BBC puts forward levy on broadband bills idea

[ik9000]

Cat you're on the money again, though I've only skim read. But yes. The Tories are in Murdoch's pocket and doing what they can to defund the BBC. It seems somewhat blatant to me. People grumble about paying for the BBC, but they tend to be the same people who grumble about road tax (but still want to be able to use the road - but for free thank you), and who want the council to collect their garden waste, but grumble about a surcharge for it etc. Things cost money, and by far the best way of getting stuff is general levies paid by all with not-for-profit enterprises run as public services. It works out better for healthcare, better for public TV services, would work better for internet provision if we bothered to get our act together, would work better for trains and transport, and so on. Privatisation brings capital, but then markets consolidate, barriers to new entry build to become unassailable and competition is increasingly being shown to be BS. PLCs are beholden to their shareholders only in the end. The customer is simply a commodity in that equation - to be exploited. Sod that. The BBC need to stick to political neutrality and stop forcing an ultra liberal agenda, beyond that the music, radio, sports, etc is 2nd to none and it will be a huge loss if it were to go. Unless you're in Murdoch's pocket of course.

[gagaga]

... by far the best way of getting stuff is general levies paid by all with not-for-profit enterprises run as public services. It works out better for healthcare, ......

You sure about that? We currently effectively have no health service in this country - the NHS is mostly shut, GPs have put up barricades and refuse to see patients, private hospitals are being held in reserve by the NHS so are mostly closed as well. We have a tsunami of cancer and other chronic illnesses building that will result in 10s of thousands of early provable deaths. The total for COVID 19 for patients with no previous serious condition is currently less than 1200 dead - in the next year that will look like a rounding error compared to the other deaths directly caused by the response to this driven my the MSM. Remember we proposed an approach similar to the Swedes until the MSM forced the governments hand. Let's compare outcomes to them a year from now. We'll have many more excess suicides from failed businesses and marriages than that.

For this we 're paying about £150 billion this year.

Most of the public sector is still partially if not totally shut. We've had most state teachers sat on their arses whining about being embarased to be on Zoom claiming fear whilst merrily out shopping in supermarkets where the staff have been exposed all along (total dead: none). Meanwhile, private schools have mostly provided a somewhat complete curriculum. Many state schools are throwing up barriers against reopening this week. I'm not sure why I should be paying for these people to have a six month holiday on full pay.

Your comment about road tax is a perfect example of how bad things are - £35bn raised in direct motoring taxation, only £10bn spent on maintaining and building roads. I suspect what you want is lots of lovely public services that *you* don't want to have to pay for.

And please, whining about Murdoch ranks intellectually about the same level as still blaming Thatcher for everything 30 years after she left office.

[flearider]

Cat you're on the money again, though I've only skim read. But yes. The Tories are in Murdoch's pocket and doing what they can to defund the BBC. It seems somewhat blatant to me. People grumble about paying for the BBC, but they tend to be the same people who grumble about road tax (but still want to be able to use the road - but for free thank you), and who want the council to collect their garden waste, but grumble about a surcharge for it etc. Things cost money, and by far the best way of getting stuff is general levies paid by all with not-for-profit enterprises run as public services. It works out better for healthcare, better for public TV services, would work better for internet provision if we bothered to get our act together, would work better for trains and transport, and so on. Privatisation brings capital, but then markets consolidate, barriers to new entry build to become unassailable and competition is increasingly being shown to be BS. PLCs are beholden to their shareholders only in the end. The customer is simply a commodity in that equation - to be exploited. Sod that. The BBC need to stick to political neutrality and stop forcing an ultra liberal agenda, beyond that the music, radio, sports, etc is 2nd to none and it will be a huge loss if it were to go. Unless you're in Murdoch's pocket of course.

but what if i don't watch tv? then why should i pay for it ? i'll watch a film or 2 a tax for the bbc is stupid .. let them use adverts to gain money .. like everyone else a fair playing field not a bag of cash from the tax .. then we will see it become more stream lined and the wage of directors and actors drop ..

[ik9000]

but what if i don't watch tv? then why should i pay for it ? i'll watch a film or 2 a tax for the bbc is stupid .. let them use adverts to gain money .. like everyone else a fair playing field not a bag of cash from the tax .. then we will see it become more stream lined and the wage of directors and actors drop ..

I don't have children. Why should I pay towards schools?
I don't commute in a car, but I still pay the same road tax?
I don't currently need the NHS so why I should I pay to it when it's only sick people who need it?

Yeah, great attitude to have. It's so cheap in real terms vs a monthly subscription to a private TV offering I don't understand why people are complaining. Currently you have to have a TV licence to watch any TV. That is already a tax. The difference is that money gets invested into the BBC for a publicly owned broadcaster to rival private enterprise. That is a good thing, it provides competition and helps prevent runaway subscription costs as it prevents private monopolisation of the market. You can choose not to pay that tax and not watch live TV. Something I did for several years a while back. During that period I did have broadband, and the current proposal to tax internet seems to me to be far more unreasonable. Then I really would be paying for something I didn't use. Your grumble is not funding the BBC, your grumble is paying a TV licence to watch TV irrespective of what station you watch. The government (national and local) can tax your income, charge you for other public services that you may or not use (when did you last visit a library?) this is no different.

[ik9000]

You sure about that? We currently effectively have no health service in this country - the NHS is mostly shut, GPs have put up barricades and refuse to see patients, private hospitals are being held in reserve by the NHS so are mostly closed as well. We have a tsunami of cancer and other chronic illnesses building that will result in 10s of thousands of early provable deaths. The total for COVID 19 for patients with no previous serious condition is currently less than 1200 dead - in the next year that will look like a rounding error compared to the other deaths directly caused by the response to this driven my the MSM. Remember we proposed an approach similar to the Swedes until the MSM forced the governments hand. Let's compare outcomes to them a year from now. We'll have many more excess suicides from failed businesses and marriages than that.

For this we 're paying about £150 billion this year.

Most of the public sector is still partially if not totally shut. We've had most state teachers sat on their arses whining about being embarased to be on Zoom claiming fear whilst merrily out shopping in supermarkets where the staff have been exposed all along (total dead: none). Meanwhile, private schools have mostly provided a somewhat complete curriculum. Many state schools are throwing up barriers against reopening this week. I'm not sure why I should be paying for these people to have a six month holiday on full pay.

Your comment about road tax is a perfect example of how bad things are - £35bn raised in direct motoring taxation, only £10bn spent on maintaining and building roads. I suspect what you want is lots of lovely public services that *you* don't want to have to pay for.

And please, whining about Murdoch ranks intellectually about the same level as still blaming Thatcher for everything 30 years after she left office.

I have family and friends working in the NHS, you really don't know what you're talking about. Private hospitals are already released back into use just as they were before due to lack of numbers. A lot of the emergency covid hospitals have already been mothballed due to lack of patients. You can still see a GP if you need to, and could all the way through, but after consultation remotely first to check it was necessary. Minor things are being done via remote calls etc for everyone's safety. You're starting to come across as huffing about things without a clear understanding of the facts. I'm not sure how it applies to a TV licence debate either.

As for comparing Murdoch to Thatcher... not sure where you're going with that. But the links between Murdoch and the Tory party are well documented. It is naive to pretend otherwise.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Some of you live in a fantasy land. I have gone abroad and had to pay for private healthcare - you read too much stuff on foreign owned media,and think anything public and British owned is rubbish.





The UK does not pay a lot of taxes compared to most developed countries.

Also,the US spends the most per capita on healthcare in the whole world. The US government actually spends more per capita on its healthcare system than the UK,if you look at the contributions from taxpayers.

But,but the US system costs the US taxpayer less - NHS bad,anything publicly run and owned bad.



Half of personal bankruptcies in the US are due to medical costs.



Yet,some of you lot keep reading the privately owned media organisations,and get indoctrinated as the NHS is bad,anything public owned is bad.

I have family and friends working in the NHS, you really don't know what you're talking about. Private hospitals are already released back into use just as they were before due to lack of numbers. A lot of the emergency covid hospitals have already been mothballed due to lack of patients. You can still see a GP if you need to, and could all the way through, but after consultation remotely first to check it was necessary. Minor things are being done via remote calls etc for everyone's safety. You're starting to come across as huffing about things without a clear understanding of the facts. I'm not sure how it applies to a TV licence debate either.

As for comparing Murdoch to Thatcher... not sure where you're going with that. But the links between Murdoch and the Tory party are well documented. It is naive to pretend otherwise.

He is in love with an Australian so much he prefers a foreigner owns the media in the UK,since he thinks anything British owned and run is inferior.

I don't have children. Why should I pay towards schools?
I don't commute in a car, but I still pay the same road tax?
I don't currently need the NHS so why I should I pay to it when it's only sick people who need it?

Yeah, great attitude to have. It's so cheap in real terms vs a monthly subscription to a private TV offering I don't understand why people are complaining. Currently you have to have a TV licence to watch any TV. That is already a tax. The difference is that money gets invested into the BBC for a publicly owned broadcaster to rival private enterprise. That is a good thing, it provides competition and helps prevent runaway subscription costs as it prevents private monopolisation of the market. You can choose not to pay that tax and not watch live TV. Something I did for several years a while back. During that period I did have broadband, and the current proposal to tax internet seems to me to be far more unreasonable. Then I really would be paying for something I didn't use. Your grumble is not funding the BBC, your grumble is paying a TV licence to watch TV irrespective of what station you watch. The government (national and local) can tax your income, charge you for other public services that you may or not use (when did you last visit a library?) this is no different.

If they don't watch TV,they don't need a TV license. But is funny how so many moan about the TV license,but pay £100s even £1000s a year for foreign owned media companies,but that is fine. Imagine if the BBC core news services were funded via general taxation(which I prefer as most public broadcasters are funded that way),they would still be moaning,because all the foreign owned media,and privately owned media companies,tell them its bad.

Because the competing media organisations have zero vested interests in slagging off a rival media organisation.

Yet,a global Britain needs a UK owned and UK based international news organisation. But apparently,we don't need anything UK owned,we can use foreign owned companies. Those very same foreign owned companies who get huge tax breaks in their own countries to support them,which costs their own taxpayers billions of dollars.

[Saracen999]

You sure about that? We currently effectively have no health service in this country - the NHS is mostly shut, GPs have put up barricades and refuse to see patients, private hospitals are being held in reserve by the NHS so are mostly closed as well. We have a tsunami of cancer and other chronic illnesses building that will result in 10s of thousands of early provable deaths. ....

That is a simplistic and largely incorrect outline of the NHS.

I can tell you from personal experience that cancer provision is, and has been, available right through the lockdown .... if the circumstances justified the risk. Bear in mind that just as not being seen carries a risk, so does being seen.

It is true that a lot of cancer screening has been delayed and that might well (almost certainly will) cost lives for those not detected in time, but that is with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. At the time, that risk had to be balanced with the perceived risk to all screening candidates from Covid, most of whom will be cancer-negative.

But during the entire Covid lockdown, GPs HAVE been seeing patients, where necessary. It's just often not necessary, and a telephone consult will do, reducing risk to both sides, and increasing efficiency. I've seen my GP on 3 occasions since lockdown started, but had probably half a dozen telephone consults. I've also seen several consultants, countless nurses and I don't know how many support staff, in three different hospitals, right through lockdown.

What certainly has been effectively stopped is "elective" work, things like joint replacements. From what I can tell, other than emergencies (like accident victims) that kind of surgery ceased, but even that has been ramping back up again now, for a couple of month. It may not yet be full speed, but it's getting there.

Hospitals, and GPs for that matter, have certainly changed both how they work, and how they prioritise, due to Covid. And patients with unpleasant and sometimes debilitating and extremely painful conditions haven't had the treatment they should have under normal conditions. But conditions have been far from normal.

To say the NHS is effectively shut is .... sorry, but it's codswallop.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Found the document:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880216/

Tax-funded health expenditures totaled $1.877 trillion in 2013 and are projected to increase to $3.642 trillion in 2024. Government’s share of overall health spending was 64.3% of national health expenditures in 2013 and will rise to 67.1% in 2024. Government health expenditures in the United States account for a larger share of gross domestic product (11.2% in 2013) than do total health expenditures in any other nation.

So 64% of that top figure is taxpayer funded in 2013. So if that holds true today,that is over $7000/person which is massively higher than the UK.

But,but,but private healthcare is cheaper - no it isn't. The US taxpayer is propping up the private healthcare system in the US,and apparently $7000 of taxpayer funds is not enough,as another $4000 is coming from insurance and other sources.

That is a simplistic and largely incorrect outline of the NHS.

I can tell you from personal experience that cancer provision is, and has been, available right through the lockdown .... if the circumstances justified the risk. Bear in mind that just as not being seen carries a risk, so does being seen.

It is true that a lot of cancer screening has been delayed and that might well (almost certainly will) cost lives for those not detected in time, but that is with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. At the time, that risk had to be balanced with the perceived risk to all screening candidates from Covid, most of whom will be cancer-negative.

But during the entire Covid lockdown, GPs HAVE been seeing patients, where necessary. It's just often not necessary, and a telephone consult will do, reducing risk to both sides, and increasing efficiency. I've seen my GP on 3 occasions since lockdown started, but had probably half a dozen telephone consults. I've also seen several consultants, countless nurses and I don't know how many support staff, in three different hospitals, right through lockdown.

What certainly has been effectively stopped is "elective" work, things like joint replacements. From what I can tell, other than emergencies (like accident victims) that kind of surgery ceased, but even that has been ramping back up again now, for a couple of month. It may not yet be full speed, but it's getting there.

Hospitals, and GPs for that matter, have certainly changed both how they work, and how they prioritise, due to Covid. And patients with unpleasant and sometimes debilitating and extremely painful conditions haven't had the treatment they should have under normal conditions. But conditions have been far from normal.

To say the NHS is effectively shut is .... sorry, but it's codswallop.

They are probably reading all the foreign owned news sources who keep attacking the NHS and EVERY UK owned institution.

Yet if you look at my previous post,the US government spends the most per capita on healthcare,as taxes in the world. Yet,the system is so structurally inefficient all it does is line the pockets of healthcare and various insurance companies.

So much taxpayers money is spent,there is no need for health insurance - the US could have free healthcare and could still spend more per capita than the UK.

[ik9000]

Found the document:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880216/





So 64% of that top figure is taxpayer funded in 2013. So if that holds true today,that is over $7000/person which is massively higher than the UK.

But,but,but private healthcare is cheaper - no it isn't. The US taxpayer is propping up the private healthcare system in the US,and apparently $7000 of taxpayer funds is not enough,as another $4000 is coming from insurance and other sources.

That extra comes due to the runaway costs in their system. You pay for every pill, every drip, every minute in an ambulance, speaking to a nurse, everything is itemised and charged. It's obscene. And this is what we will be sold out to in the name of a trade agreement, just watch.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

That extra comes due to the runaway costs in their system. You pay for every pill, every drip, every minute in an ambulance, speaking to a nurse, everything is itemised and charged. It's obscene. And this is what we will be sold out to in the name of a trade agreement, just watch.

Don't worry they can read all the media who tells them,anything public owned is bad,but if you have everything foreign owned and run,that is 10X better. So lets privatise it and sell off everything.That is what has been happening for decades now. Yet,if you go to those countries,or talk to some of their people(in the realworld),its nowhere as rosy as the internet portrays.

All those "private" enterprises are propped up by massive amounts of taxpayer money in the form of tax breaks,legal tax loopholes,law changes,etc.

But then we are the same country who cancelled our space programme because it was cheaper to buy from abroad. Well it wasn't since the Yanks then jacked up the price! LMAO. All those scientists left for NASA and France. Merely years later,France launched Arianespace which made them 10s of billions of USD in private launch sales,which most likely help to pay for development of their SLBMs too(they share technology).

Edit!!

Something else I noticed over the last 30 years. Prior to any sort of privatisation of a UK publically owned utility,you usually see years of negative press about it highlighting every tiny fault about it,but never saying a good thing. Then eventually the government "agrees" with the private press,then defunds the organisations,and eventually privatises it as its a "chain around our neck".

Then the privatised entities still probably get some degree of taxpayer support.

Saw what happened to the Royal Mail,nothing but years of slagging it off,ignoring the fact it had fixed pricing,and needs to serve all parts of the UK(even unprofitable routes),how foreign owned postal companies are better and so on.

Then privatise it,and lo and behold it was undervalued.

The worst thing is the US postal service gets billions of USD of taxpayer assistance as it looses money. The RM before privatisation was profitable.

[Kumagoro]

Rather than being lumped in unfairly on broadband I feel it would be better to mix it in with many things and have it part of say vat. Therefore poor people pay less, rich more.

[ik9000]

Rather than being lumped in unfairly on broadband I feel it would be better to mix it in with many things and have it part of say vat. Therefore poor people pay less, rich more.

VAT wouldn't work as well as you think. Rich people run companies and find ways to buy things as company assets that are not charged VAT. There are other taxes but when you do all the maths, they're better off in the end. Same with income tax etc. And VAT is meant to be a levy on luxury items. (not that it quite works that way in reality). The concept of a TV licence as a tax (as the ONS has called it since 2006) isn't a bad one tbh. Use a TV? Pay a tax. That is essentially VAT on receiving live TV broadcasts if you'd rather think of it that way. So let's just leave it like that?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

They should fund it via general taxation for the core news services,as there are radio and online services too. After all if there was a major emergency,its the state owned broadcaster which the government will go to.

The rest of the entertainment services could be run,as a separate business,as they can sell the productions worldwide(I think it is currently). People have to appreciate some of those huge foreign media organisations get massive tax breaks from their own governments. The public in those countries is essentially helping out with funding anyway,and then they go into other countries and push down local competitors,and then make even more money,which goes back to their countries.

France has tried its best to push for local taxation of these companies,but have been threatened with trade sanctions. Its a myth these foreign owned competitors(or owned by tax cheats) are just getting zero public help. All they do is just use it as a platform to attack competitors whilst getting government assistance in their home countries. The same myth that people think the US healthcare service or postal service doesn't get propped up by tax revenues,to levels which look practically socialist. Instead they bury the fact and make it sound like our NHS,RM and any publically owned service is a drain on public funds,whilst they throw even more tax money at their equivalents.

People then just skim read all this and believe it at face value.

[ik9000]

They should fund it via general taxation for the core news services,as there are radio and online services too. After all if there was a major emergency,its the state owned broadcaster which the government will go to.

The rest of the entertainment services could be run,as a separate business,as they can sell the productions worldwide(I think it is currently). People have to appreciate some of those huge foreign media organisations get massive tax breaks from their own governments. The public in those countries is essentially helping out with funding anyway,and then they go into other countries and push down local competitors,and then make even more money,which goes back to their countries.

France has tried its best to push for local taxation of these companies,but have been threatened with trade sanctions. Its a myth these foreign owned competitors(or owned by tax cheats) are just getting zero public help. All they do is just use it as a platform to attack competitors whilst getting government assistance in their home countries. The same myth that people think the US healthcare service or postal service doesn't get propped up by tax revenues,to levels which look practically socialist. Instead they bury the fact and make it sound like our NHS,RM and any publically owned service is a drain on public funds,whilst they throw even more tax money at their equivalents.

People then just skim read all this and believe it at face value.

especially if their go-to news source presents an agenda so skewed they think their skewed view on it is the defacto truth. It's why you should never trust one source, and go to publications on different sides of the divide.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

especially if their go-to news source presents an agenda so skewed they think their skewed view on it is the defacto truth. It's why you should never trust one source, and go to publications on different sides of the divide.

Exactly - as I mentioned earlier in the thread,its important to read as many news sources as possible,and I try to read from a wide range of sources,from different countries(hence why I found that news about news GB on the DM,but was not sure if I posted a DM link,whether people would take it seriously here). Also remember,all these media companies are competitors to each other locally AND worldwide.

[Iota]

It's so cheap in real terms vs a monthly subscription to a private TV offering I don't understand why people are complaining. Currently you have to have a TV licence to watch any TV. That is already a tax. The difference is that money gets invested into the BBC for a publicly owned broadcaster to rival private enterprise. That is a good thing, it provides competition and helps prevent runaway subscription costs as it prevents private monopolisation of the market. You can choose not to pay that tax and not watch live TV. Something I did for several years a while back. During that period I did have broadband, and the current proposal to tax internet seems to me to be far more unreasonable. Then I really would be paying for something I didn't use. Your grumble is not funding the BBC, your grumble is paying a TV licence to watch TV irrespective of what station you watch.

The concept of a TV licence as a tax (as the ONS has called it since 2006) isn't a bad one tbh. Use a TV? Pay a tax. That is essentially VAT on receiving live TV broadcasts if you'd rather think of it that way.

This is the thing about the TV Licence, it's purely for covering live broadcasts as well as recording live broadcasts for replay later on and using the BBC iPlayer.

Don't watch live TV or use the BBC iPlayer or record live broadcasts? You don't need to pay. It really is simple enough, you declare that no licence is required and move on. Stream to your hearts content and watch content that is more suited to your tastes. There really isn't anything to complain about, including for those who no longer receive a free licence. My parents no longer have a licence and are happily into streaming, they don't mind waiting a day to watch something when it turns up on the various on demand services. They never touched the BBC programs, they haven't had a video recorder for decades and don't watch live TV, so no need to pay even now.

Adding the cost of a TV licence onto utility bills is a terrible idea, especially for those on lower incomes who can't even get things like an electricity meter installed because of circumstance and chance not being on their side. Adding it onto a broadband bill is even more galling, as no doubt it wouldn't even be partially contributing to the terrible infrastructure provided by the likes of OpenReach. Such a terrible and poorly thought out grasping when the solution is simple enough.

Decriminalise watching live TV etc without a licence, offer a monthly subscription service for a sensible price that people can dip into and out of, actually provide content worthwhile watching. Still have the option for a yearly "subscription" and lower the pricing to be more in line with other streaming services and stop wasting money on the services of overpaid "presenters" etc. Offer the BBC News channel as a free national broadcast service to retain permission to use the airwaves, seeing as they probably never paid for it in the first place.