Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#521

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

afavour wrote: post #518
ouid wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then pay for it with taxes on sales of television sets themselves.

Pay for a recurring service via a one-off payment? What could go wrong?! Aside from that, a TV license is £157 a year. Let's say a TV lasts three years (which feels conservative, pretty sure I had my last TV for eight), you'd need to get the buyer to pay an extra £471 when they purchase their TV. How is front-loading such a payment in the interests of the viewer? Not to mention you don't have to pay the fee if you're…

You can set the rate of the tax to account for the time value of money, charging less up front than you would for the sum total of the subscription over the life of the device.

You could argue that increasing the up front cost is a regressive tax, but you should be able to more than make up for that by not needing to pay fleets of trucks to drive around all day looking to find TV tax scofflaws.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#522

Post by saberdancer »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #495
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it from political interference.

It's how the CBC is structured. They receive funding from taxes and their own revenue streams: merchandizing, advertising, syndication, and so on. It works. That is, it works until it doesn't. The CBC is entirely "free" to every Canadian who wants to use it, and it is fantastic . I wish it were expanded in scope. But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. Usual…

I understand the logic between removing it from taxes, but I find it hard to accept that this gave it any degree of independence.

If opposition got in power and wanted to dismantle BBC or CBC, I'm sure that the fact that they gain their funding through a fee rather than tax is not something that would stop them. In the end, the fee was specified and allowed them to use it by some law that was passed in the parliament.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#523

Post by saberdancer »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #405
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it from political interference.

That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people to pay a “TV license” and legislation forcing people to pay more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC is effectively the same thing. Except the latter is more efficient.

Forcing people to pay a TV license means you need to send the bills to people, you need to enforce payment, you need to track payment, you need to sue people who do not pay.

All just so that you get an illusion of independence from political power.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#524

Post by saberdancer »

SllX wrote: post #480
lotsofpulp wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t the law be written so that the allocation can’t be changed (as easily)? Even right now, the politicians can choose to enact legislation to modify or remove the tv license fee.

During renegotiation, sure Parliament can opt not to renew. But for the duration of the charter, the BBC has an uninterrupted period of collections beyond the fiscal year of the government, which cannot be raided to fund the new social program of the day.

Couldn't the Parliament negotiate with BBC to allow them funding of XY pounds per citizen. Amount to be transferred monthly from the taxes.

It would have the same effect. For the duration of the charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without interference from the government. Only difference is method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of collection.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#525

Post by saberdancer »

nmeofthestate wrote: post #491
saberdancer wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of this license fee in this day and age? Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "t…

The license fee is fairer than a tax, because if you don't watch terrestrial television you don't have to fund it. For example, if you just watch Netflix, you don't need to pay for a license fee. If the license fee were replaced with a tax I would end up paying more than the cost of a license fee for something I don't use - not keen.

This depends on the country. In some countries you pay the license if you own a car or a computer.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#526

Post by zwaps »

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #248
haspok wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the UK there is content on TV worthy of watching (I got addicted to snooker while there, also some quite interesting shows like "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole"), also, when I moved overseas they paid back the licence fee for the remaining part of the year, no questions asked. Now I'm in Austria and the "content" on TV channels is just ridiculous. Targeted at 70+ pensioners, but why should I pay for t…

> Now I'm in Austria and the "content" on TV channels is just ridiculous. small demography of 9MM, so the only way to differentiate themselves against bigger German channels is to produce content specifically for that niche. Shows in Austria/CH only value-add are a "local dialect" of actors, or setting the plot/story within Austria/CH. Other than that it's either a poor local copy of German shows (which are often cop…

Germany has a considerably larger population than the UK, and the German public broadcasters are equally terrible as the one in Austria.

Good series or programs produced by public television you can count on one hand. Literally.

Indeed, they also invest most of their money in entertaining old people. This may be due to the aging population, but I'd rather assume it's good old grifting.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#527

Post by Chris2048 »

vaduz wrote: post #487
Chris2048 wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have a TV, nor do I need one. Would I get a rebate?

You can apply for exemption [0] - needs to be reconfirmed every 2 years and sometimes more often if TVL/Capita thinks there 'might' have been changes you did not report (e.g. you subscribed to a service that participates in their reporting scheme - NowTV is one of the providers that reports their customers). You pay nothing if you qualify for one of the four exemption bases. Note: if the exemption lapses without a ne…

I hear the application counts as a kind of contract - plus it requires disclosing information to them.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#528

Post by callamdelaney »

sdunwoody wrote: post #412
callamdelaney wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is to let people who want to watch and consume bbc content pay for it, and let everybody else not pay for it. It's very simple.

The BBC would face significant cuts if that was the case. It would likely end up at a point where the quantity and quality of content was reduced due to less revenue, which then would cause additional people to cancel subscriptions. This would be quite damaging for the UK as the BBC is a great way of projecting soft power, plus it provides quite a lot of great resources (as has been pointed out in other comments). I'…

So I should pay the license fee to keep the quality of content I don't watch high? If the BBC's value proposition is so good, it will have no issue convincing the public of that.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#530

Post by SllX »

saberdancer wrote: post #524
SllX wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During renegotiation, sure Parliament can opt not to renew. But for the duration of the charter, the BBC has an uninterrupted period of collections beyond the fiscal year of the government, which cannot be raided to fund the new social program of the day.

Couldn't the Parliament negotiate with BBC to allow them funding of XY pounds per citizen. Amount to be transferred monthly from the taxes. It would have the same effect. For the duration of the charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without interference from the government. Only difference is method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of collection.

Wouldn’t be much of a Royal charter if the BBC became an Office of the Government.

If you are an agency which wishes to retain some modicum of control over your own destiny, then you most likely wish to retain some modicum of control over your sources of revenue.

Post reply on HN