BBC puts forward levy on broadband bills idea

[Saracen999]

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.




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.

The US system always has been, and remains, a complex comparison to make because the underlying ethos is different (i.e. not free at point of delivery), and the funding method.

From what I can make of it, US health care is very good, and I mean excellent .... provided you either are wealthy enough to afford it, or have a job with good insurance cover. And, anecdotally, it's half-decent for the really poor if you qualify. The biggest issue is the large chunk of the population that fall in-between.

What makes the comparison even harder is that we in the UK, don't get a direct feel for what we each are paying for health care because it all (*) comes out of one central pot, labelled taxation. That's very different to the US where what's 'free' depends on what you insurance covers, and that varies hugely.

Then, to get Good cover in the US, you not only need that insurance cover, but it (to the best of my knowledge) always comes with a "co-pay", which themselves usually have limits. So part of your cover comes either via direct insurance payments (paid either by you or your employer), or via that "co-pay". The co-pay bit gets complicated too, because that bit means the more you need, the more you pay, until you hit the co-pay ceiling.

It's a very different funding model to here, and has advantages and disadvantages even for those that can afford it. And if you can't and don't get it via your employer, my advice is don't get ill, and really don't get seriously ill.

For the record, as a self-employed person most of my working life, the NHS is a major part of why I stayed in the NHS, and for all it's faults, I am still a huge fan, and far prefer our system to that of the US.


(*) By "all" coming from a central pot, I'm talking about the bits the NHS covers, not glasses, or the bit of even NHS dental work we pay for directly.

A similarity between UK and US funding models is to compare UK NHS and private dental provision. My experience is that private dental care is MUCH more expensive, even given the "mates rates" I pay but you have the option of some materials and treatments you won't get on the NHS, because the NHS contracts simply don't let the dentist even recoup the cost. Private dentistry does permit those extra options, but by 'eck it can get expensive. That applies to the NHS/US Health care comparison too.

[Saracen999]

...

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.

The point about paying hundreds or thousands to media companies is true but .... the difference is that it's a choice. You want to use it, you elect to pay for it. The complaint, it seems to me, is that lots of people don't want BBC programs and so don't see why they pay for it.

I see their point, but it really misses that the licence is really just a sort-of tax (whatever the technical status of a tax versus licence). In reality, successive governments have just kept with an antique charge when they probably ought to (and probably will) just roll it into general taxation.

After all, the complaint is tantamount to me saying (hypothetically) I don't have kids so I don't want to contribute to either education or university budgets, and numerous similar "I don't have/use ...." arguments.

The reality is governments have decided that, like education, health care, policing, a military, etc are public "goods" that most or all of us use, and so pay for whether a given individual uses a specific service or not. They just use a rather clumsy payment method to extra the wedge from our pockets. If it was rolled into general taxation and not something we all notice because we fork out for it every year, nobody much would even notice.


And yes, before someone says it, I know we don't "all" pay it.

[3dcandy]

The point about paying hundreds or thousands to media companies is true but .... the difference is that it's a choice. You want to use it, you elect to pay for it. The complaint, it seems to me, is that lots of people don't want BBC programs and so don't see why they pay for it.

I see their point, but it really misses that the licence is really just a sort-of tax (whatever the technical status of a tax versus licence). In reality, successive governments have just kept with an antique charge when they probably ought to (and probably will) just roll it into general taxation.

After all, the complaint is tantamount to me saying (hypothetically) I don't have kids so I don't want to contribute to either education or university budgets, and numerous similar "I don't have/use ...." arguments.

The reality is governments have decided that, like education, health care, policing, a military, etc are public "goods" that most or all of us use, and so pay for whether a given individual uses a specific service or not. They just use a rather clumsy payment method to extra the wedge from our pockets. If it was rolled into general taxation and not something we all notice because we fork out for it every year, nobody much would even notice.


And yes, before someone says it, I know we don't "all" pay it.

Probably fairer... but that's why it hasn't been done. Bring back window tax is what I say

[Saracen999]

Probably fairer... but that's why it hasn't been done. Bring back window tax is what I say

Nah. Dump the "temporary" tax that is (apparently still) funding the Napoleonic war. i.e. Income Tax. Note to government ..... Guys, it ended.

Ultimately, I guess, we all want Rolls Royce services at Yugo prices. Life don't work like that. Sadly.

[ik9000]

Probably fairer... but that's why it hasn't been done. Bring back window tax is what I say

shhh! Don't give them ideas. With this lot in charge firing from the hip I wouldn't put it past them!

[ik9000]

Nah. Dump the "temporary" tax that is (apparently still) funding the Napoleonic war. i.e. Income Tax. Note to government ..... Guys, it ended.

Ultimately, I guess, we all want Rolls Royce services at Yugo prices. Life don't work like that. Sadly.

it was specifically to support the building of the navy IIRC. Maybe that's why Brown made sure they couldn't cancel those aircraft carrier contracts!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The US system always has been, and remains, a complex comparison to make because the underlying ethos is different (i.e. not free at point of delivery), and the funding method.

From what I can make of it, US health care is very good, and I mean excellent .... provided you either are wealthy enough to afford it, or have a job with good insurance cover. And, anecdotally, it's half-decent for the really poor if you qualify. The biggest issue is the large chunk of the population that fall in-between.

What makes the comparison even harder is that we in the UK, don't get a direct feel for what we each are paying for health care because it all (*) comes out of one central pot, labelled taxation. That's very different to the US where what's 'free' depends on what you insurance covers, and that varies hugely.

Then, to get Good cover in the US, you not only need that insurance cover, but it (to the best of my knowledge) always comes with a "co-pay", which themselves usually have limits. So part of your cover comes either via direct insurance payments (paid either by you or your employer), or via that "co-pay". The co-pay bit gets complicated too, because that bit means the more you need, the more you pay, until you hit the co-pay ceiling.

It's a very different funding model to here, and has advantages and disadvantages even for those that can afford it. And if you can't and don't get it via your employer, my advice is don't get ill, and really don't get seriously ill.

For the record, as a self-employed person most of my working life, the NHS is a major part of why I stayed in the NHS, and for all it's faults, I am still a huge fan, and far prefer our system to that of the US.


(*) By "all" coming from a central pot, I'm talking about the bits the NHS covers, not glasses, or the bit of even NHS dental work we pay for directly.

A similarity between UK and US funding models is to compare UK NHS and private dental provision. My experience is that private dental care is MUCH more expensive, even given the "mates rates" I pay but you have the option of some materials and treatments you won't get on the NHS, because the NHS contracts simply don't let the dentist even recoup the cost. Private dentistry does permit those extra options, but by 'eck it can get expensive. That applies to the NHS/US Health care comparison too.

I have seen what it looks like for paying for private healthcare abroad and many here don't realise on average compared to the rest of the world,healthcare is much better here. If you look at all the better systems they spend more per person. But look at the US where the taxpayer spend is higher than the UK,so as much as we say the NHS is inefficient,the US is really taking the mickey. Its the best of both worlds for the healthcare providers there,as the taxpayer is propping them up via tax dollars,and insurance dollars.

People alls need to realise,ANY private healthcare company,will have at a minimum provide better healthcare than the national health service of any country. Take that away,and the minimum level of care drops out the bottom,and once you are ill,its unlikely you have the time to "shop around". Companies also will form cartels,since they know this.

Private healthcare can be regulated massively,but then you have the problem of the companies trying to push for deregulation,etc too. Also in the end a highly regulated private system is pretty much the same as a state owned system in some ways.

Then you will get idiots moaning capping medical costs is bad.

The point about paying hundreds or thousands to media companies is true but .... the difference is that it's a choice. You want to use it, you elect to pay for it. The complaint, it seems to me, is that lots of people don't want BBC programs and so don't see why they pay for it.

I see their point, but it really misses that the licence is really just a sort-of tax (whatever the technical status of a tax versus licence). In reality, successive governments have just kept with an antique charge when they probably ought to (and probably will) just roll it into general taxation.

After all, the complaint is tantamount to me saying (hypothetically) I don't have kids so I don't want to contribute to either education or university budgets, and numerous similar "I don't have/use ...." arguments.

The reality is governments have decided that, like education, health care, policing, a military, etc are public "goods" that most or all of us use, and so pay for whether a given individual uses a specific service or not. They just use a rather clumsy payment method to extra the wedge from our pockets. If it was rolled into general taxation and not something we all notice because we fork out for it every year, nobody much would even notice.


And yes, before someone says it, I know we don't "all" pay it.

They already have a choice - if you don't watch live TV,you don't have to buy a license. The issue I have,is people will moan if taxes pay for the BBC too. Because the private media keeps pushing out constant negativity about them,and people don't seem to stop and think they have vested interests too....they want to make more money. Like I said look at the RM. The media kept on running negative campaigns against the RM until it was privatised,just like every publically owned thing. It was profitable. Yet look at the US postal service,which is government owned and subsidised to the tune of billions of USD a year,and has tons of problems.

Yet,they are literally funding foreign media giants who get taxpayer subsidies in their own countries too,and the money is flowing out of this country. So its a myth these private entities get no help from taxpayers.....they are getting it somewhere else.

The media in this country keeps attacking publically owned entities here,yet they shut up about all the taxpayer help they get in various counties. Tax breaks,legal tax loopholes they push for,changes in the law the push for which help their bottom line,which always costs the taxpayers money in some country.

So its not really fair,when these entities,despite getting taxpayer assistance in their countries of origin,then start bleating propaganda against local competitors. Then you have some of the UK owned competitors who have their owners living abroad in tax havens,costing the country millions in taxes,and even have their companies tax avoid too,hence costing the taxpayer money.

Basically we all pay one way or another. If not in "license",then through our taxes,or through taxes not being paid.

Also,I agree I would rather see the BBC funded via taxation,but for its core news/radio services locally and worldwide(maybe some of its educational content too). The entertainment stuff can be run separately for profit,and look to other areas for funding.

[3dcandy]

it was specifically to support the building of the navy IIRC. Maybe that's why Brown made sure they couldn't cancel those aircraft carrier contracts!

I believe from way back when I did A Level economics it was firstly to support the rebuilding of the Navy and was then basically modified into supporting the armed forces and the defence of the country (massive catch all if ever I saw one...)

[spacein_vader]

As I understand it the reason for keeping the licence fee as a separate charge not included in general taxation has always been this:

While every 10 years the government of the day renews the BBC charters and may put limitations on the maximum amount chargeable in the interim period the BBC (within those parameters,) has freedom on how it sets and collects that charge and therefore knows approximately what its budget is for that 10 year period regardless of government changes.

Now imagine it comes out of general taxation. In the run up to every budget the BBC worries about how it's budget might be altered by the chancellor. It comes to the conclusion its budget is more likely to go up/less likely to go down if it's seen as a friend to the government and so it adjusts its output accordingly. Come the next election another party wins and the editorial line shifts again.

Essentially the reason for not having the licence fee rolled into general taxation is to preserve some editorial independence and stop the BBC becoming the government's mouthpiece.

I'm sure there will be those who'll argue that particular ship has sailed already, but we certainly don't see a big editorial shift to "please the new boss" whenever a new party or parties form the government.