PC Tax - Nooooooo!

[Borris]

So? I am stating the point that they take way too much regardless! I wouldnt mind if they actually put it to good use.

Interestingly enough, your post that I initially replied to stated that the government is ruining this country, ostensibly, as you claimed, due to their policy for increasing overall taxation.

I refuted your claim, by offering the arguement that the overall level of taxation has not been changed by any government since the industrial revolution, meaning that your claim cannot be true.

Your point may have been better worded to refer to any UK goverment over the years, as opposed to the current one.

 

[Sequoia]

It comes as no surprise whatsoever with this bunch. They are also considering taxing us for emptying our bins, something that we already pay for in council tax.

They can't help themsleves, never trust a socialist.

In theory, charging per rubbish bag is a good idea, and the idea was to remove the rubbish-collection element from the council tax, replacing it with a per bag charge.

But there are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, anyone want to bet whether the council tax would actually go down if they did this?

Secondly, what's to stop someone with six bags of rubbish leaving two outside their own door, and the other four outside the door of the guy they don't like a few doors down the road?

Also, while charging per bag might give people and incentive to cut down on rubbish production and encourage recycling, it also gives an incentive to millions of people to start fly tipping.

Personally, I think it's a lousy idea, but it's because of pragmatic issues not that the principle is wrong. The principle, of paying more if you use more, seems fine to me.

 

[i know nothing]

Well why dont they just put tax on t.v cards or something? I know that wouldn't get everyone but still...Some peeps have t.v's in their cars, so is everyone with cars gonna have to pay a t.v. license?

Your point about cars intrigued me. I've had a look at the TV Licensing website where they say; "If you watch or record TV programmes in a second home which is a touring caravan or vehicle, or a boat, you do not need a separate TV Licence; you will be covered by the TV Licence for your main residence."

 

[ben_j_davis]

Nice research

 

[Manlove is my forte]

It won't fly. Businesses would not come to britian if they had to pay a PC tax.

The UK is moving into a technology and services market. We can not afford the burden of having to pay licence fees for PC's on every site. It simply won't happen.

 

[zain]

But given that the tax burden has remained fairly static, then does that not suggest, given that tax cuts are a politicians dream, that all the money actually gets used?

If there was billions of pounds being wasted that could be given back to the populace, then it would be.

Millinieum dome being just one example of a stupid project by the government. Have you seen some of their other projects that have failed? I cant remember the name but it involves freely giving money to training providers linked with benefits, before it was started it was instantly seen by many as a huge scope for fraud and it was. They waste the money and they take too much, now theres a "black hole" so they want to up rates..again the burden on us. Its pathetic.

Interestingly enough, your post that I initially replied to stated that the government is ruining this country, ostensibly, as you claimed, due to their policy for increasing overall taxation.

I refuted your claim, by offering the arguement that the overall level of taxation has not been changed by any government since the industrial revolution, meaning that your claim cannot be true.

Your point may have been better worded to refer to any UK goverment over the years, as opposed to the current one.

Not too sure what youre saying mate but the simple fact is they take too much from us, they spend it stupidly and want to tax everything they can.

 

[Sp!ke]

Windows tax tbh

Copyright whoever posted it the last time this came up.

S

 

[Psyk]

And, for a public service broadcaster, it is an anathema to deprive those least able to afford TV of that basic service, which may well be the effect of going subscription.

But surely if people are that poor they won't be able to afford a TV license? I understand your point of view but does the BBC rely on people who don't want it paying for it anyway? Do you think that it wouldn't make enough money if only people that actually wanted to watch BBC paid for it?

If you're arguing that it's like paying tax to fund a public resource, then why do you only have to pay if you have a TV? If it was like the NHS then everyone should pay regardless of whether they have a TV or not.

 

[Sequoia]

But surely if people are that poor they won't be able to afford a TV license? I understand your point of view but does the BBC rely on people who don't want it paying for it anyway? Do you think that it wouldn't make enough money if only people that actually wanted to watch BBC paid for it?

Not all the poor pay for it. For instance, those over 75 get a free licence, and they are most likely to be those on a low and fixed income.

I think you're missing the point I was making. Look at it this way. The government requires anyone receiving TV transmission to have a licence, and you have to pay for that licence. Accept that this is the case regardless of the existance of the BBC. If the BBC wasn't there, the revenue would go to the general exchequer.

As a completely separate matter, they then use that revenue to fund the BBC. But BBC or not, you need a licence to receive. There is nothing to stop the government turning the BBC into subscription only, but unless they change the ethos of needing a licence to receive, you'd still have to pay the TV licence.

But the government also feel the need to provide public service broadcasting, and it therefore has to be paid for. I rather doubt that anyone with a TV never watches any BBC material at all. They may not watch much, but they'll be very few people who NEVER watch it. On the other hand, if you don't have a TV, you can't receive public service broadcasting. It doesn't seem unreasonable that people not using the service don't pay for it. Of course, you could extend that logic further .... why should a couple with no kids pay towards schools, or for that matter, working families tax credits.

If you're arguing that it's like paying tax to fund a public resource, then why do you only have to pay if you have a TV? If it was like the NHS then everyone should pay regardless of whether they have a TV or not.

Everyone can use the NHS, regardless of whether, year to year, you do or not. If you don't have a TV, you can't use public service broadcasting. But I agree, there is a lack of consistency in the logic behind funding different public services.

 

[Nana]

why not implement a scheme where you can opt out of getting the bbc and then not pay the license - that would make me happy - a complete waste of money the bbc, i never watch it!

or use the website or listen to the radio?

I'd pay my TV licence for the site and 5 live alone.. and much much more for the top quality TV like life in the undergrowth.