this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
77 points (98.7% liked)

United Kingdom

6975 readers
424 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC. Under the proposed changes it would be expanded to cover all other online providers, such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube, which are currently exempt.

The Whitehall source explained that the move was “because people are able to use them to avoid paying currently”. They added: “It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”

Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying "everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet".

At that point, you might as well just take it from the government budget.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] northernscrub@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This was going to be my answer but it apparently already is, officially, a tax.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 5 hours 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 so we can effectively tax everyone, but don't have to admit that's what we want" approach is bullshit.

[–] northernscrub@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that was my point, it should be a tax

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

And my point was that it currently isn't. While that remains the case I opt out. If the criteria for having to pay this optional tax is essentially "don't use the internet" then it's ridiculous to the point of me actively resenting them.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] northernscrub@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago

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.