egafd.com

"Rarely do I feel the need to stick up for Rodders but he does have a point. When we usually say something is paid for 'by the taxpayer' we usually mean, and people usually assume, we are talking about something that's paid for through taxes. If we're going to start saying the BBC is overwhelmingly paid for by the taxpayer we might as well say holidays, cars, chinese takaways, football season tickets and potato vodka are also paid for by the taxpayer."

No, the model is completely and utterly different.

Is VAT a tax? Yes.
Is fuel duty a tax? Yes.
Must I buy fuel? Not necessarily but fuel duty is still a tax.
Must I buy goods with VAT on. Not necessarily but it is still a tax.

Is the TV licence a tax? Yes. Must I pay it? Not necessarily if I do not have a TV. If I have a television, a TV licence is required. It's a tax on my use of a TV in the same way as the tax on my use of fuel. I do not have an option other than breaking the law.

It is paid for in one of the following ways.
1. Direct by the household where there is a tax payer as an unavoidable tax.
2. Indirectly by taxpayers in the sense that the unemployed would pay for the licence out of tax receipts used to fund benefits.
3. In some cases, usually old age, it is free to the household concerned, but still funded by taxes.

The overwhelming payments of this tax come from 1. above.

The model for Sky for example (a more useful analogy, I suspect, than the ones you use e.g. potato vodka) is completely different from the BBC which is why they complain so bitterly about the unfair advantage that they feel the BBC has. In short their argument is that the BBC is underwritten by the taxpayer via the government. Sky has to go out and fight for their income with the likes of ESPN, Greek-based footie suppliers etc etc. They argue that this tax should be stopped so that there is a level playing field between the BBC and Sky.

Sky will only get their service paid for, if I as a consumer decide to pay for that service via a monthly commitment.

The BBC will always get their service paid for by the television user under the current system, even if they never bother to watch the BBC at all. It is a blanket tax payable because people have televisions.

If the BBC got the majority of its funding from households who decided to pay an amount of their own volition in return for the BBC service or if most of the BBC's income came from sales to private companies, Rodders would be right. But they do not, therefore Rodders and you are wrong.

Cheers
D

Extract from the Office of National Statistics (ONS)

"Since our last report there has been a significant change in the position of the licence fee. In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says "in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services? A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable"

Any complaints, lads e.g. you are a bunch of fucking twattts, take it up with the ONS.

Have a good evening
D

Do you want women to be second class citizens?

Do you, my friend, ever look at the youtube from the 2011 revolution in Egypt? did you see more than 50% of the protesters women? what second class citizen?

I agree with the posts, we can learn a thing or two from those people, and apply them here in our "democracies" We sure could have used few million Egyptians when the US votes were hijacked in 2000!

Don't blame others for your inability to do the right thing.
They did the right thing in Tunisia and Egypt, and they need to be commended, end of story. The rest of the Sharia law, blah blah blah is for another time and another place

David, you know and I know that when Rodders questioned turanhosting about taxpayers paying for the BBC, he meant the amount going into the BBC through income-based taxes.

You could have, in your first reply to him, mentioned that the licence fee is now considered a tax. You didn't. You didn't because you didn't know it was considered a tax until I questioned you and you checked up. The basis of your retort to Rodders was that taxpayers do pay overwhelmingly for the BBC because most people who pay for the licence fee just happen to also be income tax contributors. I'm sure about this due to the language and theme of your previous reply to Rodders:

The following sentences from your post show clearly how you began to defend your stance:

"TV licences are paid by people who are liable for tax. As I think you know from your own experience even people who have a pension are liable to pay tax on their income."

and:

"The number of households who have never ever paid any tax whatsoever in the UK but pay for a TV licence is very, very small."

As you can see, the basis of your defence was to take advantage of a double entendre. Stating, "the taxpayers pay for the BBC!" can mean that people are taxed to pay for the BBC, or that people who pay their licence fee just happen to also be income tax payers.

After some checking you find that the ONS have reclassified what the licence fee is and you post it as if you knew all along. No need to carry on with your previous defence based around the double entendre!

I stuck up for Rodders because I understood his meaning. I'm confident you did too but saw the opportunity to play with the double meaning and went with it. Am I right?; I know I'm right; Tell me I'm right! !laugh!

Sam,

It's a tax. Looks like a tax. Sounds like a tax. Is defined as a tax by the Office for National Statistics. Regarded as a tax by the BBC's competitors.

Rodders makes absolutely no mention of income tax. He refers to taxpayers i.e. people paying a tax which is what the licence is.

I have nothing to add to what I have already explained.

Take it up with the ONS if you like.

Let me know how you get on.

Cheers
D

Bollocks.
I pay tax as a salaried earner.
I buy a TV licence because I am a houseowner and easy to trace.
So in your accounting the BBC is funded by taxpayers.
You are a fuckwit !

Rodders,

I think you need to understand that being insulting is not necessarily the same as being correct.

Any fucking, mindless moron who appears to have had his head run over by a tank track, can be insulting without any half-sensible content to their post. The first sentence of this paragraph is a typical example of a Rodders post.

Being correct or having something to say, even half sensible takes a little more going on between the ears.

"I pay tax as a salaried earner". Well what do you know? Thanks for that. This is only part of the story, ain't it?

So you don't pay VAT on fuel then? Or all the other goods that carry VAT? VAT is a tax. You pay the taxes that are compulsory based on the choices you make.

As I said to Sam, the Office for National Statistics view the TV licence as a tax. Maybe they don't know as much about tax as you do.

Drop em a line to help them out.

Cheers
D

David! What ARE you like? Give it up for Christ's sake.


Rodders' original point, which you replied to:

"How the fuck can it be funded by the taxpayer you wally just because we, or some of us, buy a TV licence?"

It is obvious he didn't know the tv licence was classed as a tax so what other tax was he talking about? I assumed income tax and it seems you did too with the following reply:

"TV licences are paid by people who are liable for tax."

and:

"As I think you know from your own experience even people who have a pension are liable to pay tax on their income."

See that, David? "...even people who have a pension are liable to pay tax on their income." You assumed (as would anybody who read Rodders' post) he was talking about income tax payers. Why else mention income tax unless you didn't guess what Rodders meant? He certainly didn't mention income tax and only mentioned 'the tax payers'.

You knew the BBC didn't live off income taxes too but realised the double entendre and tried the clever dick routine. Once you found out about the ONS reclassification you posted it as confirmation of your stance. That's fine. You were right. You just didn't know you were right until a good 8 hours after your first reply to Rodders! !laugh!

I'm not arguing with the ONS or saying that you were wrong, only that Rodders had a point if he meant the BBC isn't funded by income-based taxes (as most people refer to when they talk of things paid for by the taxpayer).

Now come on - admit it. You'll feel better and it will cleanse your soul.

Forgot to ask.

How's Nick Clegg doing? You were praising him to the skies in early May.

Haven't heard a peep since.

Cheers
D

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh! That's bang out of order.