I've heard that in England -- and possibly all of the UK (?) -- there's some sort of really nasty taxation situation with regard to ownership of TV sets. And that some factor... taxes or something else... causes a person to have to pay through the nose to have a TV, and more so for every additional TV?
Is this true? If so, that sounds patently absurd, since here in the USA we could put hundreds of TVs into a house if we wanted, and all that would cost us would be the price of the TVs. (Not counting cable service, but that can be handled for free and without penalty with cable splitters.)
If this is true, what's keeping the Brits from rebelling en masse, to pressure Parliament for change?
Finally, is it possible to "hide" extra TVs within the house, so no one will know you have them? If so, are many people doing that?
2007-06-16 08:28:14 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Consumer Electronics ➔ TVs
To "Nic1531" -- YIKES!! Ten bucks a gallon for gas?! That would put most Americans on bicycles!! (And I've been thinking that $2.79 was horrendous!)
I'm glad that there's no limit on number of TVs in the house, and that one license covers them all. But -- how weird! The BBC should have to fend for itself with ads, as our networks do. Many of our networks are ad-free cable channels, and they get the revenue from the cable companies, who get paid by customers who OPT for that service. This means that if a person wants to listen to broadcast TV only, it's 100% free.
I wish you very good luck in getting that licensing thing overturned!
2007-06-16 09:05:19 · update #1
To "Realist 2006" -- Am I to infer correctly that a household without a TV would still need that license to have a conventional RADIO receiver? If so, that is TRULY insane?
And -- what about these latest TVs that are so tiny that people can simply carry them around. How could they ever catch on to that with the van, and enforce it? Or pocket radios?
(ANYONE -- Please feel free to answer those latest inquiries. Thanks!!)
2007-06-17 10:12:54 · update #2
What a load of twaddle. On the guise of sympathising with the Brits, this guy is really griping because he has to pay tax. Doesn't he know he is in the country with the best standard of living in the world. And how did it get there? First by screwing the indigenous peoples out of their land. Then by enslaving the peoples of a whole continent to work for nothing (far worse than having to pay tax). Now that he should be thanking the black descendents of the slaves for the work their forefathers put in, he treats them like ****.
Follow that up with formenting coups whenever a country democratically elects a a government that might actually stand up to his country's bullying.
Then, when there is a prospect that he might have to swap his Hummer for a bicycle, he invents a pretext to screw the oil out of a country that has some.
He wants everything for nothing, on the backs of everyone else. Talk about selfish.
2007-06-20 20:22:41 · answer #1 · answered by Sodem O 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sotires is right, almost. I'm not so sure quite how independent the BBC is. Also, BBC1 is getting more and more like the commercial channels.
But there are not many ways of keeping TV from becoming pure pap. And 30p per day is not a bad deal for seven channels. True their quality is not uniform, but they're pretty good on the whole. The alternative is either dumbed down or overpriced - look at the Murdoch offering, which costs around 30 pounds a month (depending on what package you get). The BBC licence covers every TV in the house, but if you get Sky you need to get a separate subscription (or a complex "twin" deal where the two setop boxes are connected together via the phone, which still costs extra) for every TV.
The other way of funding is Channel 4, which takes a slice off the ITV revenue. But there are limits to how far this can be done, and Ch 4 is beginning to show signs of dumbing down too.
By the way, the radio licence fee was scrapped quite a few years ago.
2007-06-18 11:14:01 · answer #2 · answered by dinahsoot 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The TV licence fee in UK dates back to the first days of radio transmission when every man and his dog used to try and make their own radio , some people were even making radio transmitters and were communicating over long distances so to curb it a little before it run away from them the government thought what a good little earner this would be if we charged everybody a fee !!. The radio licence was born so it just followed that with the advent of TV then why not add that as well ? . Officially it is a Licence to operate a receiving station licence of any sort ! as I say -----A Good little Earner !!
Cheers Pete
2007-06-17 08:23:40 · answer #3 · answered by Realist 2006 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As Nic says...we have to have a licence for our TV.
But one licence covers the entire household. However...when 18 year olds go away to uni, and stay in halls of residence, they have to have a licence...for their TV..or PC if it is capable of receiving TV.
The government have TV detector vans, also a list of houses with TV. (you buy a TV here, you have to give the vendor your name and address, on an official form) Then few weeks later the purchaser gets a letter reminding them to purchase a TV licence.
The most annoying thing for me is..you used to be able to pik them up at the Post Office, when your previous one ran out....(yes, it's an annual fee!)....but they sold the franchise to pay point..so you can't just go and buy it now
And yes, our fuel is getting silly. They switched to selling it in litres some years back now, but it is around 95p/ litre, which is about $2 litre...a gallon is 4.5 times that.
And no...you can't hide TVs..the detector van can detect them.
Over here, there have been single Mums put in prison for not having a TV licence...how silly is that?
2007-06-16 16:53:49 · answer #4 · answered by i_am_jean_s 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the previous guy, on the whole. The questioner just wants a free ride and to live in his own little world watching American junk TV.
Either that or buy/rent lots of DVDs. I'm sure his bill for DVDs for a year will be well over he British TV licence fee.
2007-06-21 22:57:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
yes in all of the uk we have to have a tv "licence" ( like its dangerous or something ) and it costs about £120 a year . i think thats about $220 . but you can have as many tv's in one house for that price . but yeah its a rip off , its to pay for the bbc which has no adverts but i would rather put up with the ads , there was some talk of the gov making them fund themselves but we have worse things to complain about , ie petrol is over $10 a gallon . sorry went on one but they gonna tax us to breathe next .aaaaaaaaaaahhh
2007-06-16 15:41:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UK like most of Europe taxes you up the wazoooo on everything. Yeah, I agree there is a lot of junk on American tv, but the last thing the Brits had on tv that was any good was Benny Hill...LOLOL.
2007-06-19 09:59:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You don't need to hide extra tvs. The licence covers all the tvs in the house.
The licence fee is what keeps the BBC independent. By providing a partial alternative, it is the reason our TV is not yet complete junk.
As for the price of petrol, do you really need to drive around in tanks to take your kids to school in the morning?
2007-06-17 17:36:35 · answer #8 · answered by sotires 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋