In article , tim...
writes


"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
T i m wrote:
On 1 Aug 2020 23:44:33 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 22:16:10 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 18:03:26 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

Anyone had the letter from TV LIcensing yet ?.

BBC Moneybox says they will send out letters, so any emails,
texts or phone calls will be from scammers. Some folks will fall
for a
scammer though.

But there are still free licences aren't there, over 75 and on
pension
credits, 1.5M of them?

Of course, there may be unexpected consequences. Lots of eligible
people,
who haven't doen it until now, deciding to apply for pension credit.

I think the real issue here is giving the licence free to some in the
first place. People were paying and were ok with that (few other
choices, good content, no advertising etc), just as all those who know
if they want to watch Netflix or Amazon Video now they have to pay for
it. The problem arises when you make it free to anyone and then decide
to take that away again.

I think the biggest insult is what I remember being only a tiny
discount to 'viewers' (as that's the primary interface of 'TV'
(compared with radio)) who were registered blind?

I appreciate the impact would vary depending on what was on ... and
how good the narration was, but still. ;-(


To me, the main issue is expecting the BBC to pay for a 'benefit' If this
is fair, perhaps the energy companies should pay the winter fuel
allowance? Or supermarkets providing free food to poor pensioners? But
then given how much many of them contribute to Tory party funds, unlikely.

BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the
covering of iplayer.

BBC were strong armed into it

Aw poor little snowflakes. Only paid 1/2 million pa.
I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on
their income

All those directors and none could do a few sums.
Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my
license payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex"
getting a free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar)
abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably
qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that
problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.




It's part of the basic state pension system. Unfortunately means testing
is a very blunt instrument and millions don't apply for what they are
entitled to, usually ones who need it most. The cost often outweighs the
savings. You could of course make it a taxable benefit and claw back 20
or 40%
--
bert