Planetarion Forums - UK TV License

Nodrog · 17 Dec 2002, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by CjC
ISo we are paying for the priviledge of receiving broadcasted television pictures, the funding in turn is then used as spending on television production.

However - I also think that this "Concept" is very outdated given the influx of new technologies bringing us TV and Film.

Bear in mind that we pay through the nose for mobile phone use. If we didnt you'd probably have to have a license for that as well. And then there is the cost of the Internet. Well, I could go on...

And to think that the telephony companies in Britain are all going bust because of so called "3G" licensing.
.

If companies have to pay to license the technologies, then yes, it adds massively to their expenditure. These costs do get passed onto the users, and it does inflate the product prices significantly.

The question is this: is it fairer having having the users of the product paying a lot more for it, or is it better to have everyone (whether they want to use it or not) paying a little bit?

It's the classic right-wing v left-wing dilema. I personally cant understand why anyone would think the second way was fairer though - making people pay for something that they dont want. just so that the people who want it can get it at a lower price, is 'wrong'.

sayonara · 17 Dec 2002, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
making people pay for something that they dont want. just so that the people who want it can get it at a lower price, is 'wrong'.

Just like taxes.

Nodrog · 17 Dec 2002, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by sayonara
Just like taxes.

Exactly.

If you wanted to make the distinction though, you could argue that taxes are for things deemed 'essential' to life (food/healthcare/etc). A television is not an 'essential' item for a poor person to own, despite what socialism might say.

Sardaukar · 17 Dec 2002, 15:38

Taxes are slightly differnt in my mind, they pay for all sorts of wonderous things that i would be quite happy without. I dontlike street lamps fs, i love going home and being able to see the stars etc (very extreme example)
Atleast you can avoid the TV license by not having a telly

sayonara · 17 Dec 2002, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Exactly.

If you wanted to make the distinction though, you could argue that taxes are for things deemed 'essential' to life (food/healthcare/etc). A television is not an 'essential' item for a poor person to own, despite what socialism might say.

But on the other hand, taxpayer funded schemes like bailing out nuclear reactors that are not economically viable are not what I would consider essential services.

Neither is handing out almost the same amount of money as my salary to any old Joe who is too stupid or lazy to find a job. Subsidising 'job seekers' makes no sense economically, socially or ecologically. Screw the dole, let's give natural selection a chance and see what happens.

(Not that this has anything to do with the TV license but I reserve the right to expand the range of the discussion I started

)

Nodrog · 17 Dec 2002, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by sayonara
But on the other hand, taxpayer funded schemes like bailing out nuclear reactors that are not economically viable are not what I would consider essential services.

Neither is handing out almost the same amount of money as my salary to any old Joe who is too stupid or lazy to find a job. Subsidising 'job seekers' makes no sense economically, socially or ecologically. Screw the dole, let's give natural selection a chance and see what happens.

You're preaching to the choir.

sayonara · 17 Dec 2002, 15:49

It wasn't really 'aimed' at you, just venting spleen in the general direction of GD (isn't it easier now all the tards have left?)

I think we're on a roll here - everyone's successfully discussed this for almost two whole pages wihtout resorting to 'yo momma so fat'.

Sardaukar · 17 Dec 2002, 15:57

Would be interesting to see how you we/you would run the country (directed generally) as far as taxes and whatnot are concerned, i've genuinely no idea what i would do, obviously in an ideal world we would pay for the services we honestly needed and it would all work out peechy without the tax dodgers etc etc. This clearly falls down when it comes to things like unemployment, erm, i mean "job seekers allowance" where they are basicly getting money for nothing........

heh, hows this for an idea, rather than job seekers allowance we introduce a "work for your money in the civil service" policy

ooo i like that. Get a job or be a dustman (no offence intended to all the honourable dustmen out there

)

sayonara · 17 Dec 2002, 16:00

'Dustman' is a job though. They get reasonable pay apparently.

Believe me, the state of the nation is something I think about (and discuss with colleagues) every day.

I honestly think something is going to snap soon.

Sardaukar · 17 Dec 2002, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by sayonara
'Dustman' is a job though. They get reasonable pay apparently.

Believe me, the state of the nation is something I think about (and discuss with colleagues) every day.

I honestly think something is going to snap soon.

Dustman was just something that came to mind, i actually meant anything that they could get paid their job seekers allownce as it is now and benefit the community at the same time rather than sitting h ome watching the Sky TV that all the council estates full of unemployed people round here seem to have.

inf · 17 Dec 2002, 16:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Exactly.

If you wanted to make the distinction though, you could argue that taxes are for things deemed 'essential' to life (food/healthcare/etc).

Millenium Dome.

sayonara · 17 Dec 2002, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by inf
Millenium Dome.

I suspect that structure was always intended to be a tool of naughty money-moving people.

Dante Hicks · 17 Dec 2002, 20:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
It's the classic right-wing v left-wing dilema. I personally cant understand why anyone would think the second way was fairer though

Taxes are different not just because they are spent on "essentials" (per se) but because they provide services which every citizen (perhaps) benefits from and where it's difficult (if not impossible) to opt out of.

So, I personally reject the vast majority of defence spending, but clearly it'd be silly to say that the RAF will defend all of London except my flat. So therefore I'm "obliged" to pay since I do get the benefit whether I appreciate it or not. Similarly, I might think the firemen are a waste of money but since a fire could spread from my property to others, etc. Interestingly most essentials (e.g. food, housing, water) while heavily regulated are generally not provided by the state.

As for job-seekers allowance (and a hell of a lot of social services) the benefit to all is two-fold : One, you can have access them if you ever fall on hard times (which fair enough, you could choose to forgo) and secondly it's to reduce crime, make society more coherent etc. I'm not sure how cost-effective it is - it'd be interesting to see for example how much richer people spend in Jo'burg per capita on personal security. Social spending in this country (and elsewhere) is enormously wasteful and is often indirectly harmful to it's recepients anyway. However, I'm morbidly curious to see how UK society would look if ALL social spending (e.g. NHS, DSS, state pensions) was withdrawn for say two years. Aside from anything it would make my job more interesting - roughly 60% of our tenants would have to be evicted almost straight away.