan 
still haunt my dreams ("Send us yer dah-lers!").

Steve:

> 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.

Mary Ann:

If you don't own a telly then you don't have to pay, obviously.  If 
you're visually impaired you pay a substantially reduced rate.  When 
I first moved to the UK in '95 there was also a reduced rate for 
black and white telly sets, though those must be rare nowadays.

If you don't watch the BBC then you may be out of luck, to be blunt, 
but if you prefer stuff like Coronation Street, Big Brother and Dog 
the Bounty Hunter then you're probably more interested in satellite 
channels anyway, and would be willing to pay for that.  See more on 
that below. 

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

I defy anyone to come up with the documentaries which the BBC 
produces on just the profits of the TV licences.  Have you ever 
watched any David Attenborough specials, for example?

Now I'll happily admit that I have an extreme bias towards the BBC, 
which is why I happily pay my TV licence.  Pulling the TV licence 
would mean the BBC becoming a commercial station and, therefore, 
being completely dumbed down.  Personally I'd chuck my set through my 
front window if that ever happened.  I know what absolute crap (IMO) 
the vast, vast majority of Canadian and US television shows, and no 
way do I want that to happen to the BBC.  I can't give you 
statistics, but I know that I'm by no means the only person who feels 
this way.  BBC snobs abound in the UK, and outside the UK, too. :)

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

So would I, even though it's not called a tax by the official boffins.

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

This will sound like prejudice and stereotyping, but I defend my 
statement by pointing to my Honours Bachelor degree with a double 
major in sociology and anthropology, so my informal observation 
skills are strong.  Have a pootle around a UK council estate, be it 
populated by family homes or high-rise flats, and count the number of 
satellite dishes.  Yes, the TV licence is dear, as the British saying 
goes, but OTOH a good handful poorer people are willing to pay extra 
for satellite telly on top of the licence free.  It's a question of 
priorities, and for such people TV watching is a very high priority 
indeed.  This may be linked to what social scientists call 
the "benefits culture", referring to those families where two, or in 
some cases three generations of the same family have only lived off 
benefits and none have ever held a job.  I haven't studied this in 
detail myself, so I'm certainly no expert on the subject. 

Steve:

> 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. 

Mary Ann:

See above.  Also, I think that the licence can be paid in 
installments rather than in one go.  A few years ago you could go to 
the local post office and by TV Licence stamps, which you'd stick in 
a book and, when the yearly bill came, you used your stamps towards 
the payment.  My husband and I used to pay practically the entire 
licence fee that way, and that was with one pretty modest income and 
three small children.  I know the stamp system is no longer in 
existence, which is annoying.

Yes, this is an expensive place to live.  Like everyone else we need 
to budget for the necessities, and, for telly-owning Brits, the 
licence is a necessity.  The majority of us suck it up and get on 
with life.

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

I'm sure you're right and that the bureaucracy is a joke, but then it 
usually is, isn't it? :)

I hope you'll excuse the link to the BBC!

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7517143.stm

The story doesn't say anything about the total amount collected in 
fines and how much the venture costs, but licence fraud detection is 
a regular part of daily life for Brits.  My guess is that it's at 
least somewhat profitable, or they wouldn't bother with it.

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

Out of curiousity, what exactly do you mean by "the necessary cause"?

Steve:
 
> 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.

Mary Ann:

The UK government is pretty good with helping the economically 
disadvantaged via housing benefits, tax benefits, council tax 
exemptions, etc, provided you know your entitlements (that another 
rant for another day).  This is a country which allows my young son 
with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, who is high-functioning enough to 
cope in a mainstream school with a full-time one-to-one helper, to 
qualify for middle-range Disability Living Allowance (which is not 
means-tested) and, therefore, for me to currently qualify for (means-
tested) Carer's Allowance.  Of course the system isn't perfect, but  
darned if I'm going to gripe about having to pay for what I think is 
top-quality TV viewing while the government gives families such as 
mine such extra financial support.

Mary Ann, who thinks that life without the BBC's version of Mr. Darcy 
isn't worth living