this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
507 points (90.0% liked)
Greentext
4415 readers
1126 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s just a way of funding the BBC that was devised before a TV was something that essentially everyone had. Since it’s delivered OTA it seemed easier to tax the device itself then it was to tax everyone unfairly. So calling it a “license” is fairly outmoded, it’s really a tax. You also don’t have to pay it if you don’t actually receive TV channels.
It should just be rolled into regular taxes now, but who is going to propose and approve a new tax in this day and age? So it’s easier not to touch it.
I wish we had a TV tax in Canada. The funding of the CBC is a political football, so I sometimes feel like CBC News has to walk a tightrope to avoid having the government slash the budget.
It's probably better that there's just a tax on the device. Sure the UK government could meddle with that tax to cut the budget of the BBC, but it feels like it would be less likely since people would rightly ask why they're meddling with it. People are less likely to ask questions if the government is cutting a budget because "gotta pay off the national debt!"