licens for tvs in england

[HogWashSoup]

i have heard that in england you need to have a licence to have a tv. of course the only reason this is so is to get more money from the people, but for those who live in england, how do you obtain this licence? have to take a test? if so how many times are you aloud to retake it? or do you just buy a licence? and where do you get it? at some office or just at the tv shop, like sears.

[f15]

i think the bbc sends it out to you there is no test and even if you do not whatch bbc you still have to pay money to them

[jonthomson]

You just buy it at a post office or set up a direct debit. It's pretty much universally hated and will be the first thing I axe when I take over the country in a bloody coup.

[HogWashSoup]

ah. well that sucks for england. i live in america so we dont have to pay for tv licences...but thats not saying much i guess since every other thing is really high.

[Funky-F15]

At 1/1/07 06:24 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: ah. well that sucks for england. i live in america so we dont have to pay for tv licences...but thats not saying much i guess since every other thing is really high.

its all of britan as far as i know not just england

[jonthomson]

At 1/1/07 06:24 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: ah. well that sucks for england. i live in america so we dont have to pay for tv licences...but thats not saying much i guess since every other thing is really high.

We would kill to have your gas prices. And electronics prices. And prices for pretty much everything else. We only use the licence to fund our public broadcast network which AFAIK is something you don't have anyway.

[Cybex]

At 1/1/07 06:10 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: i have heard that in england you need to have a licence to have a tv.

You don't need a license for a TV, you need one in order to watch TV. You can have a TV just to play a gamesconsole with though.

of course the only reason this is so is to get more money from the people

Actually, it's the only way the BBC gets money. It's necessary.

have to take a test? if so how many times are you aloud to retake it?

Lol.

[CartoonDiablo]

TV licenses? that fucked up.

[Nopidam]

At 1/1/07 06:24 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: ah. well that sucks for england. i live in america so we dont have to pay for tv licences...but thats not saying much i guess since every other thing is really high.

then why do you want to know?

[jonthomson]

At 1/1/07 06:32 PM, Cybex wrote:

of course the only reason this is so is to get more money from the people

Actually, it's the only way the BBC gets money. It's necessary.

They could just as easily be funded by general taxation which'd be a lot fucking fairer on everyone, rather than a flat rate enforced by little Hitlers.

[leekspinner]

you buy on at the post office end off...

[zzzzd]

It's a hundred quid a year. Makes it so On the BBC theres no advertising. Also on the other channels there is no way near as much advertising as america.

I prefer it like it is. America will have like 4 breaks in a half an hour program. There football has loads of breaks just so there can be advertising in between. Imagine sittin down to watch the football an the game has to keep being stopped for advertising.

[jonthomson]

At 1/1/07 06:49 PM, zzzzd wrote: There football has loads of breaks just so there can be advertising in between.

Not true, their game has natural breaks anyway. They just extend a few for a little bit.

[Cybex]

At 1/1/07 06:35 PM, jonthomson wrote: They could just as easily be funded by general taxation which'd be a lot fucking fairer on everyone, rather than a flat rate enforced by little Hitlers.

Political tension levels rising.

There is nothing wrong with the TV license. If people can't afford the tv license, perhaps they should go out and get a job instead of staying home watching TV all day. TV is a luxury not a necessity. No ones forcing you to watch TV, so you don't have to buy a license and watch it.

An ad valorem TV tax would only be better for people who watch a lot of TV and have little income, but by no means fairer. It would just mean people with higher incomes will be paying more. They'll be spending their own hard earned money so that someone who should be out getting a job can watch TV all day instead.

[ATIFunkFire]

At 1/1/07 06:27 PM, jonthomson wrote: We would kill to have your gas prices. And electronics prices. And prices for pretty much everything else. We only use the licence to fund our public broadcast network which AFAIK is something you don't have anyway.

what, public broadcast? yeah, they have tons of pledge drives though, and the programming sucks.

[FeargusMcDuff]

It's a monthly cost of £10.54 throughtout Britian If you own a TV. The BBC Is good but I find it could be lower seeing as I don't acctualy use a lot of the things covered by the fee. But the BBC does rock some considerable socks.

[HappyCheeseGuy]

you basiclly pay for a license, and the BBC use it to sue Tom Fulp and give us such attrocities as Strictly Come Dancing, Strictly Come Dancing on Ice, Strictly Dance Fever, and How do you solve a Problem like Maria.

[jonthomson]

At 1/1/07 06:51 PM, Cybex wrote:

There is nothing wrong with the TV license. If people can't afford the tv license, perhaps they should go out and get a job instead of staying home watching TV all day. TV is a luxury not a necessity. No ones forcing you to watch TV, so you don't have to buy a license and watch it.

It's not a question of affordability, it's more that it costs the exact same amount whether you're a single parent on benefits or a multi-millionaire. Which is regressive and unfair. Besides, even if you don't have a TV, the enforcement agencies will pursue you anyway, as they can't comprehend the concept of people not having a TV.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 1/1/07 06:35 PM, jonthomson wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:32 PM, Cybex wrote:

of course the only reason this is so is to get more money from the people

Actually, it's the only way the BBC gets money. It's necessary.

They could just as easily be funded by general taxation which'd be a lot fucking fairer on everyone, rather than a flat rate enforced by little Hitlers.

Why not rely on donations like PBS does here in the states? How much is a TV licence, by the way?

[HappyCheeseGuy]

At 1/1/07 07:07 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:35 PM, jonthomson wrote:

At 1/1/07 06:32 PM, Cybex wrote:

of course the only reason this is so is to get more money from the people

Actually, it's the only way the BBC gets money. It's necessary.

They could just as easily be funded by general taxation which'd be a lot fucking fairer on everyone, rather than a flat rate enforced by little Hitlers.

Why not rely on donations like PBS does here in the states? How much is a TV licence, by the way?

£131 a year, about $260. It's quite expensive, but it means the BBC don't have to show commercials.

[Cybex]

At 1/1/07 07:04 PM, jonthomson wrote: It's not a question of affordability, it's more that it costs the exact same amount whether you're a single parent on benefits or a multi-millionaire. Which is regressive and unfair. Besides, even if you don't have a TV, the enforcement agencies will pursue you anyway, as they can't comprehend the concept of people not having a TV.

Why should it be cheaper for certain people? It's not as if they get less out the experience and so shouldn't have to pay as much. A multi-millionaire has worked hard for his money. Why should he have to spend more of it in order to watch TV? You don't expect poor people to be able to go into shops and get discounts on everything thats for sale do you? That would totally muck up the whole monetary system. A price of a good is determined by the demand and supply of a product. Its no different for the TV license. If people aren't willing to pay the price, they don't have to buy the product, and the price and quantity demanded will fall into equilibrium as it should. If you make the price less for certain people, it will fall out of equilibrium.

It's is perfectly easy to live without a TV. Go ask anyone at university.

[FeargusMcDuff]

Yeah, I wont be getting a TV until I acctualy want to pay £10.54 a month. Internet will be far cheaper than that in 3-4 years.

[Cybex]

At 1/1/07 07:09 PM, HappyCheeseGuy wrote: £131 a year, about $260. It's quite expensive, but it means the BBC don't have to show commercials.

When you take into account that in a year, the average household will be working from january to mid-june before they've paid all their tax for a year, £131 a year is really barely anything.

[Idocreating]

At 1/1/07 07:14 PM, Cybex wrote: It's is perfectly easy to live without a TV. Go ask anyone at university.

Thats because they download all their favourite shows at uni...

[Desentil]

Well you only need one tv license throughout your whole life and it applies to all of your properties, as well as all tv's in the property. so it isn't that bad. I don't plan on getting a tv with an aerial connection though so I won't really bother getting one. It'll just be for gaming most likely.

[jonthomson]

At 1/1/07 07:14 PM, Cybex wrote:

It's is perfectly easy to live without a TV. Go ask anyone at university.

I know, I did. You seem to keep missing the point so I won't explain myself any further.

[Cybex]

At 1/1/07 07:26 PM, jonthomson wrote: I know, I did. You seem to keep missing the point so I won't explain myself any further.

Please do, i would like to know what point you're trying to make. Why should people with less money have to pay less for a luxury?