2006-12-21 03:47:36 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Yes, unfortunately. They are sods like that.
2006-12-21 03:50:36 · answer #1 · answered by Litmus180 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You pay the licence fee in Britain for the privilege of owning and using the TV set itself, not the service. It's a tax on televisions. That is why a person who has an antenna but no telly doesn't have to pay the licence fee (but they will search your house to make sure you haven't hidden the set.)
With the growth of satellite TV and the decline in the quality of BBC programming, this tax looks sillier every year. It's taxes like this one that started the Revolutionary War back in the 1700's.
2006-12-21 06:19:59 · answer #2 · answered by anna 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You even have to have a licence if the TV is only ever used to play video games on and the aerial is not even connected. Fact is that it is possible to connect it and receive BBC so you have to pay in case you do.
Good thing is that you only need one licence per household. Of course houses in multiple occupancy are classed as separate households so each flat/bedsit needs a licence.
Starfox
2006-12-21 05:11:24 · answer #3 · answered by Starfox 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you have a television set in your house and you switch it on you have to pay the licence fee. Doesn't matter what you watch. Even if you never watch BBC at all.
2006-12-21 04:29:50 · answer #4 · answered by mcfifi 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The TV license is the most inequitable tax in Britain. It hits hardest those who can least afford it. I think that given that the BBC has government support, it should be funded out of the total tax take rather than by a specific license. Those who claim to never use any BBC product (TV or radio) could then perhaps claim a rebate but this would be unlikely to happen often. They could then dismantle the whole licensing apparatus, and stop paying for those nasty adverts which try to scare you into buying the license. Those who argue in favour of a license should explain why direct government funding (which is what, for example, they do in Australia), and which taxpayers would pay in proportion to their income, is a less favourable solution than the flat-rate TV license which is unrelated to your income.
2016-05-23 05:26:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You now have to pay the licence fee just for owning a television set. Doesn't matter what you watch. Annoying isn't it?
2006-12-21 03:51:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, dont believe what that people tell you about owing a TV that you must have a TV licence that's rubbish you can own a TV and still watch videos and DVD without owing a licence, but as long as your connected to a sky dish or TV Ariel and watch broadcasted TV you must own a licence no matter what channel you watch, thats the law am afraid
2006-12-21 06:14:11 · answer #7 · answered by rusty red 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Your licence is for the TV no matter what you watch.
2006-12-21 03:52:42 · answer #8 · answered by ROBSTER 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, sky will inform the license people that you have a contract with them so it'll be harder to avoid it. If you have no contract then its hard for the license people to track you down.
2006-12-21 03:59:54 · answer #9 · answered by . 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
i think its awful that we have to pay for it twice or pay when you dont watch the rubbish that on the channels
2006-12-21 04:10:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋