This £556 million for free TV licensing malarkey
Discussion
3.9 million households with a free TV licence.
Fair enough.
Now 3.9million * the licence fee comes out to £556 million give or take.
But it doesn't really cost 556 million to issue these licences, or does it?
It's just a theoretical quantity of money that isn't being collected.
It isn't as if the BBC expenses go up significantly because of all these over 75s sitting at home listening to the radio or watching David Dickinson, Doctor Who or whatever for free.
And if it does cost a fortune to administer these free licences then something is seriously wanting in the TV licensing department.
I must be being thick but I don't get it, it's just a theoretical sum on a balance sheet to be kicked around as a political football. What am I missing?
Fair enough.
Now 3.9million * the licence fee comes out to £556 million give or take.
But it doesn't really cost 556 million to issue these licences, or does it?
It's just a theoretical quantity of money that isn't being collected.It isn't as if the BBC expenses go up significantly because of all these over 75s sitting at home listening to the radio or watching David Dickinson, Doctor Who or whatever for free.
And if it does cost a fortune to administer these free licences then something is seriously wanting in the TV licensing department.
I must be being thick but I don't get it, it's just a theoretical sum on a balance sheet to be kicked around as a political football. What am I missing?
hornetrider said:
F i F said:
What am I missing?
Nothing. As you say, its simply the theoretical revenue that could be obtained by wiping out free licences and making everyone pay.Same as the flaws in 'Home taping is killing music' falsehood.
Right! So in the threat to make the BBC fund this from the licence fee what would thay have had to fund exactly?
Presumably the BBC would have been asked to pay 556 million to the Treasury who would then have simply trousered it, because they, the Treasury, wouldn't have had to actually fund anything apart from maybe a small sum to cover a couple of bods in TV licensing.
Couple of bods, yeah right I know but even so. Even 10 mill would cover a hell of an admin department, as most of these would be low payscale grunts.
For example winter fuel payments, that is cash going out, free bus passes, the same as cash goesto the councils to the bus companies. I think that is how it works, but this 556 million is completely theoretical money.
Anyway seems I've not gone daft then.
Presumably the BBC would have been asked to pay 556 million to the Treasury who would then have simply trousered it, because they, the Treasury, wouldn't have had to actually fund anything apart from maybe a small sum to cover a couple of bods in TV licensing.
Couple of bods, yeah right I know but even so. Even 10 mill would cover a hell of an admin department, as most of these would be low payscale grunts.
For example winter fuel payments, that is cash going out, free bus passes, the same as cash goesto the councils to the bus companies. I think that is how it works, but this 556 million is completely theoretical money.
Anyway seems I've not gone daft then.
F i F said:
Right! So in the threat to make the BBC fund this from the licence fee what would thay have had to fund exactly?
Presumably the BBC would have been asked to pay 556 million to the Treasury who would then have simply trousered it, because they, the Treasury, wouldn't have had to actually fund anything apart from maybe a small sum to cover a couple of bods in TV licensing.
Unless the treasury are paying the BBC that money each year to cover the cost of free tv licences. Presumably the BBC would have been asked to pay 556 million to the Treasury who would then have simply trousered it, because they, the Treasury, wouldn't have had to actually fund anything apart from maybe a small sum to cover a couple of bods in TV licensing.
I think the point is that the Government funded the wrinklies' TV licences and paid the BBC the £556 million and is ceasing to do so. On this basis the BBC loses £556 million of revenue and the Government saves £556 million of expense so it's not theoretical money. The BBC have less to spend and the Government spends less.
To be totally fair, the BBC appear to not be short on money as it is.
They sent 20 odd people to Chilie for the mining incident, 10 would do surely, 5 even?
The 'news' every moring is actually talking about Strictly and The Apprentice for much of the time.
I think the BBC should look at what it's remit is. Personally I don't want four or five TV channels, or millions of radio channels, or super fancy TV shows with mega budgets. Half of these other channels just host repeats or finely focussed demographic crap. Nice in a prospering economony/society, not really a priority when the economy is on it's arse.
Dave
They sent 20 odd people to Chilie for the mining incident, 10 would do surely, 5 even?
The 'news' every moring is actually talking about Strictly and The Apprentice for much of the time.
I think the BBC should look at what it's remit is. Personally I don't want four or five TV channels, or millions of radio channels, or super fancy TV shows with mega budgets. Half of these other channels just host repeats or finely focussed demographic crap. Nice in a prospering economony/society, not really a priority when the economy is on it's arse.
Dave
Lardydah said:
To be fair, if they removed the free license for over 75s, they'd probably have to spend an absolute bomb taking them all to court. I know for one my Nan wouldn't pay, and I doubt any of her friends would either.
If there were no 'free' licenses and she didnt pay she can go to court then. And her friends. Ive got news for her, Labour arent in power anymore, these 'subsidised' bribes are unaffordable, thats why the government is trying to absorb the cost into the bbc. Its not small beer, its about one in six houses. Given that the analogue signal is soon to be switched off and anyone who wants to watch tv in this country must have either a sky/cable box or freeview box/enabled tv why not just encrypt the channel and those of want to pay a subscription will.
Make people pay a yearly fee to access iplayer and other bbc website content and figure out a way to do the same with their radio services.
It's not that difficult!
Make people pay a yearly fee to access iplayer and other bbc website content and figure out a way to do the same with their radio services.
It's not that difficult!
Victor McDade said:
Lardydah said:
To be fair, if they removed the free license for over 75s, they'd probably have to spend an absolute bomb taking them all to court. I know for one my Nan wouldn't pay, and I doubt any of her friends would either.
What did she do before she was 75 then?jeff m said:
Lardydah said:
I know for one my Nan wouldn't pay
Why should She.....She paid for the progs when they were first made
Maybe a refund should be due everytime a show is repeated, and I mean for everyone not just your Nan. Bless her
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff