TV licence fee debate
Exchanges on an internet forum
I was alerted to a blog entry in which a fan of the TV licence fee (who I'll call Bill) posted responses to a campaigner for its abolition (who I'll call Sam). I tried to respond to Bill's points but when it seemed that my responses weren't going to appear, I posted them here. Eventually, my responses did appear, but my responses here are more detailed and in some cases more up to date. All the original text is reproduced here, though I've corrected spelling errors and converted some of the key words and phrases into links, while clarifying who said what. These exchanges happened well before the demise of Setanta's UK operation.
One
Sam says Like the poll tax, the TV licence fee takes no account of your ability to pay, nor how much (if any) of the service you use. It hits the lowest incomes hardest by percentage of income.
Bill says You could argue the same about food, drink, cleaning products, petrol, holidays, cars, trousers or virtually anything else. In fact, income tax is the ONLY thing that takes account of ability to pay. Everything else just costs what it costs. So the TV licence fee follows the same pattern as 99.9999999% of things in the universe. I don’t think this is a strong argument. Plus, as a percentage of income it’s fallen massively since the 50s. It’s now about 0.01% of average income, whereas it used to be about 0.07% - not a huge amount in either case, but definitely cheaper (in real terms) now. In fact, it costs slightly more than 38p per day. Crippling? I don’t think so!
I say But the TV licence fee is imposed by government and covers all TV, not just the BBC. As to the % of income, this is only an average. And while it may cost an average 38p per day, you don't pay for it that way. People on low incomes have difficulty in finding a lump sum once a year. Crippling? For some people, yes. The other thing to note when comparing historical costs is that the cost of a new colour TV used to be several times the cost of the annual TV licence fee. A basic colour TV now costs less than the TV licence fee for one year.
PS - I think Sam meant council tax, not poll tax.
Two
Sam says When it started, there was only one use for a TV set, and only one broadcaster so a kitty type setup was fine, this has fragmented so much now that the BBC are a minority entertainment service that you can’t unsubscribe from.
Bill says Actually in the UK more people watch BBC programmes than any other channel. You may not like their programming in all cases (I don’t either) but that doesn’t mean your argument is correct. They’re not minority. They may not please everyone, but they have the largest share of audience, consistently, across all age and social groups. Fact.
I say It may be that more people watch BBC programmes than any other specific broadcaster's channels, but that doesn't in itself make a majority, given that there are now so many TV broadcasters. I'd like to see statistics, but if the people who watch BBC programmes aren't a minority now, they'll become a minority eventually, albeit a large minority.
Three
Sam says The BBC forces itself onto the airways and we are required to pay for its upkeep regardless of whether or not we watch it. £139.50 is too much to pay for reality TV, vapid sitcoms and endless repeats.
Bill says Advertisers increase the cost of their products to pay for the adverts they show. The average cost of an Audi car, for instance, would fall by £7,000 if they did absolutely no marketing. You pay £7,000 per Audi, just for them to advertise to you. The same applies to everything you see advertised on TV. In 2000 the average ITV viewer paid more than £1000 per year in extra costs on products they saw advertised. Comparatively, the BBC is cheap! And vapid sitcoms? Yes. But also David Attenborough, The Office, BlackAdder, Fawlty Towers, Boys from the Blackstuff, Simon Schama, the best news channel in the world (without a doubt)… stuff you simply WOULD NOT see on a commercial channel. The BBC chase ratings, but they also produce masses of FANTASTIC material aimed at minorities who would otherwise be totally ignored.
I say If Audi didn't market their cars, nobody would buy them, but even if your figure of £7,000 is correct, it certainly won't all be spent on TV advertising. There are other ways to advertise including sponsorship. You should look at the market for potato crisps to see the necessity for advertising. Golden Wonder were the UK market leader in the seventies and eighties. Pepsi bought Walkers, launched a massive advertising campaign with Gary Lineker as the front man and the rest is history. If the BBC allowed advertising, the price of advertising would come down.
Four
Sam says At worst a service that you never use. We are forced to pay for a TV licence, what ever happened to free choice?
Bill says True, that’s the strongest argument. But have you REALLY never watched ANYTHING on BBC, or listened to the radio? Do you ONLY watch ITV or Sky? I doubt it. And if you do, you’re missing out on Dr Who and Jools Holland (to say the least).
I say The TV licence fee only covers TV, not radio. I depend heavily on BBC radio, but as I don't have TV, I don't need to pay the TV licence fee. This is what makes the whole thing silly. It's not a BBC licence fee, it's a TV licence fee. As such, if somebody wants to watch ITV, they have to pay it as well as endure all the advertising, while I continue listening to BBC radio without being required to pay anything.
Five
Sam says This is a complete monopoly (For example, I am a avid sports fan, I pay my money to Virgin media and the only TV I watch is Setanta, Sky Sports and Eurosport. But the nice people at the BBC think it's fair to force me to pay them for channels I'm not using.
Bill says Well, you only have yourself to blame. In 1980 all sport was shown for FREE as part of your TV licence fee (which was about £60 back then). Now you pay about £40 PER MONTH on Sky, Setanta, etc - and extra for premiership games, top movies etc. If nobody had signed up for Sky, the BBC would still show everything you want. You VOLUNTEERED to pay £45 per month for something you were already getting for FREE. Is it the BBC’s fault that you made a stupid decision? No, it isn’t.
I say In 1980, sport on TV was limited. Live football was limited to international matches, the FA Cup final and not much else. Most of the sport on satellite and cable channels wouldn't be covered by BBC TV even if all those channels shut down.
Six
Sam says You wouldn’t pay £140 a year to tax a car that you don't use, would you? (answer yes to this question and you are a moron, and I will gladly let you pay my car tax)
Bill says I repeat, do you NEVER watch Dr Who, Extras or the news? Never? EVER?! And before you call us idiots, remember who’s volunteering to pay £40 a month for something the BBC used to give you for free.
I say Speaking for myself, I never watch them because I decided not to pay the TV licence fee any more. Actually, I watched very few of the programmes you mentioned even when I did have TV. I've done without TV for more than a decade and I don't miss it. Sure, there are some programmes that I'd like to see but can't. However, I don't want to see them badly enough to think that the annual TV licence fee is worth the price.
Seven
Sam says Every other channel funds itself by advertising, so why can't the BBC do the same? They are already screwing us over by showing BBC programs on Dave and UKTV, where they receive money from advertisements. They can’t have it both ways.
Bill says Why can’t they have it both ways? I mean, the government has prevented them from increasing the TV licence fee, so they raise the money they need commercially. Isn’t that what you argue for? OK, you may dislike the TV licence fee in the first place, but it is INCREDIBLY cheap (38p per day), and provides 20+ TV channels, 50+ radio stations and the single best website in the world (it was voted best last year). If they didn’t sell old programmes to Dave, the cost of the TV licence fee would rise to a terrifying 44p per day (ooh, how will we cope, 44p for about 250 hours of new programming every day!).
You should also consider this: advertising revenues on TV are plummeting. ITV lost 30% of its income over the last 5 years. If the BBC had to fund 250 hours of programming per day by ADVERTS, the few adverts there are would be spread thinner - especially as the BBC has the most popular channels. So the income of ALL TV would fall, and programmes would suffer enormously - not just the BBC, but everybody.
I say The impact on ITV revenues was a factor in keeping the TV licence fee last time it was reviewed, but there are other ways. The BBC could be funded out of general taxation. Raise income tax if necessary to pay for it.
Eight
Sam says I'm not saying get rid of the BBC, Just want them to fund themselves or allow us to opt out of their service.
Bill says I agree you should be able to opt out. But if you do, your radio, TV and internet hardware would have to be amended to prevent you from accessing BBC content. And the cost of doing that would be prohibitively high. Can you imagine what you’d pay to have a thing fitted to your car to STOP you from getting BBC traffic news? Or what you’d pay to STOP your TV, digibox, Sky receiver, walkman, PC and every other device from getting Radio 1? It would be massively expensive. So yes, opting out is a good idea, but utterly impractical. Similarly, I’d like to opt out of paying towards the Iraq war by having my taxes cut. But it’s never going to happen, is it?
I say Radio is irrelevant, as you do not need to pay the TV licence fee to listen to it. The internet is easy as the URL will tell them what they need to know. That just leaves conventional TV, which is still costly, but nothing like what it would be if radio transmissions had to be filtered. In any case, I don't think anybody would seriously consider doing that. There are better ways including public funding through general taxation.
Nine
Sam says Why not have a system like PBS, where the rich and famous provide donations or a system that allows those on a lesser income to pay less? (can be done by the individual's tax code/band) - I am sure the likes of David Beckham, Bono and Elton John to name a few, have got money to throw around. How about they contribute to the devices that got them their money in the first place?
Bill says So your argument is that you don’t like paying for TV, so you’d like someone else to pay your share instead? And the richest people are mostly city traders - how does the BBC make them rich, exactly? It’s just not a proper solution. And the poor pay less? Yes, I agree - but it is 38p per day, as I mentioned. That’s less than the cost of a Twix. How poor do you have to be before the "lower" threshold hits? So poor you can’t afford a Twix? Seems a bit extreme.
I can see why people dislike paying a TV licence fee, but absolutely none of the arguments against it take into account what the costs of abolition would be.
Frankly if you want to save money, start pushing for government to abolish ALL taxation except income tax. Income tax is the only truly fair tax, but it’s been slashed (to make tax look low) while other unfair tax has been increased. Scrap road fund licence, TV licence, VAT and all other taxes, and increase income tax by 5%. It would be a fair reflection of people’s ability to pay, and nobody would moan about paying for the BBC any more.
I say Public funding through general taxation is the best solution. That doesn't require any money to be spent on filtering, and would actually save money as nobody would be required to look for fraudsters.
Links
| Career |
| The nineties job quest |
| Certificates |
| Jobs |
| Selected links |
| Britain |
|---|
| Conservatives |
| Greens |
| Labour |
| Liberal Democrats |
| Plaid Cymru |
| Scottish Nationalists |
| UK Independence |
| United States of America |
| Democrats |
| Republicans |
| Australia |
| Labour |
| Liberals |
3 comments:
http://debate2010.telegraph.co.uk/ideaview?id=087A000000003z7IAA
Please share your thoughts!
TV liecence is a joke.... It's a rip off. I do not hardly watch TV and can barely afford my electricity. Yet again, those with the least can ill afford this, the law says you need ..... per week to live on, yet no account of out goings all TV is repeats. and a scam. If tou live without, then great but why should you have to live in cave like existence, you maybe unemployed at present so, I know lets punish you and find ways to make you suffer....
Hi Peter
What's really a disgrace is that licence fee money pays for programmes to be made and broadcast on the BBC. These programmes are then commercially exploited worldwide, Top Gear being a great example. The BBC say a great deal of this goes back into programming but it doesn't. With Top Gear, they need to pay Jeremy Clarkson's fee of £250k per episode.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers
Post a Comment