ensabbahnur
Hash Vacuum
So I noticed in the news that the TV Licence/tax in the UK is under review for decriminalization. Now I had already know that it existed but I never took the time to read up all the fine print on exactly what it was and what it involved, and whoa, Im really confused as to how this is even legal, let alone how it actually came to be.
Some of the key things that make my head hurt are
warning, below I recommend ditching your entire monarchy and the, IMO, completely undeserved reverence and verbal prostration towards people doing your country no appreciable service yet commanding a huge amount of your resources......directly for themselves. Not in any way trying to be political and not limiting this criticism to the current monarchy but all modern monarchies.
1. You have to pay for a ~$200 a year license, to a company created (1 of no less than 5 individual companies created for this single purpose) to manage the collection of the fees, and that money goes goes into "the consolidated fund" a "discretionary" government/crown piggy bank fund.
2. The fee is commonly and repeatedly cited (and is supported by lack of commercials on BBC) as going to ensure "continued, quality BBC programming and content" yet since the money goes directly to the "consolidated fund" and must be allocated to anyone only via vote, this seems an extremely unlikely that the funds sole purpose is funding the BBC. Also, I can find no actual breakdown of the accounting of that fund, only that the tax is collected. Even if this was true, what if I hate everything the BBC produces, if I want to watch the Super Bowl for example, I still have to ostensibly pay the BBC to do so??
3. The fee is collected regardless of who actually provides the content or how it is received, meaning you could be watching live NBC (a US station), via the internet, via a non UK satellite, on your computer being powered by your off grid generator, and you are still expected to pay, despite in my example, using no UK services or infrastructure....whatsoever, under the guise of supporting the BBC, which has already (at least from all my reading) has been proven to be false.
4. As mentioned above I found no less than 5 companies created by the government to manage the collection and enforcement of the tax. Does it really take so many? All of those employees are being paid straight from the taxes collected. It seems insanely wasteful to me but perhaps there is more to this then what I can read. Im also curious, as its now been reclassified as a tax, why its not collected via the government, through normal channels, with the rest of the taxes? It seems to me there is no possibility of the current method being cheaper or more efficient.
5. The only explanation i can find as to how this taxing came about was the Communications Act of 2003, and even then its just constant links to the direct document, which I've read in its entirety (And holy smokes do you guys need to ditch the entire monarchy and all the useless "crown entities") to validate a quote I dont believe (which ill get to next) but nothing explains any further explanation or justification of any kind, only this is what we are doing from now on and you'll go to jail if you dont.
6. The government has repeatedly for about 3/4 of a century, claimed to posses an ability to "detect unlicensed TVs", from outside your home, yet never once proving such an ability to the public (to my knowledge). While i fully believe historic (40yr old+) designs COULD, in some circumstances be detected to the point you could tell if they were turned on or off, I strongly doubt they have had any method of detecting what the content on the TV was (a taxable signal vs say a dvd) without direct visual or audio observation. The referenced quote above was from the Accounting Office and stated that they have verified the enforcement divisions ability to discern unauthorized reception across several types of modern devices including computers and phones. I strongly feel this is 100% complete and utter BS as the technical differences across each display device mean there are (without visual or audio surveillance) no common emitted signals or frequencies. Im curious as to why (if no one has) no one has legally contested such claims.
Im very curious if any of our UK FC'rs can chime in and maybe either clarify anything Ive posted or provide any further background or even better, opinions about the TV License. It just seems SO crazy to me to be taxed by person A, for something created/provided by person B, so that person A can SAY they are funding person C, with whom you may have ZERO interaction with whatsoever.......just because they say so. I looked for a public vote but couldn't find any details beyond the assumption the parliament voted on it in some fashion.
I see similarities in function to the US gasoline tax wherein a part of every fuel sale supposedly goes towards the "general roads fund", the only legitimate rational I can see toward this tax in comparison to the UK TV tax is even if I never use any roads with any vehicles I may own, I MIGHT someday need to call an ambulance that will use the road. I dont really see any similar rational for the BBC to tell you to pay them, if you have nothing to do with them whatsoever.
TLDR:
UK, your TV tax is crazy, please explain it to me
Some of the key things that make my head hurt are
warning, below I recommend ditching your entire monarchy and the, IMO, completely undeserved reverence and verbal prostration towards people doing your country no appreciable service yet commanding a huge amount of your resources......directly for themselves. Not in any way trying to be political and not limiting this criticism to the current monarchy but all modern monarchies.
1. You have to pay for a ~$200 a year license, to a company created (1 of no less than 5 individual companies created for this single purpose) to manage the collection of the fees, and that money goes goes into "the consolidated fund" a "discretionary" government/crown piggy bank fund.
2. The fee is commonly and repeatedly cited (and is supported by lack of commercials on BBC) as going to ensure "continued, quality BBC programming and content" yet since the money goes directly to the "consolidated fund" and must be allocated to anyone only via vote, this seems an extremely unlikely that the funds sole purpose is funding the BBC. Also, I can find no actual breakdown of the accounting of that fund, only that the tax is collected. Even if this was true, what if I hate everything the BBC produces, if I want to watch the Super Bowl for example, I still have to ostensibly pay the BBC to do so??
3. The fee is collected regardless of who actually provides the content or how it is received, meaning you could be watching live NBC (a US station), via the internet, via a non UK satellite, on your computer being powered by your off grid generator, and you are still expected to pay, despite in my example, using no UK services or infrastructure....whatsoever, under the guise of supporting the BBC, which has already (at least from all my reading) has been proven to be false.
4. As mentioned above I found no less than 5 companies created by the government to manage the collection and enforcement of the tax. Does it really take so many? All of those employees are being paid straight from the taxes collected. It seems insanely wasteful to me but perhaps there is more to this then what I can read. Im also curious, as its now been reclassified as a tax, why its not collected via the government, through normal channels, with the rest of the taxes? It seems to me there is no possibility of the current method being cheaper or more efficient.
5. The only explanation i can find as to how this taxing came about was the Communications Act of 2003, and even then its just constant links to the direct document, which I've read in its entirety (And holy smokes do you guys need to ditch the entire monarchy and all the useless "crown entities") to validate a quote I dont believe (which ill get to next) but nothing explains any further explanation or justification of any kind, only this is what we are doing from now on and you'll go to jail if you dont.
6. The government has repeatedly for about 3/4 of a century, claimed to posses an ability to "detect unlicensed TVs", from outside your home, yet never once proving such an ability to the public (to my knowledge). While i fully believe historic (40yr old+) designs COULD, in some circumstances be detected to the point you could tell if they were turned on or off, I strongly doubt they have had any method of detecting what the content on the TV was (a taxable signal vs say a dvd) without direct visual or audio observation. The referenced quote above was from the Accounting Office and stated that they have verified the enforcement divisions ability to discern unauthorized reception across several types of modern devices including computers and phones. I strongly feel this is 100% complete and utter BS as the technical differences across each display device mean there are (without visual or audio surveillance) no common emitted signals or frequencies. Im curious as to why (if no one has) no one has legally contested such claims.
Im very curious if any of our UK FC'rs can chime in and maybe either clarify anything Ive posted or provide any further background or even better, opinions about the TV License. It just seems SO crazy to me to be taxed by person A, for something created/provided by person B, so that person A can SAY they are funding person C, with whom you may have ZERO interaction with whatsoever.......just because they say so. I looked for a public vote but couldn't find any details beyond the assumption the parliament voted on it in some fashion.
I see similarities in function to the US gasoline tax wherein a part of every fuel sale supposedly goes towards the "general roads fund", the only legitimate rational I can see toward this tax in comparison to the UK TV tax is even if I never use any roads with any vehicles I may own, I MIGHT someday need to call an ambulance that will use the road. I dont really see any similar rational for the BBC to tell you to pay them, if you have nothing to do with them whatsoever.
TLDR:
UK, your TV tax is crazy, please explain it to me
