Over 75s now pay for TV license

Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
I think the difference is it's meant to be a public service. We don't have far more deserving individuals in other public services getting even a fraction of those salaries for doing far more skilled jobs.

Actually, we really do. Look at the fractions for chief executives of universities and leaders of councils as a starting point. Then look at the police.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
Actually, we really do. Look at the fractions for chief executives of universities and leaders of councils as a starting point. Then look at the police.

I'm not sure any university ceo's or council leaders are being paid what lineker gets. Besides, those examples also carry a lot more responsibility than procrastinating over football and reading an autocue.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
I'm not sure any university ceo's or council leaders are being paid what lineker gets. Besides, those examples also carry a lot more responsibility than procrastinating over football and reading an autocue.

I didn't say they did - you said a fraction, I inferred that they're being paid a highly relevant fraction of what Lineker is.

I'm not going to entertain a discussion on the differing values of different jobs. There's too much that's subjective - for example, I could put the argument that appearing on live TV to 10 million people has a larger responsibility than chairing a meeting backed up by the entire council leadership team.
 

SPG

SPG

Soldato
Joined
28 Jul 2010
Posts
10,257
Dr Who and Top Gear are the only things on your list resembling something with an actual budget, and not something that just requires a camera crew and someone behind it.

Rubbish, EVERYTHING has a budget. I am sure Radio 3 will have a station head on 80k + a year and a swanky expense account, same goes for BBC 3 Online or whatever its called these days.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Posts
2,361
What should the government be investing in that it isn't already? Why has borrowing gone up if they aren't spending it on anything?!

Oh, we actually know why, to service debts built up previously.

They should be investing more on infrastructure away from London and education.

They have reduced corporation tax as an example of a tax cut so they are getting less money in.

Anyway this is off topic
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Have the people moaning about salaries even looked at the BBC's fiscal report?

With a Revenue of ~£5 billion. Programs are ~£700m, executive/board pay is ~£4.5m, salaries are £1.45b overall ( the rest is i guess licensing/rent/whatever).

They employ 21,583 as of last year of which 20 are the board and committee so 21563 employees at a median salary of £42k (average is ~£38k), so assuming you'd want to reduce the median to the national median (which is just cruel considering the industry pay levels), that would potentially make up a similar number to the new policy.

The fact is that executive pay is actually not out of control and wouldn't do anything to their shortfall in the future, the pay for the whole staff could probably use a little cut, but i doubt it's going to help much when the fact is that those over 70's are going to become a rather chunky part of the population while everyone else reduces their usage of the service altogether.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
The petition has now exceeded 100'000 signatures.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/234627

Funny how BBC news has buried the story barely two days since the story broke yet other stories such as a milk shake thrown at Nigel Farage back on 20th May are still displayed prominently at the top of the Entertainment & Arts section, same section that the TV Licence story appeared in previously. Only way to find story now is to use the search function.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48587936
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Posts
4,326
The news tells me pensioners are poor, yet at 31 years old I have genuinely never known a pensioner who is short of cash. I'd even go as far to say that most are well off.
The percentage of pensioners in the top half of the overall population income distribution (AHC) in 2017/18 was 49per cent (based on equivalised data). In 1994/95this was 38per cent.
This difference is statistically significant.The increase occurred between 1994/95 and 2009/10.

So in general they are a lot better off than they used to be.

TV licensing is unfair on everyone. I don't pay and will not pay as I don't watch TV.
How is it unfair on you if you don't pay it and anyone else who doesn't pay it?
 
Associate
Joined
8 Mar 2013
Posts
1,824
Location
Chiang Mai
I've got a solution to the whole issue. Once attenborough dies and nothing of merit is left on the BBC they close shop. Keep the news side of things I guess and they can be a 24/7 stream on youtube or something and on their own site. Everything else goes in the bin and we all get to enjoy having a TV without a stupid fee.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Posts
3,745
Without getting into whether you think the BBC should be state funded I think everyone would agree that paying a fixed fee "per household" for effectively owning a television which is connected to an aerial is an incredibly regressive, unfair.

It's a ridiculous way to find a television channel in 2019.
 
Caporegime
Joined
7 Nov 2004
Posts
30,194
Location
Buckinghamshire
No idea of it's been said already, but I can partially see why they're doing it.

They need the money, less and less people, particularly young people, are paying the fee now, let alone when they're old.

Is it a douche move? Yes, but what else would you do?
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
10,072
Location
West Sussex, England
No idea of it's been said already, but I can partially see why they're doing it.

They need the money, less and less people, particularly young people, are paying the fee now, let alone when they're old.

Is it a douche move? Yes, but what else would you do?

force them to go down the commercial channels route and compete on a level playing field with the rest of the commercial channels.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
2,829
Even though I don't have a TV licence and think it's a waste of money, I do feel for old people. State pension is worthless when there are expenditures like council tax, TV licence, VAT etc. Do they actually have much left after that?

So the BBC thinks they are losing around £650 million per year from old people. What they should do is trim the fat like any other business would do when it isn't making money. Keep BBC 1 & 2 with budgets halved, Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. Cut the rest including the £100+ million on TV licence collections.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
Even though I don't have a TV licence and think it's a waste of money, I do feel for old people. State pension is worthless when there are expenditures like council tax, TV licence, VAT etc. Do they actually have much left after that?

So the BBC thinks they are losing around £650 million per year from old people. What they should do is trim the fat like any other business would do when it isn't making money. Keep BBC 1 & 2 with budgets halved, Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. Cut the rest including the £100+ million on TV licence collections.

You're making a statement about budgets without evidence or what exactly to cut, the fact is that this welfare program can't survive when it's main demographic dont even pay for it and cutting budgets wont solve it's problem.

The fact is that the government should have just cut the BBC loose when it had the chance, they didn't, they instead granted it power over this policy and it's now using it, if the government didn't want them to change this policy, they should have kept it.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Nov 2004
Posts
2,829
You're making a statement about budgets without evidence or what exactly to cut, the fact is that this welfare program can't survive when it's main demographic dont even pay for it and cutting budgets wont solve it's problem.

The fact is that the government should have just cut the BBC loose when it had the chance, they didn't, they instead granted it power over this policy and it's now using it, if the government didn't want them to change this policy, they should have kept it.

You can't criticize me for not providing evidence, and then say "the fact is" twice in your post without giving any evidence yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom