General Chat

If the £3.8 billion that the BBC receives from television licence collections this financial year went to ……?

The Beeb already gets £90 million from government to support the BBC World Service which I would not like to see taken away from it even though other channels manage their own world news budgets.

Also, I wish someone would explain to me why some inane television ‘personalities’ make more than most doctors. To me it indicates that the Beeb has too much of our cash. Let it compete with other channels for sponsorship, ads etc.

I would be happier if any such collection went on the encouragement and training of the young for a career in medicine. If that is not on the cards why doesn’t government simply give every tv-owning household an income rise by abolishing the licence altogether - which equates to 95% of the nation’s households.

Well I m well peed that at 85 I have to buy a tv licence again

For many older folks a tv is their only companion and too many only exist on the oap pension that has to pay for everything

Many now too are struggling with heating costs that have escalated to being unaffordable for many

Personally, I think the TV Licence fee is good value for money. It works out at about the same as a cup of coffee a week in a coffee shop. What I do find annoying is the large salaries of most of the presenters. A lot of them are on over £250,000 a year and as for Gary Lineker - I was reading just yesterday that he's on 1.3 million. Now that is far too much in my opinion.

Kath. x

Kath, I think we’re being taken for a ride when I consider that they they manage perfectly well in countries which don’t charge TV licence fees.

I’d rather pay a small percentage extra tax to fund our NHS than pay a TV licence.

Some countries that don’t have an actual tv licence include it the local council rates.

Edit : that might be on their electricity bill not council rates

Some do pay something, Names, but, off the cuff, I can think of five or six countries where citizens pay nothing at all and if they can manage, why can’t we?

I’d be quite happy for those to pay who think something still ought to be paid (why?) - but I wouldn’t be one of them if I had a choice. Why would anyone want to keep on subsidising the salaries of overpaid celebrities when other tv channels manage without any help from pensioners and taxpayers?

It seems to be a crazy system to me to top up the coffers of someone who can manage without the poor man’s buck!

JoyL .................

Canada and the US do not have TV licences.

Radio and TV stations manage by attracting advertisers, the ads cost more during prime times ........... and that means often 12-15 minutes advertising during a 30 minute show, even a news show.

You hear some of the most inane ads on local stations.

In Canada, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is actually funded by the Government, but only the CBC Radio stations do NOT carry advertising, the TV stations carry advertising, but fortunately less than in the US.

The US Public Broadcast stations (eg PBS) do not carry advertising, instead they have donation drives about every 3 or 5 months, when you hear 5-10 minutes pleas for donation before every show (at least in prime time) for about 4 weeks.

Take your pick .................. government funding or some of the most aggravating advertising you could imagine.

You don't know when you are well off!

£3.8 billion! Well in 10 years we could save enough to pay the £37 billion wasted on the useless Track and Trace system that never worked. At least with a licence fee the BBC has some measure of independence whereas relying on government funding means it is difficult to be seen to be impartial.

As for celebrities, it is the people who seem to think they are worth it, otherwise they wouldn't pay ridiculous sums to attend concerts, football matches and the like. The BBC has to pay enough to attract suitable persons, otherwise the viewing figures will fall and demands to privatise it could not be resisted.

I realised that, Sylvia, and it’s the same in Oz as you will know - but I still don’t see why we here in the UK should pay. We get used to ads on other channels - I make coffee, snacks etc when the ads appear and I’m sure others will do certain tasks during those few minutes.

That £3+ per week will be particularly welcome to struggling households at the moment, I feel, and my guess is that money in their pockets would far outweigh their need to pay to watch an ad-less channel and line the pockets of already-well-paid celebs.

Kense, I’m one who would rather see a small percentage tax rise to fund the NHS than to pay the Beeb £3.8b on top of the £90m they already receive from government. The average nett UK income is, apparently, £31,000 so roughly .5% would equate to the TV licence fee and many households have two incomes - so for them it would mean a rise of .25% in income tax. If people were given a choice between paying the Beeb an extra £3.8b or giving it to the NHS through direct taxation my gut feeling is that they’d want to protect the NHS.

Just a thought. :-)