[Brekkie]

In the context of the cost of living the minimum wage is going up as much per hour as the licence fee is going up per month.

People will moan whether the rise is £10 or £15 anyway, so going for the higher amount which costs people an extra 38p a month but means less BBC cuts would be worth it - and as we've seen this week with so much else going on the announcement is somewhat unnoticed anyway.

A decade ago the BBC having to save £90m didn't seem too big a deal - now it feels like it could be critical. It's not so much this lower increase that hurts the BBC but the freeze over the last two years at a time of very high inflation.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Appeasing people who know the cost of everything and the value of nowt does seem to have been a hallmark of this country's political decision making over the last decade or so, so the recent announcement is not a surprise.

The license fee does need a rethink, and a system linked to general taxation or the council tax has a lot going for it, not least removing the cost of administering the license fee, and being harder to evade and having structures for means testing built in.

Perhaps sweetening that by incluoding the transmission costs of the BBCB multiplex - I assume the other PSBs which have their HD service on there are paying for that at present, so being able to say that this chunk of tax is supporting all PSB would be politically useful.

Some limits on talent and exec utive pay would make sense.

[Stuart]

The license fee does need a rethink, and a system linked to general taxation or the council tax has a lot going for it, not least removing the cost of administering the license fee, and being harder to evade and having structures for means testing built in.

I think they'd be drifting into dangerous territory with that idea.

They'd be forcing payment from people who've made a conscious decision not to meet the criteria for a TVL. My Father hasn't even owned a TV for about 20 years, so why should he pay for a service that he cannot possibly use?

[Toby brown]

I think they'd be drifting into dangerous territory with that idea.

They'd be forcing payment from people who've made a conscious decision not to meet the criteria for a TVL. My Father hasn't even owned a TV for about 20 years, so why should he pay for a service that he cannot possibly use?

Does he have a radio Or internet?

[Steve in Pudsey]

That's kind of the point, that linking it to the TV alone makes no sense in this era.

I find it hard to believe that anybody doesn't consume some BBC output or benefit from the BBC in some way, but some of my taxes pay for museums that I don't visit, schools that I don't necessarily benefit from as I don't have kids, grants to sports organisations etc.

[Stuart]

That's kind of the point, that linking it to the TV alone makes no sense in this era.

I find it hard to believe that anybody doesn't consume some BBC output or benefit from the BBC in some way, but some of my taxes pay for museums that I don't visit, schools that I don't necessarily benefit from as I don't have kids, grants to sports organisations etc.

Services provided by the State are funded through general taxation. You contribute regardless of whether or not you use them.

The BBC is quite specifically not a State provided service. It certainly has PSB commitments, but so do some others.

---

Does he have a radio Or internet?

He doesn't have a radio, and he pays an ISP for access to the internet.

Saying "You've got access to the internet, therefore you must pay for the BBC" really is a stretch too far. They won't get away with making it a household levy.

[interestednovice]

The BBC is not a state broadcaster, no, but you could still fund it via another tax if appropriate safeguards were in place. A separate hypothecated element of Council Tax, that went straight to the BBC, for example would do this.

There is no reason the government couldn’t “collect” the tax on behalf of the BBC. This wouldn’t politicise the BBC itself as such an arrangement would be agreed far into the future, so would continue regardless of who was in government.

[Stuart]

The BBC is not a state broadcaster, no, but you could still fund it via another tax if appropriate safeguards were in place. A separate hypothecated element of Council Tax, that went straight to the BBC, for example would do this.

There is no reason the government couldn’t “collect” the tax on behalf of the BBC. This wouldn’t politicise the BBC itself as such an arrangement would be agreed far into the future, so would continue regardless of who was in government.

There is no justification for doing it through general taxation or the Council Tax, regardless of safeguards.

I pay for the TVL because I consume their services and I also watch/record live TV from other channels. However, if I didn't meet the criteria for a TVL, then I would be rather annoyed about a backdoor method to make me do so in another way.

The funding model certainly needs to be addressed, but this is not the answer.

[interestednovice]

I think the justification is that the vast majority of people do use the BBC in some form, even if they (legitimately) don’t watch TV or iPlayer.

It’s also not unprecedented that taxes pay for things that most/a lot of people use but you might not yourself. Schools, for example, being a big one. If you have no children, you fund them anyway. If you send your children to private school, you fund state schools anyway.

Even the way the TVL works now isn’t a straight payment for BBC services - as you say yourself, you have to pay it if you watch any TV (even if you never watch BBC channels) yet the BBC’s radio services and website are just free. That makes no real sense.

[all new phil]

There is no justification for doing it through general taxation or the Council Tax, regardless of safeguards.

I pay for the TVL because I consume their services and I also watch/record live TV from other channels. However, if I didn't meet the criteria for a TVL, then I would be rather annoyed about a backdoor method to make me do so in another way.

The funding model certainly needs to be addressed, but this is not the answer.

There’s plenty of justification for doing it this way. My bins being emptied isn’t politicised because my council tax pays for it.

I don’t have kids, but I don’t begrudge my taxes going towards education because it’s in our interest that we have a country of educated people. Likewise I don’t watch much BBC, but society benefits from its existence so I accept paying.

The council tax option for BBC funding is the best way of doing it.