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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 days ago (9 children)

then you're funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It's not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 days ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    This was going to be my answer but it apparently already is, officially, a tax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    I was using it as shorthand for "make it mandatory". If I'm going to be forced to pay then I don't want the pretence of choice, and it'd mean we could eliminate those TV Licensing arseholes too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 57 minutes ago)

    I agree fully.

    If you're charging for BBC services then charge for that, if you want to tax tv based entertainment, then be honest.

    This "how do we word it so we can effectively tax everyone, but don't have to admit that's what we want" approach is bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    then you’re funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It’s not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.

    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

    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.

    Relates to anything in my reply.

    Not looking for a fight , it seems i'm legitimately missing something important here.

  • source
  • parent