Comment on BBC to force more to pay licence fee with ‘YouTube tax’
northernscrub@lemmy.world 3 weeks agothen you’re funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It’s not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.
It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch, because it only applies in certain circumstances. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.
Much like car tax is about whether or not a person drives a car.
I wasn’t referring to road tax, I was referring to income tax. just because I drive a car, I cannot (and should not) be able to reclaim the proportion of tax I pay that is put towards public transport infrastructure.
then you’re funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It’s not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.
Genuine question, which part of this is referring to income tax?
The only tax reference i’m seeing is the one that specifically prefaces it with “if you drive a car”.
Another genuine question, i’m not seeing how
just because I drive a car, I cannot (and should not) be able to reclaim the proportion of tax I pay that is put towards public transport infrastructure.
Relates to anything in my reply.
Not looking for a fight , it seems i’m legitimately missing something important here.
Sorry, I was extremely unclear.
When I gave the example of VED, the premise I was trying to demonstrate is that even if one drives a vehicle and pays their VED, a proportion of the income tax they pay still goes toward funding public transport services. Even if they’re not using them (which they can demonstrate by showing their VED status), they are still required to support those services.
The “Public Broadcasting” tax idea that I support works in the same way. Even if I don’t want to watch anything created by the BBC, the BBC still provides a vast swathe of information that is helpful to the general public. Even if I’m not directly benefiting from it, I should still contribute, in some small fashion, toward the upkeep thereof. Income tax is the primary source of this kind of public funding.
Although I’m not quite sure why I said “I’m wasn’t referring to road tax”. I think I was trying to make the assertion that this shouldn’t be an optional thing in a super roundabout fashion.
Flamekebab@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
Then make it a tax.
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
This was going to be my answer but it apparently already is, officially, a tax.
Flamekebab@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I was using it as shorthand for “make it mandatory”. If I’m going to be forced to pay then I don’t want the pretence of choice, and it’d mean we could eliminate those TV Licensing arseholes too.
Senal@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
I agree fully.
If you’re charging for BBC services then charge for that, if you want to tax tv based entertainment, then be honest.
This “how do we word it do we can effectively tax everyone, but don’t have to admit that’s what we want” approach is bullshit.
northernscrub@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
that was my point, it should be a tax