Thatâs fine in principle, but completely unworkable in practice. I doubt that more than 10% of mulmedia devices are used to access the BBC, and my guess is that itâs a lot less than even that, so how on earth could a fixed levy on all of them ever be justified? I use the BBC a lot, but mainly radio, very rarely television. I donât begrudge the licence fee one iota, although the political bias accusations do strike a chord; there was definitely an anti-Corbyn slant to a lot of the BBC coverage, and the whole BBC anti-brexit agenda was pushed way beyond the bounds of any semblance of impartial reporting.
Why is it unworkable? We have a customs system which divides all manner of products into taxable categories, seems far easier, and less burdensome than the current system. I donât really care how much people actually use a particular device, or which BBC products they consume, itâs about a fair and equitable way of society contributing to the running of the BBC. Taxing those products which have the potential to access the BBC seems the fairest way to me.
You might as well say that the BBC should be funded through general taxation then, which would be entirely fair. Can you think of anybody you know of who doesnât consume media at all?
General taxation would be more open to political interference though, as the BBCâs budget would then either be set by or come under a Minister.
So, are you suggesting that the BBC should administer your proposed levy on electrical communications devices themselves, independently of the government?
As my original post said, it should be administered by the BBC Trust, which is independent of both the government and BBC corporate management.
I donât like any special arrangements for the BBC.
Theyâre not the only people producing content. Why should they get special treatment?
I genuinely think broadcast is in its last days. Apart from the generation just above me, whoâll channel hop and watch any old shit, weâre all our own TV schedulers these days.
Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous to suggest a medium that can still pull tens of millions is on its last legs, but in my house it is only ever put on for three reasons; reality shows, sports and news, and quite frankly, thereâs no reason why all of those couldnât be streamed on demand.
You are proposing a tax on goods. How can that be levied by anybody other than HMRC? The only way it could work would be for the government to apply the tax, and then hand the revenue to the BBC Trust. It would have to involve the government.
Thatâs largely how the licence fee works now though. If the BBC Trust administered, it would simply be the governmentâs responsibility to transfer that yearâs funding to the trust, they would not be able to debate the amount as it would be transparently clear how much due to the fixed levy, and they would have no say over how it was spent once the Trust had the funds.
I totally agree with you, but given how difficult it seems to be to let go of a funding model that is even older than the NHS, I think it may be some time before we see any real change to the status of the BBC.
Although itâs referred to as the TV Licence, it actually pays for a lot of media, of which I mainly use the radio output. Plenty of older people listen to stuff on there which wouldnât be worth broadcasting in an economic sense, itâs a public service for those who wouldnât get to hear old drama, comedy, documentaries, and music they would otherwise never be able to watch or listen to. They do a pretty good job imho, and I donât begrudge them the licence fee at all. How much do people spend on Sky packages, Netflix, Prime etc these days?
2 Likes
What, like National Insurance paying for our NHS, welfare, state pensions, and nothing else? Yep, that would work 
I think NI is only for state pensions isnât it? Never heard of it being used for anything else.
1 Like
Back to your original point. Wouldnât it be better to put the levy on internet suppliers(home/phone contract and the like) as thatâs the real point of entry?
The amounts on devices would be insignificant(less than 1% iâd guess), so that does make it easy to implement, but i feel the source of ability to connect would be fairer.
1 Like
BBC website reporting we beat Chelsea 2-0 today, is this for real is the BBC just up to their old tricks? 
3 Likes
Your National insurance number is actually a bank account number but which bank I donât know
1 Like
I begrudge them it, especially the news content. I only really tune in to find out what lies theyâre telling. The vast majority are sins of omission, but theyâll do sins of commission too.
I donât really want to pay for any of that.
Good point!
Iâm genuinely surprised by that comment, considering the views you often express on political threads. 
If you had BUPA and a hefty private pension, would you object to paying NI because you didnât use the NHS or need a state pension? I donât happen to have any children, why should I have to pay the element of council tax which funds education and so on, or the element of income tax that pays for child benefit and welfare? The principle of the BBC is that itâs a public service, not a commercial product being sold to those who decide they want to buy it. Iâve got plenty of issues with how itâs being run, but the basic principle is sound and one Iâd have fully expected you to espouse.
5 Likes
Itâs a good qualification you make. Iâm with pap on editorial stance but, as you say, the basic principle is sound.
Perhaps as a public service broadcaster they have a different obligation when it comes to reporting news?
Perhaps Garry Kasparov has a pointâŚ
5 Likes