BBC salaries.

[CambridgeDon]

Unless you're over 75 in which case it's free. Looking forward to that!

 

Also, re the first post on salaries. How many Premier League footballers earn more in a week than the PM does in a year?

 

Thanks Jean, that's a long time to wait for something I should have a choice over!

[Caselord]

It's £12.12 per month. It's **** all for the options available. I pay £95 per month for Virgin TV, phone & broadband.

[jimbo57]

It's £12.12 per month. It's **** all for the options available. I pay £95 per month for Virgin TV, phone & broadband.

 

Your paying well over the odds. but you are getting phone& broadband in ur package which your not with the bbc fee.

but - you choose to have the Virgin package, thats ur choice. however you have to pay the bbc fee, no choice if you have a tv otherwise youll be in court

[sandbach_valiant]

Unless you're over 75 in which case it's free. Looking forward to that!

 

Also, re the first post on salaries. How many Premier League footballers earn more in a week than the PM does in a year?

 

Thanks Jean, that's a long time to wait for something I should have a choice over!

 

You do have a choice, you don't have to have a tv connected to the network. Could just use non-live web-based services - like nowtv etc etc - if you really hate paying the licence fee.

[For Us All]

Unless you're over 75 in which case it's free. Looking forward to that!

 

Also, re the first post on salaries. How many Premier League footballers earn more in a week than the PM does in a year?

 

Too many,start a thread.

[Aussie Rules]

It would be interesting to compare BBC salaries to 'Commercial salaries - very interesting indeed.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

How many people posting on here objected to Mrs Thatcher's hated poll tax?

 

Well, the BBC licence fee is a broadcasting poll tax by another name. You have to play it regardless of your means to do so, on pain of prosecution, and it's the same rate for rich and poor. It is therefore regressive and penalises the poor (not only financially but with a criminal record if they don't pay). At the same time, the BBC pay their executives salaries that most of us can only dream about out of public funds; and then they give them a gold-plated pension paid for not by the employees out of their salaries but by the licence payer (last year the BBC paid £325 MILLION of the licence payers' money into their pension pot).

 

Last year 180,00 people were found guilty of evading payment, many of them the poorest in society (including single mothers on benefits), and given a criminal record, wrecking their chances of finding employment. This amounted, unbelievably, to more than 10% of all prosecutions in magistrates' courts. Hang your heads in shame, fat cats of the BBC.

 

How anyone can justify the fairness of this is beyond comprehension.

 

It is completely wrong that it is a criminal offence and no one should go to prison or have a criminal record for non-payment..hopefully that will change soon and it becomes a civil matter..that could lead to it going conmpletley though as it mayl not be viable from a cost point of view for the BBC to pursue the matter in a court but equally could land the non-payer with hefty legal costs.

 

However, if it became a subscription service it could cost much more than the licence fee..but peoppe would have choice so may cost less

 

If it were to rely on advertising it would undoubtedly lose certain aspects of its service as not commercially viable and ITV, CH4 and CH5 would aslo be affected adversely..only so much advertising to go round.

 

Perhaos there needs to be the technology to monitor how much pf the BBCs output people watch and charge accordingly then everyone can choose hiow much they watch and so how much they pay..puts it under their control and so if you can't afford it don't watch it. Not the same as using advertising, not making everyone pay the same and maybe doesn't hit the other broadcasters to the detriment of their service

 

Personally I'd wish it to stay as is apart form decriminalising non-payment..I've no issue with people at the top of an organisarion being cery well paid..but accountability must always be looked at

[carl]

The best way to fund the TV licence would be out of taxed income, everyone gets one and it looks like its is free. To make it fair to the small number who don't want a TV, there would be a scheme where they would apply for a payment if they didn't have a TV and promised not to watch one.

This would make it easier to detect cheats, as the authorities would have a list of those claiming the non-watchers refund and it should not be a long list. Anyone who claimed the money and then was caught watching would have their TV confiscated, be fined, and never allowed to apply for a refund in the future.

Similarly with road tax, abolish and add a penny or two per gallon to fuel tax.

 

Possibly the fairest way to implement a scheme that you propose is to 'step' the proportion of TV Licence fees paid in relation to a persons salary. The fairest way would be to implement a 0.5% tax on a persons income for example, for someone on 21,000 a year they would pay £110. For someone on £100,000 they would pay £500 then that way it is fair to the people on very low incomes. And rich people, therefore would pay a fair rate of 'tax' with no scope for avoidance.

[bugsnoffer]

Over here in Aus the Murdoch Sponsored Abbot government after promising on the eve of the election there will be no cuts to the ABC (the BBC equivalent) has drastically reduced the budget of the organisation forcing immediate changes to the schedule. Murdoch hates the ABC and BBC because he cannot compete with the quality they produce for the price.

 

There are many people overseas ready to subscribe to the full BBC output which is a World Bench mark for many area's of broadcasting. Whilst it should be accountable and that the way it is funded should be fair, its unique independence and organisational vision should be cherished and protected.

[Yukon]

Possibly the fairest way to implement a scheme that you propose is to 'step' the proportion of TV Licence fees paid in relation to a persons salary. The fairest way would be to implement a 0.5% tax on a persons income for example, for someone on 21,000 a year they would pay £110. For someone on £100,000 they would pay £500 then that way it is fair to the people on very low incomes. And rich people, therefore would pay a fair rate of 'tax' with no scope for avoidance.

 

You must have a really toss job the way you bang on about income. Why should some one earning more pay yo watch the same programming? Get a grip- high earners owe low earners nothing

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Possibly the fairest way to implement a scheme that you propose is to 'step' the proportion of TV Licence fees paid in relation to a persons salary. The fairest way would be to implement a 0.5% tax on a persons income for example, for someone on 21,000 a year they would pay £110. For someone on £100,000 they would pay £500 then that way it is fair to the people on very low incomes. And rich people, therefore would pay a fair rate of 'tax' with no scope for avoidance.

 

What so because I work hard I pay more to watch the same crap TV as someone else?

 

I'd argue I should pay less as i work long hours whereas those on full benefits an sit at home and watch more of the crap :)

[pjg1876]

I think we should cherish the BBC and the fact that there really is nothing else like it, whilst always keeping a close eye on it's editorial independence, bias and the like. I don't want all TV and radio in this country to be commercially driven

 

I would cherish the BBC if it was how you paint it. Every news story is presented as a drama and way over the top particularly by that Rita Chakrobarti on the lunch time news. I'm ready to cut my throat every time I hear her reading the news.

[Yukon]

I would cherish the BBC if it was how you paint it. Every news story is presented as a drama and way over the top particularly by that Rita Chakrobarti on the lunch time news. I'm ready to cut my throat every time I hear her reading the news.

 

I'd be much more inclined to watch breakfast news if Bill Turnbill was ritually battered on a daily basis too

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Possibly the fairest way to implement a scheme that you propose is to 'step' the proportion of TV Licence fees paid in relation to a persons salary. The fairest way would be to implement a 0.5% tax on a persons income for example, for someone on 21,000 a year they would pay £110. For someone on £100,000 they would pay £500 then that way it is fair to the people on very low incomes. And rich people, therefore would pay a fair rate of 'tax' with no scope for avoidance.

 

So you want people to pay more when they may watch less? Hardly seems fair that someone earning 100K should pay for others on lower incomes to be able to watch TV cheaply..it's not like it's an essential service

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I would cherish the BBC if it was how you paint it. Every news story is presented as a drama and way over the top particularly by that Rita Chakrobarti on the lunch time news. I'm ready to cut my throat every time I hear her reading the news.

 

I compare it to SKy News and find it much better. The local news is also really good..farbetter than what we get on ITV.

 

But I am always wary of BBC news' leftist leanings