How do TV detectors work

Factual Questions
61

What you’re failing to grasp is the concept of a chartered corporation. The BBC exists on the basis of a charter issued by the government. (The charter is issued in the Queen’s name but she otherwise has nothing to do with the process.) That however does not mean that such a corporation is a branch of the government nor that it is controlled by them. All it means is that it has been granted the right to exist, plus certain legal privileges. Lots of organisations in Britain, from many town councils to universities, exist on such a basis. All regard themselves as independent of national government. The government does, in theory, retain the right to withdraw the charter but then the British government, acting in conjunction with Parliament, can, in theory, do pretty much what it wants (it’s called democracy), so this doesn’t make that much difference. For most purposes, the fact that it exists by royal charter strengthens the BBC’s legal independence. The BBC can defend at law its independence from government because the government has already declared that it is independent.

Another concept you need to grasp is that of ‘arms length’ funding. Countless bodies in the UK, many of them corporations, receive government funding without the government retaining any control over their operations. There is a very powerful public concensus that, in such cases, the government should not attempt to interfere. The BBC is a classic case of such an arrangement. The government provides the money on the principle that such bodies are ‘a good thing’ and then allows others to take the flak over how it is spent.

If anything, the example of Thatcher shows how difficult in practice political interference actually is. Appointed governors have a tendency to go native. What influence they have largely depends on their willingness to defend their own independence and that of the BBC. One should also note that, in the end, even Thatcher decided that abolition of the licence fee wasn’t worth the trouble.

That’s the thing about unwritten constitutional principles - sometimes they can be every bit as powerful as written ones.

62

Sailor suggested scrambling the signal and then getting people to pay to decode them . What an expensive excercise that would be, having to provide decoder boxes to every one . Either the viewer or BBC would have to fund them . Then you have the problem of the radio channels which are also funded by the licence fee. How can you scramble FM and AM radio stations and how can you de-code them . Just think about it ,you would have to fit a decoder on every radio set including your car radio , your shower radio and on your Walkman. This would turn a £10 radio into a £50 radio at least.

63

From the links posted by Anthracite I gather the detection thing is mostly BS and mostly they just crosscheck addresses and send notices to any address with no license. Which might explain why my friends got the notice _

I very seriously doubt they can detect the local oscilator reliably much less to know what channel you are tuned to. And it is clearly impossible if you are receiving streaming broadcast over the Net. Thos guys are just FOBS

On the other hand, some contradictory information:

I get the impression the system is a mess and needs a serious overhaul. It seems there is a lot of grey areas.

yeah, that meets my definition of “government sponsored”. YMMV.

It seems at least one Brit agrees with me:

Amen to that.

I would not like to live in a country where appliance dealers are required to report the names of buyers to the government, but hey, that’s just me. I just like a little privacy.

You gotta love the bureaucracy. From the BBC site where the first notice you see is PAY NOW!

In other words, if you get along with your housemates and watch TV together, then you only need one license but if you each watch your TV separately, then you each need one license. Also nice to know that a rich family with half a dozen TVs spread around their mansion only needs one license but if a poor family with a TV sublets one room and the tenant has his own TV, then they each need a separate license. Lovely. Talk about regressive.

The blind get a 50% discount though. Those Brits have a really sick sense of humor. “Hey, you may not see the TV but you can still hear it!” And they have to go through a bureaucratic application process. “haha, the guy’s blind, let’s make him go to the Post Office a few times!”

64

Oh, you mean Sky isn’t BBC?
:o

(Insert a “D’oh!” wherever appropriate. I feel stupid now.)

65

I think that the bottom line is that the majority of the UK population are happy with the license system which has been around since 1922. They see that it is as fair as you can make it and also realize that a detection system must be in place to catch those few people who want to get something for nothing. As somebody as already said this is a cultural thing which some Americans can’t seem to understand same as we cannot understand some aspects of American life.

66

Nobody has really addressed my objection that the tax is very unfair and regressive. Maybe in 1935 it made sense but I cannot see it making any sense today. Just because something is traditional does not mean it should stay that way.

My computer crashed and I lost all the pages I had open. Anyway, there was one saying something like 94% of households have a license. I’ll guess more than half of the remainder cheat. So let’s face it, it is pretty much a universal tax. Rich household, poor household, all pay the same. Is that fair?

Suppose for a moment the tax is abolished and the same amount now being collected is taken from the general budget and assigned to the BBC. It seems
(a) much more fair
(b) much easier and cheaper to collect and manage
© obviates the problems of what can be considered a receiver, computers, etc

Who has a problem with that and why?

67

In France it is collected on the basis of one tax/house. In other words, if you have an appartment and a countryside house, with a TV set in each, you pay for two licenses. But only one if you have ten TV set in one house.

I’ve never heard about spying vans here. When you buy a TV in a shop, the seller has to declare the sale to the authority in charge of collecting the tax. Which covers the situation of most TV owners. For the rest (people who have been given a TV set or have bought it from a friend, etc…) you’re supposed to declare it yourself. People in charge of collecting the tax try to check on people who didn’t declare owning a TV set, with the assumption that essentially everybody has one.
Since I didn’t own a TV for most of my life, I know how they proceed. They send you various papers asking you to declare your TV set or else…(follow whatever fine/penalty you’ll have to pay). The text is written in a way which is intended to let you believe that they actually know you own a TV. Once I received a letter which pissed me off, since they stated I should send back the paper, stating that I owned no TV or else I would have to pay the tax regardless. Which I knew was untrue. Finally, there are inspectors who come knocking at your door and want to check your house for a TV (I never saw one, but several friends experienced it first hand). They’ve actually no right to enter your house, but they expect that people won’t know better and will let them in. If people don’t let them in, according to friends, they try to look around in case they would manage to see the TV set from the door. I’m not sure whether it would be legally a basis to have you pay the tax in the case they would notice the TV set (or hear it) when you didn’t allowed them in (or even when you allowed them in, for that matter).

On the overall, the tax authority rely mostly on the declarations made by shops/supermarkets, etc…and for the people who didn’t buy any TV in a shop, they try intimidation.

68

In France it is collected on the basis of one tax/house. In other words, if you have an appartment and a countryside house, with a TV set in each, you pay for two licenses. But only one if you have ten TV set in one house.

I’ve never heard about spying vans here. When you buy a TV in a shop, the seller has to declare the sale to the authority in charge of collecting the tax. Which covers the situation of most TV owners. For the rest (people who have been given a TV set or have bought it from a friend, etc…) you’re supposed to declare it yourself. People in charge of collecting the tax try to check on people who didn’t declare owning a TV set, with the assumption that essentially everybody has one.
Since I didn’t own a TV for most of my life, I know how they proceed. They send you various papers asking you to declare your TV set or else…(follow whatever fine/penalty you’ll have to pay). The text is written in a way which is intended to let you believe that they actually know you own a TV. Once I received a letter which pissed me off, since they stated I should send back the paper, stating that I owned no TV or else I would have to pay the tax regardless. Which I knew was untrue. Finally, there are inspectors who come knocking at your door and want to check your house for a TV (I never saw one, but several friends experienced it first hand). They’ve actually no right to enter your house, but they expect that people won’t know better and will let them in. If people don’t let them in, according to friends, they try to look around in case they would manage to see the TV set from the door. I’m not sure whether it would be legally a basis to have you pay the tax in the case they would notice the TV set (or hear it) when you didn’t allowed them in (or even when you allowed them in, for that matter).

On the overall, the tax authority rely mostly on the declarations made by shops/supermarkets, etc…and for the people who didn’t buy any TV in a shop, they try intimidation.
I’ve also been told they would use fake phone “opinion pools” to figure out whether you own a TV or not, but I don’t know if it’s true.

69

One - Poor people use cars, rich people use cars: Do they pay the same in road taxes ?

Two – Tell me, can a “tax” be levied by anyone other than the Government. Answer No. By all means think of it as a ‘tax’ if you will – and I have some sympathy, at least in so far as the end result – but it’s a charge for the service. Do you pay more for cable if you earn more than your neighbour ?

Three – If the funding comes out of general taxation the BBC becomes more influenced by Government. And that’s the last bloody thing it, or the British public need, IMHO.
It works sailor. It works well in the UK (MHO) and to varying degress elsewhere. You’re perfectly welcome to your struggling PBS charity drives, personally I’m happy with paying £2 a week.

As I said, if it didn’t, I’d be first in line to complain and I’d have a whole load of politicians behind me trying to make party political capital out of the issue.

70

>> Poor people use cars, rich people use cars: Do they pay the same in road taxes ?

No, they don’t and I hope they dont in the UK either. Or do they? Gasoline taxes are proportional to how much you use. The more you use, the more you contribute. Car taxes are proportional to the value of the car. The more your car is worth, the more you pay. Income tax depends on how much you make. etc. I guess the idea that everyone pay the same flat amount in taxes regardless of wealth or income makes sense to you. To me it doesn’t.

>> Tell me, can a “tax” be levied by anyone other than the Government. Answer No.

Suppose the local government says all homeowners have to give money to the school district. Some people send their children to the school and some do not. That is a fee? No, that is a tax.

The licence is collected by a British Government agency.
It is compulsory even if you do not watch BBC
People are prosecuted for owning sets without a licence.
The government enforces it.
In my book, that’s a tax

>> it’s a charge for the service.

No, because I have to pay even if I do not use the service. It’s a tax. Bill Clinton did the same thing: rename some taxes as fees. In my book it’s still a tax.

>> Do you pay more for cable if you earn more than your neighbour ?

Cable is a service offered by a private company which I am free to purchase or not purchase. A private company sells its service at a price. If the government forced me to pay for it even if I did not want it I would consider it a tax. If you really cannot tell the difference between buying a product or service and paying taxes you are in bad shape.

>> If the funding comes out of general taxation the BBC becomes more influenced by Government.

I can’t see why. The BBC gets money now because the government allows it. If the government changed the law tomorrow the BBC would be without funding. So I can’t see the difference. One way or the other their dependence or independence is the same.

Funding the BBC from the general budget would be more fair and resolve all the silliness of the detection vans and having to define who is subject to the tax (it seems even the BBC is not clear and gives contradictory answers) and what to do about computers and having to keep track of who owns what. You might not mind your government knowing you keep a TV and a VCR and a computer and whether you watch streaming video or not. I value my privacy and believe such level of intrusion by the government is never justified.

71

LC has said it all, but I still don’t understand why you, sailor, want a universal tax rather than a specific license (assuming that the licensed stations are a given).

As for CurtC, you can consider what you want. More wealthy people in both of our countries are taxed more (per person) than poorer peopl. That should be a small hint that income tax is used for wealth redistrition, your preferences notwithstanding. My point was specifically aimed at sailor’s that the poor have to pay the same as the rich re: license fees

72

sailor – I’m not going to argue any further whether a non-Governmental fee should be charged proportional to income (it’s, what, the difference of a £1 a week max) because I’ve already made the case and readers can make their own judgments. I’m glad you’re happy with your system. However, I don’t think you grasp the wider arguments surrounding public service broadcasting at all. But that’s fine.

As APB has addressed the issue of Royal Charter (above), I don’t think there’s much more I can add.

Happy viewing.

73

Sailor said:
“I would not like to live in a country where appliance dealers are required to report the names of buyers to the government, but hey, that’s just me. I just like a little privacy.”

Are there no other retailers in the US that are required to do so? (not a debating point just curious) I know that in Australia pawn shops are required to at least keep records of everything they sell and to whom and that information must be provided to the police upon (reasonable) request.

Your point about road taxes and petrol taxes not being regressive is, I think, not supportable. There is no reason to think that poor people have to drive shorter distances than richer people. I’m sure that there are a lot of instances where poor people end up paying a lot more petrol taxes than richer people.

On a technical point these types of taxes (ie flat taxes, where everybody pays the same amount regardless of income or wealth) are called proportional or flat taxes, not regressive taxes. Regressive taxes are those where the poorer you are, the more tax you have to pay. For example according to this article, the US’s “social security tax is regressive because the marginal rate is essentially the same up to a given earnings level, then falls to zero”

CurtC stated that taxes were only meant to raise revenue, not to redistribute wealth. Is that the stated policy of the US Government? How does that reconcile with the existence of a welfare system? Just curious

74

Regulation of pawn shops is different from retailers. That having been said - this will vary greatly from State to State, County to County, and City to City, but in general - no, retailers are not only not required to “tattle” to the government about our lawful purchases, the government considers it none of its bloody business. Even firearms are not required to be reported to the government - depending on the State. In Kansas, dealers have to maintain the records, so they can be checked by the ATF if needed, but there is no requirement to turn them in to either the State or Federal government. But like I said - this varies from State to State (as an aside, one thing that does seem to surprise my friends from outside the US is the high level of federalization we have, and the sometimes large difference in laws from State to State. It is a mistake, for the large part, to think of the US as a monolithic entity).

75

More importantly, how does the cat detector van work? The one from the ministry of housinge?

The man said their equipment can detect a purr at 400 yards, and Eric, bein’ such a 'appy cat, was a piece of cake!

76

The analogy between TV licensing and car registration is flawed. If you don’t drive your car on public roads (e.g. you only drive it on a farm, driveway, parking lot, or dragstrip), you don’t have to pay an annual registration fee. Police officers don’t come to your home to see if your car tabs are up to date, they only cite you when they catch you driving on public roads with expired tabs.

77

The question has been answered, so I’ll close this thread. You folks know where to go to continue this debate.