quote:

Please explain in short simple words for me how it is different that I don't pay the tax on cigarettes because I don't smoke than it would be not paying the "tax" on television if I didn't own a set.

If you buy your cigarettes in France you need pay no UK tax and can smoke them wherever you wish. The tax is on the purchase, not the use.

If you use a TV - even one that you do not own - then you have to pay a fee to use it. The tax is on the use, not the purchase.

By the way, I didn't check and have been saying that the TV licence fee for a colour set is £175 per annum - apparently it's only £139.50.

This conversation has been more than elucidating.

Bob has a way of being clear, concise, and articulate. It was this post that convinced me that Richard is wrong; it is a tax:

quote:

Historically we've had window taxes, salt taxes, council taxes, Value Added Tax, the duty on cigarettes and alcohol is tax (the fact that it's called duty, doesn't stop it being a tax), tax is paid on gambling (in a bookies, betting on a horse you can pay the tax before or after the race), death duty is a tax, you pay tax when you fly etc etc

All of these taxes are avoidable by simply not doing the thing that incurs them. To suggest that the television license isn't a tax because you don't have to pay it if you don't have a TV seems to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole nature of taxation.

Richard, your convoluted suggestion of buying the cigarettes in France doesn't do it for me.

Richard said:

quote:

I pay various taxes - on my income, on my expenditure, and eventually I will on my estate. I have no way of choosing whether or not to pay most taxes and, more importantly, on how they are spent.

Ah, but you could choose not to have income, expenditures and property. Then you wouldn't have to pay the taxes. Further, you can't control where the governmental taxes go on TVs similar to the taxes on your real estate. Same thing.

I can't understand why the notion of tax is so irritating anyway. It's a tax, so what. In the U.S. we have taxes on all sorts of things, similar to those that Bob described. It's not a big deal. Our taxes are astronomical, in my opinion. We just don't happen to have them on operating a TV. I am certain we have them on things or situations where you don't.

quote:

Historically we've had window taxes, salt taxes, council taxes, Value Added Tax, the duty on cigarettes and alcohol is tax

"Taxation without representation" occurred at one time in our history, if I recall.

Since Richard brought forth his argument, I checked the definition of "tax" and found dictionaries seem to limit taxes to income and real estate, along with some personal property taxes. Most other governmental revenue is called a "fee" or some such euphemistic synonym. But a lawfully-imposed levy is nonetheless a tax, no matter what politicians call it to avoid being accused of "raising taxes."

So in the limited technical sense, Richard is right. But in the general scheme of things, I believe his view of what constitutes a tax is way too restrictive.

The OED definition for "tax" is:

quote:

A compulsory contribution to the support of government, levied on persons, property, income, commodities, transactions, etc., now at fixed rates, mostly proportional to the amount on which the contribution is levied.

That would certainly cover the TV tax ("commodities, transactions, etc."). However, it does say "to the support of the government" when in fact it's for the support of the BBC, so I am not sure. "Tax" is an interesting word (can we bring this back to words?). Its origins are from as early as 1405. Does anyone know what this means (from the OED): "1405 in Godef. Compl.; rare bef. 16th c."? I wish I knew the abbreviations used in the OED.

Here you go. Current to 1996. I don't know of a free online resource listing the titles of books from which quotations are taken, though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Valentine,

Oh, thank you!

As I have tried to say, all along, is that although a licence fee (where one is charged - and some licences are free) will add to the Government's coffers, and in the sense is revenue taken from the public, it differs from ordinary taxation in that a licence is a permit or authority to do something. In the UK we have many different kinds of licence and I mentioned a few in my response to Bob. A new licence has recently been introduced for organisations or educational institutions wishing to employ migrants (non-settled workers). They must have a licence to sponsor skilled workers, temporary workers or students under a new points-based system. The cost of the licence is from £300 and, it could be argued, that this fee is a contribution to the Exchequer and therefore a tax.

But I do not agree. It is a fee for the authority to undertake the activity of employing migrant workers. If you don't want to undertake the activity then you don't need to pay the fee. If it were a tax then the costs of running this points-based system would be borne entirely by all taxpayers, regardless of whether or not they wished to employ migrants.

If anyone still can't see the difference between a licence, that gives you permission to do something, and a tax, which is simply money taken (a compulsory contribution, as the OED has it) without any direct benefit, then I fear I can say nothing more that will convince you.

quote:

then I fear I can say nothing more that will convince you.

Yay!

quote:

Yay! Smile

Which doesn't, of course, mean I will say nothing more

quote:

"1405 in Godef. Compl.; rare bef. 16th c."? I wish I knew the abbreviations used in the OED.

I don't know what "Godef" is but it must have appeared in it in 1405. Compl. means complementary; bef. means before and 16th c means 16th century.

quote:

I don't know what "Godef" is

From the link posted by Valentine: F. Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue francaise.

BTW, "comp." means complement, not complementary.

The full reference:
Dictionnaire de l'ancienne langue française, et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle, composé d'après le dépouillement de tous les plus importants documents, manuscrits ou imprimés, qui se trouvent dans les grands bibliothèques de la France et de l'Europe, et dans les principales archives départementales, municipales, hospitalières ou privées, par Frédéric Godefroy. Paris, F. Vieweg, 1881-1902.

All 10 volumes, including the two volume Complément, are online at this site.

quote:

"comp." means complement, not complementary.

In this case, "Compl." means Complément. It is in italics, and specifies the work of the author to which the reference is made.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Valentine,

Now that I've created havoc, I'm off to another topic.

quote:

BTW, "comp." means complement, not complementary.

Apologies. I should have looked rather than relying on memory ;(

quote:

Now that I've created havoc, I'm off to another topic.

This had nothing to do with you, Proofreader. This has been an ongoing discussion here for awhile, along with who invented the lightbulb, what is art, generally who has invented everything, whether "epicaricacy" is really a word, and if the Americans really won the Revolutionary War.

I was going to let this thread die a slow death, but I got riled up in the thread where everyone is criticizing the Olympics (What's next, mom and apple pie?) so...

I was thinking about these comments and remembering that it's just about time for us to pay our license fees for owning property.

However, Shu has reminded me that he never had considered the BBC payments taxes; instead they're subsidies, he says. I think he is right, linguistically speaking. The OED defines "subsidy" as: " Help, aid, assistance." or " Financial aid furnished by a state or a public corporation in furtherance of an undertaking or the upkeep of a thing." or "A grant or contribution of money." It probably does fit best there.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

It is quite correct that the Government subsidises the BBC, and the subsidy is funded by the income from the licence fee. I don't know why the money has to travel this convoluted path, but it makes no difference; those who want to watch the BBC have to pay a licence fee to do so. Those who choose not to, don't have to pay the licence fee.

Just a quick reminder that it isn't "those who want to watch the BBC", it's "those who want to watch any broadcast TV". The fact that the money goes to the BBC is irrelevant. The fee applies if you use any means to watch any concurrent transmission of any broadcast TV.

I can't agree. The payments TO the BBC, from the government, are a subsidy. The payment FROM users, the source of the money that enables that subsidy to be made, is either a tax or a license fee.

In addition, a subsidy, to me, is a payment to make an activity easier, not a payment to pay the full cost of that activity. For example, the US subsidizes alternative energy projects, but does not pay their full cost. The OED's definition supports that, by using "in furtherance of". That overtone of "partial support" is missing, I think, in the case of the BBC.

Which of the two it is isn't very important to me. I can see both sides. But calling it a license fee is overly simplistic - it is no more a license fee than a gasoline tax (which can be avoided by not buying gasoline) is a license fee. Yes, the money collected enables the programming to be broadcast, not (in practice) put into the general coffers to be used for general purposes. But similarly, the gasoline tax (here) is used to maintain highways and support mass transit. Cigarette taxes, in some places, are used to finance anti-smoking propaganda. But no one calls them license fees.

This is especially true - as a conceptual matter - since the recent change to require a license even if only non-BBC programming is viewed.

A pure license fee is one that covers the cost of issuing the license and administering the licensing program, and nothing more. A driver's license fee is, or used to be, a good example.

I also think that an early statement here that the BBC is not a part of the Government was accepted without enough comment. It is not the official mouthpiece of the Government, but it is certainly a quasi-governmental entity.

quote:

The BBC is constitutionally established by a Royal Charter. An accompanying Agreement recognises its editorial independence and sets out its public obligations in detail.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Valentine,

quote:

Just a quick reminder that it isn't "those who want to watch the BBC", it's "those who want to watch any broadcast TV".

Apologies. I was careless in my use of language. So far as I have been able to establish, you need a licence to watch any broadcast TV, not just the BBC.

quote:

But similarly, the gasoline tax (here) is used to maintain highways and support mass transit.

Except some is siphoned off to fund other government programs with no connection at all to transportation.

quote:

A pure license fee is one that covers the cost of issuing the license and administering the licensing program, and nothing more. A driver's license fee is, or used to be, a good example.

That's an excellent point, especially since my day job deals with licensing of nurses. The Boards of Nursing decide on their licensing fees based on the cost of regulating the nurses. The fee is quite reasonable, at least when I compare it to that of owning a TV in England. Most states charge nurses about $60 for 2 years. Similarly, in Illinois the cost of a driver's license is about $20, I think, for 4 years.

quote:

It is quite correct that the Government subsidises the BBC,

Okay, then, Richard, we are in complete agreement.

quote:

But calling it a license fee is overly simplistic - it is no more a license fee than a gasoline tax (which can be avoided by not buying gasoline)

I didn't realise you needed a special licence to buy petrol in the USA. I must have been breaking the Law, then. I just went to a petrol station and filled up. What's the penalty in the USA for buying petrol without a "gasoline purchaser's license"?

And those those who claim that a licence can only truly be a licence if it is priced at exactly the cost of delivering the service might care to tell me how, exactly, could one make that distinction - especially in the case of licences issued without charge?

A licence is a licence - a permit to do something. The price of the licence is irrelevant. That somebody or some organisation might make a profit from issuing a licence might be something people object to but it doesn't change a licence into a tax.

quote:

Similarly, in Illinois the cost of a driver's license is about $20, I think, for 4 years.

Which is much more than the cost of a driving licence in the UK - which lasts all your life. So does that make the Illinois drivers license a tax, then?

Drivers do have to buy a Road Fund licence every year, though. You might imagine by its name that the money raised is earmarked for road building projects, etc. Not likely! It simply goes into the common pool of taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Drivers do have to buy a Road Fund licence every year, though. You might imagine by its name that the money raised is earmarked for road building projects, etc. Not likely! It simply goes into the common pool of taxes.

An interesting example given that just about everyone in the country (with Richard as a probable exception) refers to it, in normal conversation, as "Road Tax".

To me this shows that no matter what you call things, the average punter knows exactly what they are.

While we've deviated onto the subject of motor vehicle "taxation" can I suggest that the MOT certificate is also no more and no less, in practice, than another tax. The certificate (which every vehicle over three years old has to have annually) is issued after an MOT test at a garage but is clearly marked with words to the effect that it DOES NOT indicate the roadworthiness of the vehicle.

A stealth tax is still a tax, regardless of its name.

quote:

Drivers do have to buy a Road Fund licence every year, though. You might imagine by its name that the money raised is earmarked for road building projects, etc. Not likely! It simply goes into the common pool of taxes.

I would never dispute that; it has been part of the general tax fund for years. But nevertheless it is a licence to use a motor vehicle on the public roads, not simply a tax.

I do not have to pay for my Road Fund Licence (RFL) for my three motorcycles as they were all manufactured before 1973 and are therefore exempt as "Historic Vehicles". But I have to get a licence every year if I want to use or keep them on the public highway.

Were I to ride on the public highway without an RFL, it would be no defence for me to claim that, as my RFL was free, I didn't need to have one. The RFL, apart from raising tax revenue where it's charged for, also helps ensure that vehicles are tested and insured, since an RFL will not be issued unless the supporting documentation is in order. It also helps trace vehicles, since all registered vehicles' details are centrally recorded and can thus be retrieved almost instantly.

Compare the situation of licensed motor vehicles with that of unlicensed vehicles such as bicycles and horse-drawn carriages, and the importance of a licence becomes evident.

quote:

I didn't realise you needed a special licence to buy petrol in the USA. I must have been breaking the Law, then. I just went to a petrol station and filled up. What's the penalty in the USA for buying petrol without a "gasoline purchaser's license"?

I didn't say you needed a license. I called it a gasoline TAX. Try buying gasoline without paying the taxes (in most states, both Federal and State).

quote:

And those those who claim that a licence can only truly be a licence if it is priced at exactly the cost of delivering the service might care to tell me how, exactly, could one make that distinction - especially in the case of licences issued without charge?

I didn't say that, either. I said that a license FEE that only covers the cost is a pure license FEE, implying that anything above that is a TAX. A free license is just that - it involves neither a fee nor a tax.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Drivers do have to buy a Road Fund licence every year, though. You might imagine by its name that the money raised is earmarked for road building projects, etc. Not likely! It simply goes into the common pool of taxes.

I would never dispute that; it has been part of the general tax fund for years.

The RFL, apart from raising tax revenue

As I recall saying a while back, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck. It ain't a chicken.

quote:

I didn't say you needed a license. I called it a gasoline TAX. Try buying gasoline without paying the taxes (in most states, both Federal and State).

Obligatory taxes are a part of life - but they are not licenses. And the point I have been making, all along, is that a licence is a permit, a tax is a tax. You can have a license that's free of tax and you can have a tax that does not license.

To try to say that the UK TV licence is not a licence simply because the revenue goes to the Government, which is what many seem to be saying, is simply untrue.

quote:

As I recall saying a while back, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like duck. It ain't a chicken.

True - but it would certainly be a cliché. And it could also be a robotic duck.

Clichés are usually clichés because they are true.

And regardless of its name Road Fund License is a tax.

quote:

Which is much more than the cost of a driving licence in the UK - which lasts all your life. So does that make the Illinois drivers license a tax, then?

No, I don't think so, but I wouldn't care if it did. As Valentine indicated, the license fee pays for administering the program. I am not sure what your program involves if you have such a low licensing fee, but we have driver's license centers with hired people who regularly test the drivers' eyesight, knowledge, take their pictures, and test actual skills of new drivers and older drivers. Twenty dollars per driver, every four years, seems cheap, if anything.

quote:

Drivers do have to buy a Road Fund licence every year, though. You might imagine by its name that the money raised is earmarked for road building projects, etc. Not likely! It simply goes into the common pool of taxes.

Ah, that's like our toll roads. When I was in college our toll roads were built, and they promised that within a few years the tolls, having paid for the roads, would stop. Um hmmm. They've still continued all these years; in fact they've increased substantially. Sometimes I am not sure how the legislators can live with themselves.

quote:

we have driver's license centers with hired people who regularly test the drivers' eyesight, knowledge, take their pictures, and test actual skills of new drivers and older drivers.

Maybe in Chicaqo.

quote:

And regardless of its name Road Fund License is a tax.

It is (where it's charged for). And it's also a licence. As I have agreed, a licence can have elements of taxation - or not. And it remains a licence, whether or not it contains a taxation element, since it gives authority to do something.

Tax alone does not give authority, it is simply a tax. Petrol tax does not authorise anyone to do anything specific with the petrol; you need a licence as well if you wish to use it to propel a vehicle for use on the public roads.

quote:

we have driver's license centers with hired people who regularly test the drivers' eyesight, knowledge, take their pictures, and test actual skills of new drivers and older drivers.

Does that happen at regular intervals, without charge?

OK, let me stick my nose in here.

There's a difference between a license fee and a tax. It may well be that we here have not described the difference well and accuratetly enough to categorize the UK TV-set charge as one or the other. But I don't think the categorization matters, for our purposes. Whether tax or license fee, it is in any event a charge imposed, by law, on the pocketbooks of certain residents.

Personally I agree with Richard that it's a license. But so what? Much more important is my disagreement with the claim that "the TV licence is similar to other licences: in the UK you need a gun licence to own a gun; you need a road fund licence to drive a vehicle on the public roads." I'd say that stresses a minor similarity while ignoring a major difference, much like saying, "A priest is similar to a poodle, because they each wear collars!"

What difference is that? Consider: are auto-license revenues given over to Ford, with nothing paid to General Motors? Are gun-license revenues given over to Remington to the exclusion of Smith & Wesson? Of course not! If they were, you can imagine theh howls of protest from GM and S&W as disadvantaged competitors! In general, government-imposed charges are not paid over to one private business, to the exclusion of its competitors.¹

But the UK TV-license is diffferent: the revenue collected goes to the BBC, with none to the BBC's competitors. Even if you watch only CBS and not BBC, you must pay a fee going to BBC and not CBS. That's unusual for a government-imposed charge. To the best of my knowledge it's unique. And that unusual aspect is what makes it a subsidy: not the system of imposition and collection, but rather the use of the funds raised.

I'm not commenting on whether the subsidy is a wise one, a good use of money. That strikes me as a very difficult question. All I'm saying is that is is darn unusual for the government to systematically subsidize one private company over that company's competitors.

---

¹ Except when the government is making a purchase from that business, as a private person might do.

quote:

Maybe in Chicaqo.

In Illinois. Driver's licenses are state authorized (and therefore different in each state). However, there is mutual recognition of the driver's license in all states. Still, national licensure would be nice because there are a lot of nuances in each state. Plus, if you move a lot, you always have to get a new license.

quote:

Does that happen at regular intervals, without charge?

As I previously said, it happens every 4 years, and the charge is $20. For example, in April Shu's 4 years were up, and he took the eyesight and knowledge test and got his picture taken, receiving a new license. The $20 seems to be reasonable when you think about all it entails. There are often long lines of 16-year-olds waiting to take the actual driving test, and after age 75 older adults must take the driving test.

P.S. Is that the correct placement of the apostrophe above (i.e., Driver's licenses; or should it be Drivers' licenses)?

quote:

P.S. Is that the correct placement of the apostrophe above (i.e., Driver's licenses; or should it be Drivers' licenses)?

Of course, we avoid this problem in the UK by calling them "driving licences"!

And I agree that $20 seems a very reasonable charge for the work involved; indeed I would suggest that the authorities are probably subsidising the cost of the process since I can't imagine that $20 would pay for an eye test, a knowledge test and the issue and recording of a legal document - not the mention the background work of identity verification.

The UK licence, once issued, is valid for life unless revoked but no testing takes place unless ordered by a court - which can happen if there is a suspicion that the driver is incompetent. If a test is ordered then it is at the driver's expense.

quote:

All I'm saying is that is is darn unusual for the government to systematically subsidize one private company over that company's competitors.

It might be unusual but it has always been this way. When the first UK public broadcasting started (which was by the British Broadcasting COMPANY - not a Corporation until 1927), it was initially a commercial venture by the various radio manufacturers to try to persuade people to buy radio sets. However, drawing from America's experience, where hundreds of stations had sprung in the 1920s, many of which failed, the UK authorities didn't want the same kind of free-for-all in the UK and thus the original stations were set up to operate under a licence, originally granted by the Post Office. Originally the licence fee was collected by the Post Office and paid to the BBC (so far as I know it is only relatively recently that the money goes to the Government to then be paid back to the BBC). This led to the formation of the BBC in 1922 and the licence system has been used ever since. I would imagine that even US broadcasters must have a licence to operate these days - even if listeners and viewers don't need a licence to receive their transmissions.

But remember, by its charter the BBC is not allowed to carry broadcast advertising - so there are penalties as well as privileges to its situation. The BBC's competitors can carry advertising and charge as much as the market will stand.

For those interested there is a history of the BBC here http://www.bbc.co.uk/heritage/story/index.shtml

Here's a story I found which seems to be relevant to the previous discussion:
The Horse Listener

In fact, although it does seem to be the same, it's actually quite a different matter. To play any music or other performance for other that "personal" use (which is generally taken to mean in one's own home or other premises) requires a licence from the Performing Rights Society. It matters not whether the item is a broadcast or a recording; a licence is needed.

This has nothing to do with the BBC's licence fee; indeed, Classic FM is a commercial broadcaster, funded by advertising and not a licence fee.

The PRS licence is all about reward for those who create performances on the basis that, if one record could be played to thousands of people then the authors or composers would not be properly rewarded since they would be getting only one fee rather than thousands.

Of course, with the advent of the internet, this whole question of the distribution of copyrighted material is now under review and I can't see that the present system can last for much longer.

But something will have to be done otherwise new material will simply not be created - after all, how many creators can spend months or years creating an original work and get nothing in return?

quote:

indeed, Classic FM is a commercial broadcaster, funded by advertising and not a licence fee.

And there's the problem. Classic FM broadcasts music which is paid for by ads. Part of the revenue is then paid to the artists. This payment allows the station to send the music over the air to its listeners. The listeners re expected (or at least, prompted) to buy the products to offset the advertisers costs and pay for more music.

But the music creators want it from both ends: the station and, directly, from the listeners. But the artists give up the right to extort payment once they approve over-the-air broadcasting. I know you won't agree that it's wrong . But you won't find many on this side of the Atlantic who would accept that concept freely.

But you won't find many on this side of the Atlantic who would accept that concept freely.

We have a similar situation here in the States. My cousin cannot play the radio or CDs in his store without paying ASCAP (or BMI) a monthly fee based on the number of employees. One of these performance rights organizations caused a ruckus when they threatened the Girl Scouts of America and other non-profit organizations with lawsuits.

But we don't accept it as gracefully as the UKers seem to be doing.

quote:

I know you won't agree that it's wrong .

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong; I saying that's how it presently is.

And some new system for rewarding writers, composers and other creatives will need to be devised or few people will be able to create. Artists, like most others, cannot afford to give away their skills; like other workers they need to be paid so they can make a living.

This isn't quite on point with the preceding discussion but I saw a story (which I've since lost) about a youngster who lives near a UK airport. The government supposedly tracked down a signal that was affecting air operations to his TV antenna. They removed the antenna, leaving him with no way to get his programs.

What I can't understand is how an antenna designed to RECEIVE TV signals can TRANSMIT a signal strong enough to disrupt operations.