Associate
TV license is optional. You don't have to pay it if you don't watch live TV.
plans to boost public funding of the monarchy by 45% from 2025.
- Thread starter Mrwong
- Start date
It's not optional if i own a tv to only watch itv etc. Say i only watch itv but not bbc, why should i have to pay for the bbc? it's not fair. if i had the choice i'd not pay the license and not watch bbc. i'd still watch the other live tv channels.
Last edited:
Soldato
Optional, technically, sure, but not paying it does put you at risk of being assessed by someone who dropped out of debt collector school and makes dubious claims about the capabilities of their van.
Associate
Because ITV gets some of the money, and some of the money goes to broadcast equipment upkeep.
Anyway, lets not digress.
Last edited:
King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers
Details published by Treasury show royal family’s grant is expected to increase from £86m to £125m in 2025amp.theguardian.com
This should not be allowed, 45,% increase.
FUMMING!
Associate
I know plenty who have a TV and no TV license and they've never been door-stepped. It's a lot less common these days with people now knowing their right to not need a TV license.
All this nonsense about billionaire fighting, I think we should put MrWong and Dowie in a room with a 6 pack of red bull each and give them a topic to argue over.
Then again those chaps at Cern might end up looking a bit silly as those two could probably create a singularity.
Soldato
Yeah I get that. To be honest I do pay it because there's the odd thing I want to catch. It represents fairly poor value for us and barely scratches over the mark of "I'd pay for that". But my main issue is the whole concept of TV licensing feels like something that belongs in the past.
If we're going to have state broadcasting funding we might as well just fund it from our taxes which are already levelled progressively and so imo is a more equitable way of funding it. I know there's some argument that having it as a TV license allegedly separates it from the government somewhat but I don't really buy it as the commons can vote it away, change the amount, whatever and most of the time we have a majority government so really it's just independence theatre.
I would be more concerned about the resultant dowiehole interfering with the latest LIGO experiments tbh, the gravitational waves coming off such dense objects circling each other this close to it would drown everything else out!
Man of Honour
Then you have no issue because they don't receive money from the public.
If you give me £100 and I give you £25 back, would you perceive that as me giving you money?
Caporegime
A) Each person "pays" something like £1.76 a year towards the royals.
B) They generate massive amounts of tax which more than covers that
C) Thats how a society works. You do pay for Mr Smith down the road who has 5 kids and no one in his family has worked for 3 generations and he doesn't contribute billions in tax revenue to the country. You pay for schools when you don't have kids. You pay for the roads regardless of how much you use them and you pay for the NHS even if you never use it. So yes, you do pay for Mr Smith down the road.
And Edinburgh and Windsor and Balmoral and...
Except the Royal Family doesn't receive money from the public. It receives money from the Crown Estates, most of which goes to the Exchequer.
Taxpayer ripoff or bargain? The cost of the British royal family
Critics of the monarchy say it is outdated and a waste of money, but supporters argue it more than pays its way.
"Much of the royal family's expenses are covered by an annual taxpayer-funded payment known as the Sovereign Grant"
i don't mind paying for normal day to running of a family for things such as medical care, education, etc, what i meant is that i don't like paying for a family who live in extreme opulency and get richer and richer every year whilst shaking a few hands on luxurious visits to other countries several times a year.
see the answer above.
Soldato
On the crown estate, say Charles wanted to abdicate and take the lot with him. He'll sell most of it to Putin who fancies the idea of technically owning a lot of the UK's heritage and will pay a premium. Is he allowed to do that?
If he can't (and let's imagine e.g. trade restrictions etc. aren't in play here), can he be said to own it?
If he can't (and let's imagine e.g. trade restrictions etc. aren't in play here), can he be said to own it?
Caporegime
So you would prefer that we don't have the agreement with the royal family that is massively beneficial in our favour and that they were effectively just another uber wealthy family that tries to pay as little tax as they humanly can?
As to luxurious visits to other countries several times a year, they have a ridiculous number of official engagement that they have to endure all over the world probably doing the very last thing they would want to be doing in that country as they are expected to smile and make small talk incessantly.
Not a job I would want. I haven't seen too much of the Royals sunning it up in Marbella by the pool but I might have missed those trips.
yes i'd prefer it if the royal family did not receive tax payers money, however obsfucated that process has become. yes i'd risk losing funds overall, it just doesn't sit well with me that the tax payer is making a family richer and richer and richer because of their bloodline. i have nothing against the royals as people, i just take very little interest in them or their lives. royalty is an antiquated and outdated institution that more and more countries got rid of or reduced their influence/financial impact over the years. hopefully we will too.
Permabanned
Now, if we could swap the Royal Family and the elected government temporarily for a benevolent dictator to do the unpopular but necessary evisceration in this country, he or she would get my unequivocal support 
Caporegime
This doesn't make any sense. You don't want them to get tax payer money despite it being a reciprocal agreement whereby we only give money to them because they give vastly more to us. You accept that you would happily not give them money back and happily take the massive hit that caused and yet you still seem to suggest that we are making them richer and richer through the tax we pay them. We aren't. If the agreement was burned tomorrow the royal family would be much wealthier and we would be poorer. They are enriching us, not the other way around.
I have no particularly strong views on the Royals but I find it utterly bizarre how many people share the same view as you and would happily cut off their nose to spite their face when it comes to the royals.
You don't have to have any interest in them or their lives. They are part of our history and heritage and what they do now has almost 0 effect on your life. You don't have to pay any attention to them and you ultimately financially benefit from them. The royal family also has the square route of **** all influence in this country and how its run. They don't get involved in politics and they are a net contributor to the country. All of your arguments are factually incorrect. The have little influence and 0 financial impact that isn't positive.
You can argue that they shouldn't exist but they do and due to the laws of our country you can't just strip people of assets that they own because you don't like it.