Actually, Chris makes a good point. My licence costs less than my daily
newspaper!
In return I get a lot of stuff that my newspaper doesn't give me. For
instance, terrific documentaries and educational stuff. The radio
programmes that I could receive without paying for a licence are superb.
They too I believe are funded out of the licence fee.
73
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 17:55 +0000, Chris Trayner wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2011, at 10:20, M0FMT wrote:
> However the BBC world service, the Government mouth-piece, is currently
> funded by direct taxation which is probable more equitable than the new plan
> which is to fund it out of the compulsory so called Licence Fee, collected
> under threat of imprisonment, which is really a tax on a tax i.e. paid out of
> taxed income.
>
> This is the dark side of English culture.
>
> Commercial radio and TV are arguably as bad or worse. They are paid for by
> advertising; the firms which advertise get their advert money from selling
> products. So if you buy products which are advertised you are presumably
> subsidising many commercial channels which you don't watch, many indeed
> outside your area. You can choose not to have a TV and licence, but you can't
> realistically chose not to buy these products.
>
> But, really, do any of us care? The BBC Licence Fee is probably less than 1%
> of your post-tax income.
>
> 73,
> Chris G4OKW
>
>
--
73 es gd dx de pat g4gvw
qth nr felixstowe uk
(east coast, county of suffolk)
|
