Sylvia
|
Another Stealth TaxANOTHER STEALTH TAX
TV Licence Fee Increase
The BBC is to present a bid to increase the licence fee by 2.3% above inflation to a House of Commons select committee in order to fund the switch-over to digital TV on-demand services. If accepted, the licence fee would rise from £3.14 per year from £126.50 to £150.50 by 2013.
Is the BBC good value for money? Should the licence fee fund digital services? Or should the licence fee be scrapped altogether?
The following comments reflect the views and opinions of licence fee paying individuals.
Why haven't they scrapped this ridiculous 'tax' on people for watching television? I avoud terestrial channels wherever I can due to their poor quality and constant money-grabbing from viewers. I also discovered that the BBC abroad is showing adverts and obviously making money from them - why am I paying a fee when the BBC is making money from adverts? Paul Charters, Sutton, UK
I'm against having to subsidise the BBC for services on digital TV that we may never see, unless we pay again. That is plain theft if you ask me, why should we pay for their digital services? The money they get from them should service its own product. Bryan, Derby
Children In Need? More like Aunty Beeb In Need! For what we already pay for, it's extremely bad programme content on all BBC channels and personally, I cannot see that this proposed rise in the license fee will help matters any. Time to go commercial guys, before the proverbial brown stuff strikes the rapidly whirling circular object, if you know what I mean. Phil Jameson, Luton, England
Who's kidding who here? The fact is that we will have this increase rammed down our throats whether we like it or not. As the BBC is virtually owned by the government, and its 'official' political voice. It's yet another way for the Blair and Brown Club to raise more taxes! Those with plenty of money will never see anything wrong with rises because they can afford them. Ken Thompson, UK
The BBC should live in the real world where we can't just increase prices to maintain what we think are our rightful standards of living. I've not been able to increase my charges in my business for the last 10 years. Mr Stein, Shipley
It's about time that the Government's hold on the BBC was broken. As long as it's a Government mouthpiece, we will be subjected to this stealth tax dressed up as a licence fee. Let the BBC be funded by adverts or part of it, anyway, and stop the obscene bonuses and salaries to the top 'Executives' who do little more than delegate anyway. Thomas Lowry, Leeds, UK
|
marieann
|
I'm biased I'm afraid. I think the BBC is worth every penny. That their programmes always have the edge over any other channels offerings.
I always watch the news on BBC1 expecting a balanced view. To me the sports commentary is so much better and every now and then they produce a gem of a programme.
|
Sandie Seward
|
In other words, Marie, you feel that the BBC gives us value for money?
Personally, I don't think they do. If it wasn't for Eastenders, I would hardly watch BBC One at all.
Why can't they run ads like the other channels. They don't really get in the way of programmes, and some, are very entertaining in thier own way.
I am a very 'selective' viewer, and never watch t.v. because I don't have anything better to do. I select the programmes on all channels the week before, and only then do I switch the set on.
I know in some households, the set is on from the time they get up to the time they go to bed. I would hate this, and, thankfully, I'm active enough not to need daytime entertainment. The few daytime shows I have seen, are truely abysmal in their content, and seem to pander to the 'lowest common denominator'.
Returning to Sylvias' post. I cannot agree with the tv 'tax', because this is what it really is. It's collected by threats and intimidation, (witness those 'ads' recently run.)
No, Marie, sorry, I have to disagree with you over this issue. Hope you don't mind. 
|
marieann
|
I don't mind in the least admin most people do disagree with me over this and I can appreciate their point of view. 
|
dorramae
|
I agree with Marriane, the BBC is good with documentaries, and seems to put both sides of any issues. And now they have extra channels there is plenty of chose. The adverts on the others can be irritating at times.
|
Sylvia
|
Ah, yeah Dorramae, but why can't they self fund instead of passing the burden onto the viewers.
Not all of us watch BBC and therefore, perhaps it would be best if a 'Pay As You View' for those of you who love to watch the BEEB. After all, some people are financially better off than others and not in a position to keep meeting these increased costs! 
I agree with Admin on this one!
|
vailron
|
i would much prefer pay as you view, its about time the television licence fee was done away with, why should pay for a licence for bbc fat cat governors to receive huge pay rises, while lower paid staff are made redundant.
|
marieann
|
Hi Vailron I was wondering if you were ok. Do you have a good choice of channels where you are?
I'm a BBC fan I don't think I'm going to change now. 
|
vailron
|
hi, we have sky but unless one has sattelite telly we only have the 4 terrestrial channels, no ch 5 unless one has sattelite. i prefer a good book to be hionest, and at present i am reading books on ww1 whiule listening to dalziel and pascoe audio books.
|
marieann
|
We don't have sky just freeview but we get a good range of programmes on it, Tony likes it. I use the BBC's interactive channels for sport, they give more choice. It has radio as well but I suppose the sky box will too.
Your weather must really have changed now. We have had one or two cold days this week but last week it was nice enough to be out walking without a coat.
|
vailron
|
i too think it about time that the licence fee was abolished, do we really need to pay for programmes like children in need, why do the producers of that programme, put the cost of putting the programme on air towards their own fundraising effort, likewise the lottery show, that money should go towards helping charities.
|
Sylvia
|
Very well put Vailron, I second that. It is about time they used some of the Lottery money towards such things as Children In Need, I agree. Abolish the TV License fee, most of which goes towards making the 'Fat Cats' even richer. 
|
Sandie Seward
|
I have to admit to enjoying a good evenings viewing last night. Not, I hasten to add, on the Beeb, but on ITV3. First up there was the first ever episode of 'Goodnight Sweetheart' from 1993 with Nicholas Lynhurst (Rodney in Only Fools and Horses). It's all about this tv. repairman from 1993, who is sent out to find an address, and walks down an alley called 'Duckett's Passage', and finds himself back in Wartime London in 1940.
I shall watch all these again with interest, as they were really good the first time around.
Then, came 'Hornblower', another favourite of mine, and to finish it all off, an episode of 'Caedfel', the Medievel Benedictine monk turned detective.
"O.K. you say, so what is so special about these programmes to make them compulsive viewing?
They've all been shown before, and they're old now."
I think that is the beauty of them, they are extremely good television, and have gripping storylines. Well acted and directed, they are a credit to British T.V.
So, it seems my Saturday evenings are sorted for the next few weeks. Thank you, ITV3.
|
marieann
|
I think (not saying I'm right but saying it anyway) that it is because of the BBC that admin could enjoy Itv 3 last night.
Itv with its advertising revenue couldn't make their digital venture work they finally had to close it. The government told the BBC to do something about free digital for everyone and they did, they managed to pull freeview together. It is getting stronger as it goes along and very shortly will outstrip Sky. I can't find anything that says they got extra money to do this, I didn't think they had.
I just think we are so lucky to have an independent national broadcaster who doesn't knuckle under and do and say what the government tells them to.
Ok back to all of you .
|
vailron
|
unlike the bbc, which has to do what the government tells it you mean. how come the bbc charges a lecense fee, when the ukgold channels which are bbc channels are funded through advertising???? why cant the bbc do this.
|
Sylvia
|
We should be given the choice to opt out of watching BBC and therefore, not pay any fee. If we want the service, we pay for it, and if not then we do not. Then let's see how many viewers stay with the BBC. Enough is enough! 
|
vailron
|
i still reckon pay per view is the best option, maybe then we will all get out and do something else instead. personally i prefer a good book to the telly these days
|
marieann
|
Uk tv Gold is one of the pay channels on freeview. It is part owned by the bbc and part by a commercial channel(s) I think. You pay either 8 or 10 pound a month for this group of about twelve channels.
Look what I get from the beeb for just the license fee.
Stacks of channels.
|
vailron
|
like i said the uk channels on sky are bbc channels so why are they funded through advertising, while the bbc is funded through the out dated license scheme?????. anyway you are much better of reading a book. or like me listening to an audio book
|
Sylvia
|
The present license fee system is ostensibly a tax for the following reason: Uk residents are compelled to contribute to a central 'Pot' for the benefit of others in the community (regardless of whether they themselves benefit from whatever is being paid for). Therefore, this could only be justified (in the way that taxes are justified) if the service could be shown to provide a necessary benefit to the whole community (as in the case of refuse-collection, water and sewage treatment, etc). However, it cannot be justified in this way because there is no necessity about any of the benefits that BBC confers upon the nation.
So, I stand on my soap box and say to you all........Why should I have to pay for a service that most, non UK fee payers can receive for nothing? BBC World Service, are freely available to people outside of the UK. Couldn't we have TV's that don't receive BBC, so we don't have to pay for the licence fee? 
The fact is that we have this increase rammed down our throats whether we like it or not. As the BBC is virtually owned by the government, and its 'official' political voice, a way to raise more taxes. Those with plenty of money will never see anything wrong with rises because they can afford them. 'I can't!'
|
Sylvia
|
Trying to adapt to the other channel, the BBC, I concluded by switching it off. The programes are either boring, rubbish or repeats. ................NO CHANGE THERE THEN!!!! 
|
|
|
|