Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sdjdr4$ekj$2@dont-email.me>, gareth evans
> <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes
>> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>>>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>>>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>>>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).
>>>
>>>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.
>>>
>>>> That's the only possible fair outcome.
>>>
>>> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
>>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
>>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>>
>> With blanket coverage of football, Wimbledon and now the b***dy
>> Olympics, can I get a refund of my licence fee in compansation?
>>
>> When sport coverage was limited to Grandstand on Sat PM that was
>> about right.

Why do people begrudge others their pleasure? I don’t watch sports, but
others do - I understand it’s quite popular. These days there’s a huge
amount to watch via iPlayer. These sporty types are probably moaning about
having to pay for the sort of stuff you like.

On 25/07/2021 11:45 am, Tweed wrote:

> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:

>>> It also makes it slightly more
>>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>>> person households would get the discount.
>
>> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
>> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
>> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
>> that reason.
>
> But it was at least an order of magnitude more than the TV licence is ever
> likely to be. If one of the couple entered low paid employment they could
> double their bill overnight.

??

The Community Charge was not - as far as I recall - set on the basis of
personal income, whether the person in question was one of a couple or not.

It was charged on a per capita basis, with a specific benefit -
Community Charge Benefit - available to offset the charge for any person
in receipt of, or dependant upon a person in receipt of, Income Support,
including Jobseeker's Allowance (Income based).

> Huge issue for mothers attempting to return to
> employment for example.

I think you're misremembering it. It wasn't an income tax. Perhaps it
ought to have been.

The only way in which a household's liability (a concept which strictly
didn't exist) could increase was for the number of liable people to
increase. For example, via a partner moving in or a grown up child
achieving the age of majority (assuming them not to still be in
full-time education or in receipt of a means-tested benefit).

> The quantisation effects were huge. The TV licence
> isn’t in the slightest bit progressive at the moment.

Should it be?

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:24 am, Tweed wrote:
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>>>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>>>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>>>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>>>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>>>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>>>
>>> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
>>> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
>> as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
>> is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
>> pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
>> suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
>> arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>> person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
>> to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
>> things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
>> European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
>> amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
>> fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
>> representation.
>>
>> It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
>> son’s council tax bill.
>
> You would put it on the council tax bill?
>
> Who would decide the amount?
>
> The BBC?
>
> Would there be elections for the corporation's managers and governors?
>
Before your anti BBC reflexes kicked in did you read
“Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic amount for each council
tax band set by central government (as the licence fee currently is) before
anyone moans about taxation without
representation.”?

See also business rates - collected via the council but amount set
centrally.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 11:45 am, Tweed wrote:
>
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
>
>>>> It also makes it slightly more
>>>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>>>> person households would get the discount.
>>
>>> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
>>> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
>>> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
>>> that reason.
>>
>> But it was at least an order of magnitude more than the TV licence is ever
>> likely to be. If one of the couple entered low paid employment they could
>> double their bill overnight.
>
> ??
>
> The Community Charge was not - as far as I recall - set on the basis of
> personal income, whether the person in question was one of a couple or not.
>
> It was charged on a per capita basis, with a specific benefit -
> Community Charge Benefit - available to offset the charge for any person
> in receipt of, or dependant upon a person in receipt of, Income Support,
> including Jobseeker's Allowance (Income based).
>
>> Huge issue for mothers attempting to return to
>> employment for example.
>
> I think you're misremembering it. It wasn't an income tax. Perhaps it
> ought to have been.
>
> The only way in which a household's liability (a concept which strictly
> didn't exist) could increase was for the number of liable people to
> increase. For example, via a partner moving in or a grown up child
> achieving the age of majority (assuming them not to still be in
> full-time education or in receipt of a means-tested benefit).
>
>> The quantisation effects were huge. The TV licence
>> isn’t in the slightest bit progressive at the moment.
>
> Should it be?
>

I never said it was an income tax. If you went out to work, even relatively
low paid work, you got stung for the whole amount. A family of two adults
and perhaps a teenager on a first job, living in a small house ended up
paying three charges, if they were in what we now call minimum wage jobs.
Whereas two city bankers in a mansion paid two charges. The impact on the
living standards of the first lot were much much higher. The total income
of the first lot wouldn’t even approach half the income of one of the
second group. It was a tax that had a disproportionate impact on the lowly
paid.

On 25/07/2021 11:59 am, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 10:24 am, Tweed wrote:
>>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <lHEOEcZset+gFwev@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
>>>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I AM suffering from it! For two years I enjoyed the blissful privilege
>>>>> of a free licence, but I'm now having to fork out again (despite having
>>>>> paid it since 1965!). However, even if the free licence had not been
>>>>> snatched away from me, I still believe it would be far easier to stop
>>>>> all this messing about, and fund the BBC from our taxes (even though
>>>>> that WOULD mean I would be contributing).
>>>>
>>>> The problem then, of course, is that it give *Government* of the day more
>>>> direct and immediate control over the BBC's income.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>> I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill, much
>>> as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the amount
>>> is clear. So it won’t be like an annual government grant from the central
>>> pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would essentially
>>> suffer the same political interference as the licence fee does, ie
>>> arguments about how much it should increase. It also makes it slightly more
>>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>>> person households would get the discount. It’s also very hard to evade. As
>>> to the I don’t use it why should I pay argument, that applies to many
>>> things paid for via the council tax bill. It is a route taken by many
>>> European countries. Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic
>>> amount for each council tax band set by central government (as the licence
>>> fee currently is) before anyone moans about taxation without
>>> representation.
>>>
>>> It seems to be the way water is paid for in Glasgow at least judging by my
>>> son’s council tax bill.
>>
>> You would put it on the council tax bill?
>> Who would decide the amount?
>> The BBC?
>> Would there be elections for the corporation's managers and governors?
>>
> Before your anti BBC reflexes kicked in did you read
> “Collected via the council tax bill, but the basic amount for each council
> tax band set by central government (as the licence fee currently is) before
> anyone moans about taxation without
> representation.”?
>
> See also business rates - collected via the council but amount set
> centrally.

That doesn't answer the question. Someone has to decide the amount, and
"the government" would effectively be doing that on behalf of the BBC
(just as at present).

And it's not even as if the BBC can be trusted to adhere to agreements
it makes as a QPQ for increases (or changes in the law to its advantage
and the disadvantage of the citizen).

The BBC must be the only business in the UK which has an absolute,
unfettered, legally-guaranteed right, not only to exist, but to be ever
more prosperous at the expense of the citizen (who has no say in the
process).

On 25/07/2021 11:21, JNugent wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> In article <ilvkifFlt8jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the licence
>>> for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain other new
>>> privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to those not
>>> receiving the BBC via broadcast).
>>
>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.
>>
>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>> having
>> their pocket picked.

I don't think Jim's analogy is quite right, but I can't think of a
better one. Perhaps choosing to pay a traffic fine that you think was
unfair because it's cheaper than fighting it in the courts or refusing
to pay and going to prison.

> An agreement is an agreement.

And the agreement *empowered* the BBC to alter the free TV Licence Fee
concession as they saw fit, how many time must you be told this???!!!

> It is no part of the government's "duty" to ask "How much would sir
> require this time?" when the BBC makes a demand for ever more money to
> be taken from the pocket of the citizen.

As has now been explained to you countless times, the Licence Fee is in
all but name just another tax which the BBC collects on behalf of the
government. This agreement was reached between the BBC and a
duly-elected government, further a government which from your
unmistakeable bias you almost certainly voted for, so your heaping shit
upon the BBC but not the government is nothing more or less than
bigotry. They were both party to the agreement, you can't blame one
without implicitly blaming the other.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:58 am, MB wrote:
>> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> It would be fair*if*  we also could choose to have a price discount
>>> when we
>>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch.
>>> Alas,
>>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>>
>> I usually point out the "Advertising Tax" that is very difficult to
>> avoid, when people go on about the BBC tax.  I very rarely watch ITV,
>> CH4 and CH5 but I still pay for them through the Advertisinhg TAx and
>> I bet I pay a lot more than the TV Licence.
>
> There is no "Advertising Tax" effect.
>
> Advertising is part of the system of competition, which keeps prices
> lower than they would be if there were no advertising and no competition.

Perhaps, I have some doubts about advertising tax claims, but ...

> Look at and compare prices in "convenience stores" and in supermarkets
> to immediately see the truth of that.
>
> Almost anything we buy which might be advertised (whether on street
> billboards, TV, radio, cinema or in the various forms of press) is
> cheaper in real terms today than it was in our grandparents' prime of life.
>
> Supermarkets weren't even allowed to discount prices from RRP until 1964.

.... that is irrelevant to your argument, it can be entirely explained
away by the average wealth of the country improving.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 11:41, JNugent wrote:
> There is no "Advertising Tax" effect.
>
> Advertising is part of the system of competition, which keeps prices
> lower than they would be if there were no advertising and no competition.
>
> Look at and compare prices in "convenience stores" and in supermarkets
> to immediately see the truth of that.
>
> Almost anything we buy which might be advertised (whether on street
> billboards, TV, radio, cinema or in the various forms of press) is
> cheaper in real terms today than it was in our grandparents' prime of
life.
>
> Supermarkets weren't even allowed to discount prices from RRP until 1964.

On 25/07/2021 11:26, JNugent wrote:
>
> Old wives' tale.
>
> Advertising budgets do not dictate supermarket prices. Far from it.

No, it's obviously far more complex than that. However, you cannot say
that advertising budgets have *no* effect on supermarket prices, because
that would imply that advertising is free of cost to the advertiser,
which is obviously untrue. There is obviously some element of
advertising cost to anything that is advertised.

> And since that is the case, you are effectively agreeing that scrapping
> the BBC Tax (aka the licence fee) is the fair thing to do.

Non-sequitur.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 12:06 pm, Tweed wrote:
> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 25/07/2021 11:45 am, Tweed wrote:
>>
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
>>
>>>>> It also makes it slightly more
>>>>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>>>>> person households would get the discount.
>>>
>>>> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
>>>> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
>>>> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
>>>> that reason.
>>>
>>> But it was at least an order of magnitude more than the TV licence is ever
>>> likely to be. If one of the couple entered low paid employment they could
>>> double their bill overnight.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> The Community Charge was not - as far as I recall - set on the basis of
>> personal income, whether the person in question was one of a couple or not.
>>
>> It was charged on a per capita basis, with a specific benefit -
>> Community Charge Benefit - available to offset the charge for any person
>> in receipt of, or dependant upon a person in receipt of, Income Support,
>> including Jobseeker's Allowance (Income based).
>>
>>> Huge issue for mothers attempting to return to
>>> employment for example.
>>
>> I think you're misremembering it. It wasn't an income tax. Perhaps it
>> ought to have been.
>>
>> The only way in which a household's liability (a concept which strictly
>> didn't exist) could increase was for the number of liable people to
>> increase. For example, via a partner moving in or a grown up child
>> achieving the age of majority (assuming them not to still be in
>> full-time education or in receipt of a means-tested benefit).
>>
>>> The quantisation effects were huge. The TV licence
>>> isn’t in the slightest bit progressive at the moment.
>>
>> Should it be?
>
> I never said it was an income tax. If you went out to work, even relatively
> low paid work, you got stung for the whole amount.

You were liable to pay the whole amount whether you worked or not. Just
as with rates.

But in the same way as applied to the rates beforehand, reductions were
available for those on means-tested benefits. Means-tested benefits
always look at the "assessment unit" (an single person, a couple or a
family including dependant children).

> A family of two adults
> and perhaps a teenager on a first job, living in a small house ended up
> paying three charges, if they were in what we now call minimum wage jobs.

That is true, though strictly, the "household" was not a relevant
concept. The charge was a personal one.

> Whereas two city bankers in a mansion paid two charges. The impact on the
> living standards of the first lot were much much higher. The total income
> of the first lot wouldn’t even approach half the income of one of the
> second group. It was a tax that had a disproportionate impact on the lowly
> paid.

Local taxation has *never* been designed or intended as an income tax,
though the rating system did, and the Council Tax does, charge more to
residents of more expensive housing. There is no obvious justification
for that.

FWIW, I believe that local councils should raise local finance via sales
tax (a local addition to VAT and payable on sales which are subject to
VAT), payable at the point of purchase rather than on the basis of the
citizen's address. That would enable citizens to simply shop across the
border for high-ticket items (eg, cars, furniture) where there was
significant money to be saved. And it would incentivise councils to be
competitive with their neighbouring authorities.

Those who spend more would pay more. Spending more is an excellent proxy
for income (especially since not all income is declared to the
authorities, if you catch my drift).

On 25/07/2021 10:55, MB wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
>> It also makes it slightly more
>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>> person households would get the discount.
>
> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
> that reason.

Basically, the Tories replaced an unfair rates system by one that was
even more unfair, and consequently it was hated by most people, not just
the left ...

I knew a married couple running a local PO, who had both been lifelong
senior local Tory Party members and local Tory activists who left the
party and joined the poll-tax protests because they thought it was so
extremely unfair.

There was a very wealthy woman in Hereford living in a substantial house
and garden, and her gardener's family paid more Community Charge than
she did.

It came at a bad time for us because I was in between careers, and my
wife had had to leave her employer because of sexual harrasment, so we
were both on our uppers and were living in sub-standard accommodation,
which had merited some form of rate-rebate. Our CC bill was 4x what we
had paid previously in rates.

Etc, etc, the stories about its unfairness are endless. If you ever
come to Scotland, don't mention the Poll Tax.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 12:06, Tweed wrote:
>
> I never said it was an income tax. If you went out to work, even relatively
> low paid work, you got stung for the whole amount. A family of two adults
> and perhaps a teenager on a first job, living in a small house ended up
> paying three charges, if they were in what we now call minimum wage jobs.
> Whereas two city bankers in a mansion paid two charges. The impact on the
> living standards of the first lot were much much higher. The total income
> of the first lot wouldn’t even approach half the income of one of the
> second group. It was a tax that had a disproportionate impact on the lowly
> paid.

Exactly. As I have also given examples of in another reply.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 12:11, JNugent wrote:
>
> On 25/07/2021 11:59 am, Tweed wrote:
>>
>> See also business rates - collected via the council but amount set
>> centrally.
>
> That doesn't answer the question. Someone has to decide the amount, and
> "the government" would effectively be doing that on behalf of the BBC
> (just as at present).

Yes, note that, *the government*, not the BBC which you hate so
irrationally, decides it, so stop blaming the BBC for everything, and
start blaming the government as well.

> And it's not even as if the BBC can be trusted to adhere to agreements
> it makes as a QPQ for increases (or changes in the law to its advantage
> and the disadvantage of the citizen).

As has now been explained to you countless times, the BBC broke no
agreement. The agreement *empowered* them to make changes to the Free
TV Licence benefit.

> The BBC must be the only business in the UK which has an absolute,
> unfettered, legally-guaranteed right, not only to exist, but to be ever
> more prosperous at the expense of the citizen (who has no say in the
> process).

Except local libraries, the NHS, the army, the navy, the air force, etc,
etc.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 11:23, JNugent wrote:
>
> At least the government is answerable to the electorate,

Doesn't seem to be very much so, at least in between elections. 129,000
people have died from covid-19 now, how much is that likely to harm the
government by the time the next election comes around? By any rational
considerations, it ought to ensure that they never get re-elected again,
but there was no sign of that last May. It seems to me that in between
elections our governments are now little short of quasi-dictatorships.

> whilst the BBC,
> as this series of incidents has shown, is certainly not.

What "series of incidents" would that be? All the ones you've made
false claims about and have been duly debunked here? By definition,
they show nothing at all.

> Neither does the Beeb show any any signs of being amenable to the views
> of the electorate. It always knows best.

I agree that the BBC would help its own reputation enormously if it
responded better to individual listeners complaints, instead of the
bland brush-offs that are their usual stock reply.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 12:24, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 12:06 pm, Tweed wrote:
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2021 11:45 am, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 25/07/2021 10:24, Tweed wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It also makes it slightly more
>>>>>> progressive, as those in smaller properties would pay less and single
>>>>>> person households would get the discount.
>>>>
>>>>> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
>>>>> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
>>>>> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
>>>>> that reason.
>>>>
>>>> But it was at least an order of magnitude more than the TV licence
>>>> is ever
>>>> likely to be. If one of the couple entered low paid employment they
>>>> could
>>>> double their bill overnight.
>>>
>>> ??
>>>
>>> The Community Charge was not - as far as I recall - set on the basis of
>>> personal income, whether the person in question was one of a couple
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> It was charged on a per capita basis, with a specific benefit -
>>> Community Charge Benefit - available to offset the charge for any person
>>> in receipt of, or dependant upon a person in receipt of, Income Support,
>>> including Jobseeker's Allowance (Income based).
>>>
>>>> Huge issue for mothers attempting to return to
>>>> employment for example.
>>>
>>> I think you're misremembering it. It wasn't an income tax. Perhaps it
>>> ought to have been.
>>>
>>> The only way in which a household's liability (a concept which strictly
>>> didn't exist) could increase was for the number of liable people to
>>> increase. For example, via a partner moving in or a grown up child
>>> achieving the age of majority (assuming them not to still be in
>>> full-time education or in receipt of a means-tested benefit).
>>>
>>>> The quantisation effects were huge. The TV licence
>>>> isn’t in the slightest bit progressive at the moment.
>>>
>>> Should it be?
>>
>> I never said it was an income tax. If you went out to work, even
>> relatively
>> low paid work, you got stung for the whole amount.
>
> You were liable to pay the whole amount whether you worked or not. Just
> as with rates.
>
> But in the same way as applied to the rates beforehand, reductions were
> available for those on means-tested benefits. Means-tested benefits
> always look at the "assessment unit" (an single person, a couple or a
> family including dependant children).
>
>> A family of two adults
>> and perhaps a teenager on a first job, living in a small house ended up
>> paying three charges, if they were in what we now call minimum wage jobs.
>
> That is true, though strictly, the "household" was not a relevant
> concept. The charge was a personal one.
>
>> Whereas two city bankers in a mansion paid two charges. The impact on the
>> living standards of the first lot were much much higher. The total income
>> of the first lot wouldn’t even approach half the income of one of the
>> second group. It was a tax that had a disproportionate impact on the
>> lowly
>> paid.
>
> Local taxation has *never* been designed or intended as an income tax,
> though the rating system did, and the Council Tax does, charge more to
> residents of more expensive housing. There is no obvious justification
> for that.

The history of the Community Charge aka Poll Tax is all the
justification required.

> FWIW, I believe that local councils should raise local finance via sales
> tax (a local addition to VAT and payable on sales which are subject to
> VAT), payable at the point of purchase rather than on the basis of the
> citizen's address. That would enable citizens to simply shop across the
> border for high-ticket items (eg, cars, furniture) where there was
> significant money to be saved. And it would incentivise councils to be
> competitive with their neighbouring authorities.

Bollocks, it would be completely inconsistent across the country and
grossly inefficient, in terms of revenue raised above cost of raising
it, because you'd have to have a totally separate system of
implementation to collect it.

> Those who spend more would pay more. Spending more is an excellent proxy
> for income (especially since not all income is declared to the
> authorities, if you catch my drift).

So if you're happy that those who can pay more do, Local Income Tax
would be much more efficient - we already have a means of collecting
it, and of disbursing money to local authorities, so there would in
effect be little or no extra cost to implementing it, and much of the
costs of collecting Council Tax could be saved.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:03:26 +0100
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>On 24/07/2021 15:34, MrSpud_ocqTvtp5t@kwqeq5vyo0lchyvm.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:52:07 +0100
>> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you really think such a post from a known troll like you cuts any ice
>>> here? Think again, and learn to follow the above advice.
>>
>> I'd listen to you for advice about as much as I'd take advice from an
>> agoraphobic about the best moorland walks.
>
>More playground snivelling; ;f you want to somewhere to play, try the
>motorway.

Lame. Try harder.

On 25/07/2021 12:53, Java Jive wrote:
> 129,000
> people have died from covid-19 now, how much is that likely to harm the
> government by the time the next election comes around?

The problem is that there was no "control group" to show an alternative
outcome. There is no way for the public to know whether the death rate
would have been halved or doubled if another Government had been in power.

To some extent that is why the view of the Government is biased towards
the effectiveness of vaccination, because other approaches in other
countries are also known, and by that measure the UK did quite well.

Jim

Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 12:53, Java Jive wrote:
>> 129,000
>> people have died from covid-19 now, how much is that likely to harm the
>> government by the time the next election comes around?
>
> The problem is that there was no "control group" to show an alternative
> outcome. There is no way for the public to know whether the death rate
> would have been halved or doubled if another Government had been in power.
>
> To some extent that is why the view of the Government is biased towards
> the effectiveness of vaccination, because other approaches in other
> countries are also known, and by that measure the UK did quite well.
>
> Jim
>

To be terribly cynical, there’s a significant chunk of the population that
are quietly relieved that their knackered/demented relative in the care
home has been helped on their way, particularly if the inheritance has been
preserved.

On 25/07/2021 13:33, MrSpud_phm8rsy@ejzun_rjnc.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:03:26 +0100
> Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> More playground snivelling; ;f you want to somewhere to play, try the
>> motorway.
>
> Lame. Try harder.

No, just wasted on spud brains.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/07/2021 11:54, Tweed wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sdjdr4$ekj$2@dont-email.me>, gareth evans
>> <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes
>>> On 24/07/2021 09:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> In article <im045jFp10iU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only fair way to deal with the BBC is to let it operate like any
>>>>> private broadcasting company. Let it institute a subscription system or
>>>>> let it take advertising (or a combination of both, as well as selling
>>>>> its products to other channels and to foreign stations).
>>>>
>>>>> Then people who don't want it wouldn't be forced to pay for it.
>>>>
>>>>> That's the only possible fair outcome.
>>>>
>>>> It would be fair *if* we also could choose to have a price discount when we
>>>> buy something whose makers advertise on TV channels we don't watch. Alas,
>>>> even having no TV doesn't mean we don't pay for them.
>>>
>>> With blanket coverage of football, Wimbledon and now the b***dy
>>> Olympics, can I get a refund of my licence fee in compansation?
>>>
>>> When sport coverage was limited to Grandstand on Sat PM that was
>>> about right.
>
> Why do people begrudge others their pleasure?

I do not and it has never occurred to me to do so, but I
begrudge my own lack of pleasure.

In article <sdjakf$sbh$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I favour funding at as a separate line item on the council tax bill,
> much as police, fire etc is done in many areas. As it is a line item the
> amount is clear. So it won't be like an annual government grant from the
> central pot which is easily cut without public visibility. It would
> essentially suffer the same political interference as the licence fee
> does, ie arguments about how much it should increase.
[snip]

It seems implausible that Westminster would be happy to exclude itself from
having control over the money the BBC gets. They find it too useful as a
stick to intimidate or disrupt what the BBC might say about Government.

As it is, they dislike having to leave it for years between
reconsiderations, so tend o find ways to use it as a threat, etc, on
shorter timescales.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <sdjcdc$6sl$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
> that reason.

The snag is the presumption "all working" doesn't return "TRUE" in every
case. Nor takes account of how low the incomes of some people are.

And for some time now we've had a situation where many of those
officially accepted as living in 'poverty' are *working*.

So your definition of 'progressive' isn't the standard one.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <im4s90Fo0reU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > In article <ilvkifFlt8jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> > <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the
> >> licence for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain
> >> other new privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to
> >> those not receiving the BBC via broadcast).
> >
> > IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
> > would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.
> >
> > So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
> > having their pocket picked.

> An agreement is an agreement.

Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your wallet.
You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You then
contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it over.
Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.

That's fine then, eh?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 25/07/2021 06:07 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>> The Community Charge was "progressive" by that definition, a household
>> with a large family (all working) and perhaps a lodger would pay more
>> than a single person household but was hated by the Left for perhaps
>> that reason.
>
> The snag is the presumption "all working" doesn't return "TRUE" in every
> case. Nor takes account of how low the incomes of some people are.
>
> And for some time now we've had a situation where many of those
> officially accepted as living in 'poverty' are *working*.
>
> So your definition of 'progressive' isn't the standard one.

"Progressive" and "regressive" (within this context) are micro-economic
terms borrowed by those who make a study of taxation.

A so-called progressive tax is a tax which is related to income and is
higher for people with more income. Obvious examples are income tax and
national insurance in a UK context. However, national insurance was
never designed to be like that. When introduced, it was a flat rate tax,
paid by buying a stamp over the counter at the post office. There was
more than one rate for persons in different circumstances but whichever
classification you were in, you didn't pay more than the price of the
stamp whether your income was high or low that week. The rates,
Community Charge and Council Tax were never progressive taxes under that
pretty standard definition. They weren't supposed to be.

The opposite of "progressive" is "regressive". That's a bit like a
price. The national insurance flat rate stamp price could be said to be
regressive. In fact, the price of *anything*, from a Mars Bar to a
Philippe Patek watch, and certainly including rates, Community Charge
and Council Tax, as well as water rates, could be said to be regressive,
since it "costs" those with lower incomes a larger proportion of income
(whether gross or net).

Note that using the term "progressive" in terms of any local taxation
seen in the UK is incorrect. None of them vary with income, which is
what that adopted term "progressive" means.

An economics lecturer once, in my hearing, countered the (weak) charge
that a particular tax on consumption was "regressive on the poor" by
pointing out that the price of everything is regressive on the poor. If
you are poor, by definition, your income will buy less than the income
of someone who is better off (let alone rich).

It is futile (and ridiculous) to put arguments which have as their
central theme that everyone's purchasing power should be the same. It
cannot happen.

On 25/07/2021 18:22, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <im4s90Fo0reU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>> In article <ilvkifFlt8jU1@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the
>>>> licence for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain
>>>> other new privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to
>>>> those not receiving the BBC via broadcast).
>>>
>>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
>>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.
>>>
>>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>>> having their pocket picked.
>
>> An agreement is an agreement.
>
> Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your wallet.
> You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You then
> contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it over.
> Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.
>
> That's fine then, eh?
>

A poor analogy. The BBC agreed to take on (gradually) responsibility
for the cost of free licenses in negotiations in 2015 and in return for
a license fee rising with CPI. And it was negotiations. The BBC had
cards it could have played - up to and including taking the issue to
Parliament and the public. (C.f. the long history of the FCO leaking
stories about cuts to the World Service every time the Treasury tried to
cut its budget.)

I have no idea why the BBC decided not to do so. One might speculate
that they decided the public would side with the Government more than
with the BBC, and so the Government would win. If so, that seems to me
(a) to say something about he BBC's handling of large segments of the
public over preceding years and (b) to be a healthy reminder that
publicly funded bodies should remember that public support does matter.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 26/07/2021 10:54, JNugent wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 06:22 pm, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> On 24/07/2021 09:39 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>>> The BBC agreed to take on the responsibility for "funding" the
>>>>> licence for those over a certain age as part of the QPQ for certain
>>>>> other new privileges (such as extending the compulsory licence to
>>>>> those not receiving the BBC via broadcast).
>>
>>>> IIRC they "agreed" being faced with it being clear that otherwise they
>>>> would face additional financial losses/burdens 'decided' by Government.
>>>> So a tad like someone 'agreeing' to had over their watch rather than
>>>> having their pocket picked.
>>
>>> An agreement is an agreement.
>>
>> Someone with a gun threatens to shoot you unless you hand over your
>> wallet.
>> You hand it over because you're convinced he'll do as he says. You then
>> contact the police and they tell you, "Sorry, you agreed to hand it over.
>> Your choice!" - and refuse to do anything because you 'agreed'.
>>
>> That's fine then, eh?
>
> The BBC wasn't threatened with a weapon of any sort.

In terms of physical weapons, obviously true, but ...

> It *chose* to
> accept the deal it was offered (it didn't have to),

.... nonsense, it had no choice to accept the deal offered by government,
how was it supposed to continue functioning without money coming from
the government? He who pays the piper calls the tune.

> and later *chose* to
> impose the licence fee tax on those of 75 or older who are not in
> receipt of Pension Credit.
>
> As another poster has (correctly) pointed out, though we already knew it
> (because we saw it happen), the BBC was empowered to make that choice.

So finally at last you now admit that the BBC did not break its
agreement with the government, so isn't it about time that you stopped
bitching at it for, as you have consistently claimed, doing so?

> The simple calculation and choice it made was that the money was better
> in its corporate pocket, and in the pockets of its executives and
> "stars" such as Lineker, Jeremy Vine and Graham Norton, than left in the
> purses of 75-yr-olds.

https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/radio-news/2020/09/bbc-presenters-salaries-revealed-lineker-remains-highest-paid-star-while

Gary Lineker: £1.75m
Jeremy Vine: £322k
Graham Norton: £727k
Etc

Compared with me and probably you, these salaries are high, but compared
with ITV they are not unreasonable, indeed the BBC's annual published of
stars who earn over a given threshold has been dubbed a "poacher's
charter" ...

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/how-much-itvs-stars-paid-14895054

Ant & Dec £30m
Amanda Holden £2m
Etc

.... and of course many senior executives in business earn even more.

But let's do another comparison, the *total cost* of the salaries listed
on the first link above averages to around £21.25m, but, from your own
link previously given, "Funding free TV licences for all over-75s would
have cost the BBC £745m by 2021-22".

21.25 is just 3% of 745!

> No amount of ill-advised defence of the BBC's behaviour devalues a word
> of that. The BBC agreed the settlement, then chose to impose its tax on
> 75 year olds (which I would say fully deserves the epithet "welshing").
> It was free to make other choices, but it didn't. Full stop.

No amount of bigoted shit from you alters the above hard facts. You
have consistently been proven wrong on every allegation throughout this
thread, but equally consistently, until at last the admission above,
though still no apology, you have refused to accept that you were wrong.

Now it is time to start doing so, grow up and 'fess up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk