Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC. Under the proposed changes it would be expanded to cover all other online providers, such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube, which are currently exempt.
The Whitehall source explained that the move was “because people are able to use them to avoid paying currently”. They added: “It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”
Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying “everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet”.
At that point, you might as well just take it from the government budget.
It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch, because it only applies in certain circumstances. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.
Much like car tax is about whether or not a person drives a car.
I wasn’t referring to road tax, I was referring to income tax. just because I drive a car, I cannot (and should not) be able to reclaim the proportion of tax I pay that is put towards public transport infrastructure.
Genuine question, which part of this is referring to income tax?
The only tax reference i’m seeing is the one that specifically prefaces it with “if you drive a car”.
Another genuine question, i’m not seeing how
Relates to anything in my reply.
Not looking for a fight , it seems i’m legitimately missing something important here.
Sorry, I was extremely unclear.
When I gave the example of VED, the premise I was trying to demonstrate is that even if one drives a vehicle and pays their VED, a proportion of the income tax they pay still goes toward funding public transport services. Even if they’re not using them (which they can demonstrate by showing their VED status), they are still required to support those services.
The “Public Broadcasting” tax idea that I support works in the same way. Even if I don’t want to watch anything created by the BBC, the BBC still provides a vast swathe of information that is helpful to the general public. Even if I’m not directly benefiting from it, I should still contribute, in some small fashion, toward the upkeep thereof. Income tax is the primary source of this kind of public funding.
Although I’m not quite sure why I said “I’m wasn’t referring to road tax”. I think I was trying to make the assertion that this shouldn’t be an optional thing in a super roundabout fashion.
Ah, that makes sense, so that bring me back to another reply i posted at the start.
It only applies in certain circumstances, because that’s how it was implemented.
If a public broadcasting tax is what they want, then they should introduce it that way, not a slow creep of additional conditions and charges like some shitty subscription service .
It makes it look like they are too cowardly to just make it a universal mandatory tax.
The tax idea you suggest is a reasonable approach, but it isn’t how it currently works, which is why i was saying that it’s very specifically about if the individual meets the criteria that exist right now.