Comment on BBC to force more to pay licence fee with ‘YouTube tax’
northernscrub@lemmy.world 5 days agoSorry, 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.
Senal@programming.dev 4 days ago
Ah, that makes sense, so that bring me back to another reply i posted at the start.
It only applies in certain circumstances, because that’s how it was implemented.
If a public broadcasting tax is what they want, then they should introduce it that way, not a slow creep of additional conditions and charges like some shitty subscription service .
It makes it look like they are too cowardly to just make it a universal mandatory tax.
The tax idea you suggest is a reasonable approach, but it isn’t how it currently works, which is why i was saying that it’s very specifically about if the individual meets the criteria that exist right now.