Re: TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises (not an individual) that is licenced - My legal obligations
Jo...@underthewagon.net
>Greetings...
>
>[ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
>position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
>Message-ID: <dsv276d7k8if1jjs2...@4ax.com> under the subject
>heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
>(not an individual) that is licence"
>
>I now repost with additional information regarding the status of my
>premises and family which may help ]
>
>Starts>>>
>
>My TV licence expires at the end of the month
>
>As it is the easily identified by it's house number premises (a
>semi-detached house property solely occupied by my 2 adult family and
>having no shared entrances) that are licensed do I have to give Capita my
>name and if so why.?
>
>I am happy to obtain a new licence but object to giving my name and so
>propose to put either "Occupier" or "The occupier" on the name part of the
>application form
>
>During discussion of this point with the so called help line run by Capita
>I was told I could use instead a trading name (whether active or not) in
>the name field instead of my name but a name or trading name was required
>
>Whether the trading name actually had to have a legal existence was not
>clear or if I could just make one up on the "spot" so to say - I think I
>fancy "." as a trading name
>
>Regards
>
>...
>
>P.S. Replies in the TV group while humorous such as to use Theo ccupier
>where not quite what I want and the thread there has now drifted to the
>future founding of the BBC.
I used to mark the envelope addressed to 'The Occupier' with 'Not
Known at This Address' before sending it back. That used to give me a
year or so's relief until 'Er Indoors decided that baiting the
authorities was not a Good Idea and started complying with the
unreasonable demands. Damnit.
No, we DON'T have a television.
Jon Ribbens
> Your axiom is wrong, for the standard TV Licence it is only the named holder
> (and members of their household) who are licensed at the scheduled premises.
So if a friend of yours watches your TV while you're out,
they're breaking the law?
the Omrud
Or perhaps you're breaking the law?
--
David
Adam Funk
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:45:05 +0100, <....@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Greetings...
>>
>> [ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
>> position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
>> Message-ID: <dsv276d7k8if1jjs2...@4ax.com> under the subject
>> heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
>> (not an individual) that is licence"
>
> Your axiom is wrong, for the standard TV Licence it is only the named holder
> (and members of their household) who are licensed at the scheduled premises.
Bizarre. Does that include friends, childminders, house-sitters,
cousins, ...?
Jon Ribbens
Wow. How disagreeable. I strongly disapprove of normal behaviour being
criminalised but "it's ok because we won't actually prosecute [unless
we feel like it]".
Cynic
>> Your axiom is wrong, for the standard TV Licence it is only the named holder
>> (and members of their household) who are licensed at the scheduled premises.
>So if a friend of yours watches your TV while you're out,
>they're breaking the law?
I believe that if you allow an (unlicenced) friend of the family to
switch on your TV set, change channels or in any other way adjust its
operation, it is technically breaking the law even if you are present
at the time.
--
Cynic
Adam Funk
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:55:04 +0100, Jon Ribbens
><jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Indeed, but they would not be prosecuted under "policies and guidelines".
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xznp5s
>
> "... a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises will not be prosecuted."
What's a non-genuine visitor, other than a burglar?
steve robinson
What about daughters , boyfeinds they seem to think my telly is
thiers (and my fridge )
Pedt
Tue, 24 Aug 2010, ?.?.?.?.?@example.invalid
>Greetings...
>
>[ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
>position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
>Message-ID: <dsv276d7k8if1jjs2...@4ax.com> under the subject
>heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
>(not an individual) that is licence"
>
>premises and family which may help ]
>
>Starts>>>
>
>My TV licence expires at the end of the month
>
>As it is the easily identified by it's house number premises (a
>semi-detached house property solely occupied by my 2 adult family and
>having no shared entrances) that are licensed do I have to give Capita my
>name and if so why.?
It's you that is licensed (plus family, legitimate visitors including
child minders and so on) so yes you do need to give them a name. Yes,
the licence is also keyed to a property but it's where you are licensed
to watch TV.
If 'The Occupier' was allowed then, if you moved elsewhere, you couldn't
transfer the licence as the new occupier would hold the licence as
they'd be the 'The Occupier'.
I suppose you could give them a false name as I doubt that they check
routinely against the full electoral register but you'd have problems
proving that the false name was you in the event of a query or you moved
house.
Not worth the hassle IMO.
--
Pedt
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>My TV licence expires at the end of the month
>
>As it is the easily identified by it's house number premises (a
>semi-detached house property solely occupied by my 2 adult family and
>having no shared entrances) that are licensed do I have to give Capita my
>name and if so why.?
>
>I am happy to obtain a new licence but object to giving my name and so
>propose to put either "Occupier" or "The occupier" on the name part of the
>application form
>
>During discussion of this point with the so called help line run by Capita
>I was told I could use instead a trading name (whether active or not) in
>the name field instead of my name but a name or trading name was required
>
>Whether the trading name actually had to have a legal existence was not
>clear or if I could just make one up on the "spot" so to say - I think I
>fancy "." as a trading name
A licence is issued *to* a named legal person (either a natural person or a
trading entity), *for* a specific set of premises. That distinction,
though, subtle, is important, as it allows the person to take the licence
with them when they move and have it re-allocated to their new premises -
the licence doesn't stay with the premises and transfer to the new owners
(unlike, for example, the tax disc of a car which remains with the car when
ownership changes).
So yes, you do need to give a name on the application form. The relevant
legislation doesn't stipulate what type of name is acceptable, instead, it
leaves that up to the discretion of the BBC and their agents (in this case,
Capita trading as TVL). If they say that they'll accept a trading name,
then presumably that would have to be a name which would be acceptable as a
trading name if you were actually trading. So you can't just make one up,
you would need to make sure that you used a valid name. The BBC/Capita are
perfectly entitled to refuse to issue a licence to a name that they belive
to be invalid.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Ian Jackson
writes
conditions would be interpreted this way.
Unless I'm completely wrong, the only persons in your property who are
not covered by your licence are paying 'guests' (lodgers etc) and this
is when they have their own TV sets in their own 'quarters'.
--
Ian
steve robinson
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:45:05 +0100, <....@example.invalid> put
> finger to keyboard and typed:
>
> >
> > My TV licence expires at the end of the month
> >
> > As it is the easily identified by it's house number premises (a
> > semi-detached house property solely occupied by my 2 adult family
> > and having no shared entrances) that are licensed do I have to
> > give Capita my name and if so why.?
> >
> > I am happy to obtain a new licence but object to giving my name
> > and so propose to put either "Occupier" or "The occupier" on the
> > name part of the application form
> >
> > During discussion of this point with the so called help line run
> > by Capita I was told I could use instead a trading name (whether
> > active or not) in the name field instead of my name but a name or
> > trading name was required
> >
> > Whether the trading name actually had to have a legal existence
> > was not clear or if I could just make one up on the "spot" so to
> > say - I think I fancy "." as a trading name
>
> A licence is issued to a named legal person (either a natural
> person or a trading entity), for a specific set of premises. That
> distinction, though, subtle, is important, as it allows the person
> to take the licence with them when they move and have it
> re-allocated to their new premises - the licence doesn't stay with
> the premises and transfer to the new owners (unlike, for example,
> the tax disc of a car which remains with the car when ownership
> changes).
>
Not quite correct a tax disk can be removed from a car and cashed in
the Omrud
> A licence is issued *to* a named legal person (either a natural person or a
> trading entity), *for* a specific set of premises. That distinction,
> though, subtle, is important, as it allows the person to take the licence
> with them when they move and have it re-allocated to their new premises -
> the licence doesn't stay with the premises and transfer to the new owners
> (unlike, for example, the tax disc of a car which remains with the car when
> ownership changes).
>
> So yes, you do need to give a name on the application form. The relevant
> legislation doesn't stipulate what type of name is acceptable, instead, it
> leaves that up to the discretion of the BBC and their agents (in this case,
> Capita trading as TVL). If they say that they'll accept a trading name,
> then presumably that would have to be a name which would be acceptable as a
> trading name if you were actually trading. So you can't just make one up,
> you would need to make sure that you used a valid name. The BBC/Capita are
> perfectly entitled to refuse to issue a licence to a name that they belive
> to be invalid.
What's an "invalid" name? He can call himself whatever he likes, if
it's not in order to commit fraud etc. But I thought he had ruled that
out in the original post. He wants to buy the licence without giving
*any* name.
--
David
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 2010-08-24, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
Anthony's statement is incorrect. The licence covers all users at the
licensed premises, whether resident or visitors.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/business-and-organisations/shops-and-offices-AUD17/
staes this from the perspective of business premises, but the principle is
identical for residential premises.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Indeed, but they would not be prosecuted under "policies and guidelines".
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3xznp5s
>
>"... a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises will not be prosecuted."
That relates to a case where the premises are not licenced at all. Here's
the quote in full:
Would you prosecute a person at an address that uses TV receiving
equipment without a valid TV Licence, if that person doesn’t live there?
TV Licensing’s activities are carried out in accordance with specific
policies and guidelines, which set out the criteria for prosecuting
evaders. One of these criteria is that a person who is charged with a TV
licensing offence must be an adult who resides at the address, or is the
landlord or person responsible for licensing a television receiver at the
premises. For example, a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises
will not be prosecuted.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-tv-licensing-system-part-2-AB20/
The intent of the question, at least as I read it (and as the responder
seems to have read it) is about cases where a TV is being used at
unlicensed premises by someone other than a person who would be responsible
for ensuring that a licence is obtained. The response indicates that such a
person would not be prosecuted, even though legally they could be.
In any case, the original statement that only the named holder and members
of their household are licensed is incorrect. The owner, tenant or resident
of licensable premises is required to ensure that a licence is obtained,
but having been obtained it is the premises which are licensed, not the
licensee.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> A licence is issued to a named legal person (either a natural
>> person or a trading entity), for a specific set of premises. That
>> distinction, though, subtle, is important, as it allows the person
>> to take the licence with them when they move and have it
>> re-allocated to their new premises - the licence doesn't stay with
>> the premises and transfer to the new owners (unlike, for example,
>> the tax disc of a car which remains with the car when ownership
>> changes).
>>
>
>Not quite correct a tax disk can be removed from a car and cashed in
Yes, but you can't keep the disc and put it in your new car. You can keep
your TV licence and put it in your new house.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 24/08/2010 20:15, Mark Goodge wrote:
I presume the reference to "trading name" by Capita means that they will
issue licences to named businesses as well as named individuals. Which, of
course, is precisely what you would expect them to do. But there are
certain legal restrictions on what comprises a valid busines name (aka
trading name), so it's reasonable to presume that any trading name he did
use would have to comply with these.
> But I thought he had ruled that
>out in the original post. He wants to buy the licence without giving
>*any* name.
Which he can't do, so that point is moot.
Adam Funk
> Mark Goodge wrote:
>> A licence is issued to a named legal person (either a natural
>> person or a trading entity), for a specific set of premises. That
>> distinction, though, subtle, is important, as it allows the person
>> to take the licence with them when they move and have it
>> re-allocated to their new premises - the licence doesn't stay with
>> the premises and transfer to the new owners (unlike, for example,
>> the tax disc of a car which remains with the car when ownership
>> changes).
>>
>
> Not quite correct a tax disk can be removed from a car and cashed in
True, but you need a new one for your next car; you can't just
transfer the disk. I think that's Mark's point.
Adam Funk
I guess you need to impose your own Fridge Licensing Conditions.
Alex Heney
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:45:05 +0100, <....@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Greetings...
>>
>> [ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
>> position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
>> Message-ID: <dsv276d7k8if1jjs2...@4ax.com> under the subject
>> heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
>> (not an individual) that is licence"
>
>Your axiom is wrong, for the standard TV Licence it is only the named holder
>(and members of their household) who are licensed at the scheduled premises.
>
That is simply not true.
I have my TV licence in front of me as I type now, and what it states
is:
The TV licence allows installation and use of TV equipment:
* At the licensed premises by anyone.
* in a vehicle, boat or caravan by
- YOU and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place
(so long as TV equipment is not being used in a non-touring caravan
and at the licensed place at the same time)
- anyone who normally works at the licensed place (so long as the
vehicle, boat or caravan is being used for business purposes).
* Use of TV equipment powered by internal batteries anywhere by YOU
and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm the person your mother warned you about.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
Alex Heney
>Greetings...
>
>[ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
>position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
>Message-ID: <dsv276d7k8if1jjs2...@4ax.com> under the subject
>heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
>(not an individual) that is licence"
>
>I now repost with additional information regarding the status of my
>premises and family which may help ]
>
>Starts>>>
>
>My TV licence expires at the end of the month
>
>As it is the easily identified by it's house number premises (a
>semi-detached house property solely occupied by my 2 adult family and
>having no shared entrances) that are licensed do I have to give Capita my
>name and if so why.?
>
Yes you do.
Firstly because the law requires that it be a "person" who applies of
the licence (in law, a company is a "person"). There must be a
"licensee".
And secondly, because there are various elements of the licence
(whether you actually want to take advantage of them or not) which
apply specifically to the licensed person and anybody normally living
with them.
These are provisions which allow you to use a TV set away from the
licensed premises in some circumstances.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Upgrade: take old bugs out, put new ones in.
Dave
That is vastly different to the radio amateur licence, where the
individual and not the premises are licensed. I can exercise the
privilege of my licence anywhere I want (regarding certain international
laws.)
Dave
Tim Jackson
> As a side issue but relevant to the main point
>
> Does the death of ....
>
> The sole occupier of a premise entitle the executors of the estate to claim
> a refund ??
>
> Has anyone claimed and got a refund and if not why not !!
When my sister died a few months ago, getting a refund of her TV licence
was very easy. I just filled in an online form which asked for details
of the licence and the reason for the refund. No need for a death
certificate or grant of probate, or even any ID. Essentially all I said
was "she's dead, please make the cheque payable to me". And they did.
Wide open to abuse, I would think.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Graham Murray
> What's an "invalid" name? He can call himself whatever he likes, if
> it's not in order to commit fraud etc. But I thought he had ruled
> that out in the original post. He wants to buy the licence without
> giving *any* name.
And does a 'valid' name have to use the 'Latin' alphabet? Could a person
originating from the appropriate part of the world use their name
written in Arabic, Cyrillic or Chinese characters? Most computers allow
you to enter characters in Unicode, so when filling in a form online it
should be (technically) possible to enter a name containing non-latin
characters.
Roland Perry
Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>> So if a friend of yours watches your TV while you're out,
>> they're breaking the law?
>
>Indeed, but they would not be prosecuted under "policies and guidelines".
>
>http://tinyurl.com/3xznp5s
>
>"... a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises will not be prosecuted."
Whereas imposters will?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Aug 2010, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>Unless I'm completely wrong, the only persons in your property who are
>not covered by your licence are paying 'guests' (lodgers etc) and this
>is when they have their own TV sets in their own 'quarters'.
What about non-paying (but long term) guests? For example (and this is a
hypothetical example) what if a student's parents emigrate and he spends
the remaining vacations at a friend's house, using it as his permanent
address for various officialdom purposes?
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
> Unless I'm completely wrong, the only persons in your property who are
> not covered by your licence are paying 'guests' (lodgers etc) and this
> is when they have their own TV sets in their own 'quarters'.
I'm sure I've seen in advice given to students that the presence of
locks on the individual bedrooms affects this. (If the bedrooms in a
shared house don't have their own locks, one licence covers the
household; if they have them, each bedroom with a TV needs a licence.)
Is this bogus or out-of-date?
Adam Funk
Yes, and it's also technically possible (and not difficult, AIUI) for
the web form to reject them.
Jon Ribbens
Doesn't really look right. TVLicensing.co.uk says:
If there is a joint tenancy agreement for the whole house, you may
only need one licence. If you don't have a licence between you,
whoever is found watching TV when an Enquiry Officer visits you is the
one who risks a prosecution and a fine.
If you have a separate tenancy agreement for your room, you need your
own licence.
However, there may be other reasons why you need your own separate
licence, such as whether or not your accommodation is self-contained -
i.e. you have exclusive access to washing facilities or you have your
own entrance to the property. If you are unsure whether this applies
to your particular circumstances please contact us to find out more
information.
Adam Funk
> That is simply not true.
>
> I have my TV licence in front of me as I type now, and what it states
> is:
>
> The TV licence allows installation and use of TV equipment:
>
> * At the licensed premises by anyone.
>
> * in a vehicle, boat or caravan by
> - YOU and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place
> (so long as TV equipment is not being used in a non-touring caravan
> and at the licensed place at the same time)
> - anyone who normally works at the licensed place (so long as the
> vehicle, boat or caravan is being used for business purposes).
>
> * Use of TV equipment powered by internal batteries anywhere by YOU
> and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place.
Reading the licence in order to post correct information ... that's
cheating! ;-)
Seriously, thanks for straightening this out.
Piers Finlayson
I understand you are refering to lodgers here, but be aware that the
position is different for hotels, hostels, etc, where fewer TV licenses
are required:
Lordgnome
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrni79t4c.2...@snowy.squish.net...
> If you have a separate tenancy agreement for your room, you need your
> own licence.
>
> However, there may be other reasons why you need your own separate
> licence, such as whether or not your accommodation is self-contained -
> i.e. you have exclusive access to washing facilities or you have your
> own entrance to the property. If you are unsure whether this applies
> to your particular circumstances please contact us to find out more
> information.
As I have pointed out before. Sets will work perfectly well with no licence
at all.
It is high time this archaic, pointless and expensive system was scrapped.
Other countries manage to do without it.
The British Biased Corporation have sought to make themselves almost
identical to the commercial boys, so they might as well be cast adrift.
Les.
Owen Dunn
> The question is "On what legal grounds do I have to give a (or in
> fact any) name" ?
Communications Act 2003 s364 allows the TV licence to `be issued by
the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think
fit', and such restrictions and conditions are allowed to concern
(s364 (2)(b)) `the persons authorised by the licence to install and
use a television receiver.
So it's up to the BBC to decide what manner of name (if any) they will
accept.
(S)
the Omrud
> "Jon Ribbens"<jon+u...@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrni79t4c.2...@snowy.squish.net...
>> If you have a separate tenancy agreement for your room, you need your
>> own licence.
>>
>> However, there may be other reasons why you need your own separate
>> licence, such as whether or not your accommodation is self-contained -
>> i.e. you have exclusive access to washing facilities or you have your
>> own entrance to the property. If you are unsure whether this applies
>> to your particular circumstances please contact us to find out more
>> information.
>
> As I have pointed out before. Sets will work perfectly well with no licence
> at all.
> It is high time this archaic, pointless and expensive system was scrapped.
> Other countries manage to do without it.
I think this is a valid legal point (apologies if not): In Europe, *a
few* countries manage without it. The vast majority of European
countries do levy a TV licence, and most of those which don't levy one
fund their TV broadcasts from general taxation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence
Our TV licence in France costs roughly the same as our UK licence, but
the quality of the TV provided is vastly better in the UK. Plus, we get
BBC radio.
--
David
Roland Perry
25 Aug 2010, Owen Dunn <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Communications Act 2003 s364 allows the TV licence to `be issued by
>the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think
>fit'
That seems a bit wide open. What if they said that people could only get
a licence on condition of paying in used fivers in person, while wearing
a Mr Blobby costume? (Please, no 'legal tender' ratholes!)
--
Roland Perry
Jon Ribbens
Then nobody would get a TV licence, the BBC would go bankrupt, and
whoever made that stupid condition would be out of a job.
Pedt
00:15:04 on Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
>On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:35:05 +0100, ....@example.invalid wrote...
>
>> As a side issue but relevant to the main point
>>
>> Does the death of ....
>>
>> The sole occupier of a premise entitle the executors of the estate to claim
>> a refund ??
>>
>> Has anyone claimed and got a refund and if not why not !!
>
>When my sister died a few months ago, getting a refund of her TV licence
>was very easy. I just filled in an online form which asked for details
>of the licence and the reason for the refund. No need for a death
>certificate or grant of probate, or even any ID. Essentially all I said
>was "she's dead, please make the cheque payable to me". And they did.
>
surprised at how easy it was to get a 10 month refund. Everyone else
wanted at least a death certificate and/or grant of probate.
>Wide open to abuse, I would think.
>
You do need to know the licence number though[1]. I suspect a paper TV
licence is not high on the list if you happen to be a burglar.
[1] and the right name and address as shown on the TVL database. I have
problems with 'Pedt' being changed to 'Dept' by corporate spillchuckers
and assorted organisations seem to not be able to correct it.
--
Pedt
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>
>The question is "On what legal grounds do I have to give a (or in fact any)
>name" ?
On the grounds that the relevant legislation allows the BBC to make it a
requirement for a licence to be issued.
I'm assuming, of course, that it is the BBC which has done so. If that is
their decision, then you can't overturn it as it's a decision they are
entitled in law to make. If, though, it's just Capita's intepretation of
the BBC's rules, then there may be scope for their interpretation to be
challenged.
You could always try an FOI request to the BBC to find out what their
official policy is.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/bbc
S
Sounds rather bogus. I owned a (private) house where the bedrooms had
locks, of course, they were not used, I am not certain if I even had
the keys to all of the locks.
Neil Williams
It's not AIUI to do with locks, it's to do with whether there is a
single tenancy agreement for the entire house (one rent payment) or a
separate one per room (each person pays their own). Essentially,
AIUI, a tenancy agreement (or licence agreement) defines a property in
TV licencing terms.
I have heard that thing about locks before, but I think it's more the
case that it's incidental to the tenancy, which is the important bit.
It's probably more likely that a house in which rooms are let
separately have their own bedroom door locks than if you just let a
whole house on one contract.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.
Adam Funk
> In message <MPG.26de609ad...@text.usenet.plus.net>, at
> 00:15:04 on Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
>>When my sister died a few months ago, getting a refund of her TV licence
>>was very easy. I just filled in an online form which asked for details
>>of the licence and the reason for the refund. No need for a death
>>certificate or grant of probate, or even any ID. Essentially all I said
>>was "she's dead, please make the cheque payable to me". And they did.
>>
> I was the executor of the will of a friend last year and was a bit
> surprised at how easy it was to get a 10 month refund. Everyone else
> wanted at least a death certificate and/or grant of probate.
>
>>Wide open to abuse, I would think.
>>
> You do need to know the licence number though[1]. I suspect a paper TV
> licence is not high on the list if you happen to be a burglar.
That was before it was advertised here...
S
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:40:03 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>
> <not-for-m...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:45:05 +0100, <....@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Greetings...
>
> >> [ I am posting this query to this group as I am looking for the legal
> >> position - The basic question has been posted in UK.Tech.Broadcast as
> >> heading of "TV Licence - Do I have to give a name seeing it is the premises
> >> (not an individual) that is licence"
>
> >(and members of their household) who are licensed at the scheduled premises.
>
>
> I have my TV licence in front of me as I type now, and what it states
> is:
>
> The TV licence allows installation and use of TV equipment:
>
> * At the licensed premises by anyone.
>
> * in a vehicle, boat or caravan by
> - YOU and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place
> (so long as TV equipment is not being used in a non-touring caravan
> and at the licensed place at the same time)
> - anyone who normally works at the licensed place (so long as the
> vehicle, boat or caravan is being used for business purposes).
>
> * Use of TV equipment powered by internal batteries anywhere by YOU
> and anyone who normally lives with you at the licensed place.
TVL and the law are not ready yet for a digital age. If you watch live
TV on a computer or a mobile phone and the charger is plugged into the
mains, you need a licence. You could have a little game and ask your
licence to be transferred to, say, Heathrow airport gate 45 while
waiting for your flight to depart, and then back to your home address
when you come back from your holidays, but there is no licence to
cover a mobile device which is used at different locations and is
plugged into the mains.
Neil Williams
>TVL and the law are not ready yet for a digital age. If you watch live
>TV on a computer or a mobile phone and the charger is plugged into the
>mains, you need a licence. You could have a little game and ask your
>licence to be transferred to, say, Heathrow airport gate 45 while
>waiting for your flight to depart, and then back to your home address
>when you come back from your holidays, but there is no licence to
>cover a mobile device which is used at different locations and is
>plugged into the mains.
Probably just needs updating to signify that if the device is
primarily powered by batteries and plugged into a charger it is also
acceptable. The change here has only really come about because most
devices use rechargeable Li-ion batteries instead of Duracells these
days - the nature of the usage of such devices to watch live
television, while their reception mechanism has changed from the
airwaves to the Internet, has not really changed from the days of the
Sony Watchman and the likes.
That or abolish the licence and fund via general taxation, which I
think would make a lot more sense, as the collection and enforcement
cost (which must take a fair proportion of the income) would be
zeroed, and you'd also collect from BBC radio users who presently
don't pay anything because the low fee wasn't worth collecting. (Few
people neither use radio nor television).
Piers Finlayson
> Does the death of ....
>
> The sole occupier of a premise entitle the executors of the estate to claim
> a refund ??
>
> Has anyone claimed and got a refund and if not why not !!
Wasn't due to a death, but I claimed a refund and got one for the
unused portion of a TV licence because it was no longer required.
Alex Heney
Of course. As you should.
You almost certainly do not need a *separate* licence (which is what
you presumably intended to say), although that particular point is
open to interpretation, and has AFAIK never been ruled on by the
courts.
I would certainly argue that it is being powered by its own internal
batteries, which just happen themselves to be being charged at the
same time.
>You could have a little game and ask your
>licence to be transferred to, say, Heathrow airport gate 45 while
>waiting for your flight to depart, and then back to your home address
>when you come back from your holidays, but there is no licence to
>cover a mobile device which is used at different locations and is
>plugged into the mains.
If it is powered by its own internal batteries, then it is covered.
If it is being *powered* from the mains, then it isn't.
If its' internal batteries are being charged from the mains at the
same time as powering the device, then it is open to a future ruling
of the courts.
I think it extremely unlikely either that TVL will ever prosecute such
a case, or that the courts would find the user guilty if they did.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
S
My physical intuition says that if the charger is plugged in, the
computer or phone is powered by the charger. My computer says
something like "on AC power", and I am not going to argue with that.
The same problem arises if you want to watch live tv on a desktop PC
in an internet cafe, library, at school or university, or heaven
forbid, at work, and there isn't even an argument about whether it is
powered by an internal battery or not. Could you get a TV licence to
cover the 2nd computer on the right at Bob's Internet Cafe, then
transfer it to a computer at your local public library, etc?
> >You could have a little game and ask your
> >licence to be transferred to, say, Heathrow airport gate 45 while
> >waiting for your flight to depart, and then back to your home address
> >when you come back from your holidays, but there is no licence to
> >cover a mobile device which is used at different locations and is
> >plugged into the mains.
>
> If it is powered by its own internal batteries, then it is covered.
>
> If it is being *powered* from the mains, then it isn't.
>
> If its' internal batteries are being charged from the mains at the
> same time as powering the device, then it is open to a future ruling
> of the courts.
>
> I think it extremely unlikely either that TVL will ever prosecute such
> a case, or that the courts would find the user guilty if they did.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit?
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Graham Murray
> The same problem arises if you want to watch live tv on a desktop PC
> in an internet cafe, library, at school or university, or heaven
> forbid, at work, and there isn't even an argument about whether it is
> powered by an internal battery or not. Could you get a TV licence to
> cover the 2nd computer on the right at Bob's Internet Cafe, then
> transfer it to a computer at your local public library, etc?
Hopefully the owner of the Internet Cafe will have a TV licence for
customers to watch TV, in the same way as the many bars which advertise
the showing of live football (and other sports) must have one.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> I intend to purchase a new licence for the same premises
> (referring or may-be not to the previous licence on the
> application ) and do not wish to give my current name on the new
> application.
>
> The question is "On what legal grounds do I have to give a (or
> in fact any) name" ?
What's the rule on name change/usage? Can you use another name if
not done for fraudulent purposes?
S
I don't want to rely on "hopefully". If he has no TV there, why should
he get a TV licence? The money saved is just more profit to the owner.
I am a highly law abiding person, I would like to get a licence to
cover my licenceable activities and TV licencing is unable to provide
me with the right licence.
JMS
wrote:
<snip>
I have suggested abolishing the license as part of the Government's
save money initiative.
It would be interesting to know how much money is paid to Capita to
administer the antiquated system; and how much could be saved by
dropping it and paying the BBC out of general taxation.
Seems a no-brainier to me.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:04 +0100, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>
>> I have suggested abolishing the license as part of the Government's
>> save money initiative.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know how much money is paid to Capita to
>> administer the antiquated system; and how much could be saved by
>> dropping it and paying the BBC out of general taxation.
>>
>> Seems a no-brainier to me.
>
>The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
Indeed. I suspect that funding the BBC out of general taxation would
actually cost more overall, as tax rates would have to be increased to
cover it and the necessary administration would almost certainly be less
efficient.
In any case, funding the BBC in full from general taxation would be
politically impossible, for two reasons. Firstly, it would mean that
everyone would pay for it even if they don't watch TV - at the moment, you
only have to pay the licence fee if you actually watch broadcasts which are
subject to the licence, so not everyone pays. Taking it out of tax would
mean that everyone pays. And, secondly, government funding of the BBC would
seriously compromise the BBC's independence.
JMS
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:05:04 +0100, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>
>> I have suggested abolishing the license as part of the Government's
>> save money initiative.
>>
>> It would be interesting to know how much money is paid to Capita to
>> administer the antiquated system; and how much could be saved by
>> dropping it and paying the BBC out of general taxation.
>>
>> Seems a no-brainier to me.
>
>The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
>
>Tony
So do they not pay Capita anything for running the "service"?
Or do they do it for free - or do they get to keep the licence fees
that they collect?
Roland Perry
Mon, 30 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> remarked:
>>The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>>the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>>know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
>
>
>Or do they do it for free - or do they get to keep the licence fees
>that they collect?
The question you should really ask is whether Capita charge more for
collection than it would cost HMR&C to do a similar exercise. Bearing in
mind that because some people are exceptions to the need to have a
licence, you'd have to reflect that in the way you collected tax (if you
wished to keep the same degree of regressiveness).
--
Roland Perry
JMS
I disagree with you - unless you also believe that it costs the
Government nothing to collect and administer the licence fee - do you
think that - or do you actually know that it costs nothing?
I suspect that more than 95% of homes have a television - therefore it
makes great sense to do away with the licence.
Is the net cost of taking licence dodgers to court nil - or is that
itself a profit making opportunity we do not want to give up?
So what if everyone pays- I cannot see that that matters. Do you
think that only those that use the roads pay for the upkeep?
It do not think that it would be politically impossible at all - if it
is sold correctly.
ie - This action will save the Government (if there is a saving) - x
million pounds a year - hence it will save every UK household x pounds
It will also mean that there are no television licence dodgers - as
you say everyone pays - excellent.
"And, secondly, government funding of the BBC would
seriously compromise the BBC's independence." - just not true; it
would be no difference from the situation now.
Who decides what funding the BBC gets? Oh - that will be the
Government.
Do you really think that the BBC is totally independent of Government
and they take no notice of Government wishes?
Do you think it was the BBC who decided that certain unsuitable
records would not be played on air during the Falkland's conflict.
Do you think it is the BBC who decide independent of Government what
countries they will transmit to and in what language?
The BBC are certainly not in dependant of Government.
JMS
wrote:
I am saying that the "licence fee" should come out of general
taxation.
Does a fraction of penny on the basic rate of income tax actually
increase the cost of collection?
JMS
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>Neither. The government pays nothing and Capita does not do it for free.
>
>Tony
Capita are paid 1 million pounds per day to administer the system -
including collecting the tax - and making a profit for themselves.
This is 1 million pounds per day down the pan with no benefit to the
tax payer.
How much would be have to be put on the basic rate of income tax in
order to collect an extra 1 million pounds per day? A very, very
small amount of money.
Then - on top of that you have all the costs saved with court fees -
chasing non-payment.
As I said to start with - it is a no brainier.
Roland Perry
>>collection than it would cost HMR&C to do a similar exercise. Bearing in
>>mind that because some people are exceptions to the need to have a
>>licence, you'd have to reflect that in the way you collected tax (if you
>>wished to keep the same degree of regressiveness).
>
>I am saying that the "licence fee" should come out of general
>taxation.
>
>Does a fraction of penny on the basic rate of income tax actually
>increase the cost of collection?
It changes the degree of recessives. Which is a political decision but
quite a massive step. it takes TV out of being a utility (where broadly
speaking everyone pays the same whatever their income) to another tax
that mainly bashes the middle classes.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>> The question you should really ask is whether Capita charge more for
>> collection than it would cost HMR&C to do a similar exercise.
>
>Er, no. The right first question is who pays Capita? That is the BBC and
>not the government.
But for the economy as a whole, the amount Capita charges (compared to
what it would cost HMR&C) is a very important question.
[I have no pre-conceived idea what the answer is, by the way; other than
knowing that the HMR&C cost is likely to be higher than most people
expect].
--
Roland Perry
JMS
wrote:
Sorry - I am wrong there - I think it is more like 1 million pounds
per week not per day
JMS
wrote:
>In message <pbmn76hkb58ojdig4...@4ax.com>, at 17:25:03 on
Have you actually worked out the cost of that extra tax.
My maths is not good - and I may be wrong - but I make it:
I think that Capita charge something like 1 million pounds per week
1p on basic income tax generates more than 10 million per day.
a seventieth of a penny is needed on income tax to replace Capita.
How does that mainly bash "the middle classes"?
Lordgnome
"JMS" <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in message
news:t6nn769p2pshfa843...@4ax.com...
>>
> Capita are paid 1 million pounds per day to administer the system -
> including collecting the tax - and making a profit for themselves.
>
> This is 1 million pounds per day down the pan with no benefit to the
> tax payer.
>
> How much would be have to be put on the basic rate of income tax in
> order to collect an extra 1 million pounds per day? A very, very
> small amount of money.
>
> Then - on top of that you have all the costs saved with court fees -
> chasing non-payment.
>
> As I said to start with - it is a no brainier.
>
by abolishing the BBC entirely. If that had been suggested to me say, back
in the early days of commercial TV, I would have been horrified. Sadly since
those halcyon days the BBC has progressively attempted to copy all of the
bad practice of the commercial boys. There is some relief of course from
inane commercials, which are nicely replaced by inane trailers and endless
weather forecasts. Have you noticed how the Sky-speak "coming up" has now
replaced the word "next"?
Les.
Mark Goodge
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>In any case, funding the BBC in full from general taxation would be
>>politically impossible, for two reasons. Firstly, it would mean that
>>everyone would pay for it even if they don't watch TV - at the moment, you
>>only have to pay the licence fee if you actually watch broadcasts which are
>>subject to the licence, so not everyone pays. Taking it out of tax would
>>mean that everyone pays. And, secondly, government funding of the BBC would
>>seriously compromise the BBC's independence.
>>
>
>I disagree with you - unless you also believe that it costs the
>Government nothing to collect and administer the licence fee - do you
>think that - or do you actually know that it costs nothing?
At the moment it costs the gvernment nothing to collect and administer, as
the government isn't involved in doing so.
>I suspect that more than 95% of homes have a television - therefore it
>makes great sense to do away with the licence.
>
>Is the net cost of taking licence dodgers to court nil - or is that
>itself a profit making opportunity we do not want to give up?
Those costs are met initially by the BBC and recouped in court from those
who are successfully prosecuted.
>So what if everyone pays- I cannot see that that matters. Do you
>think that only those that use the roads pay for the upkeep?
Everyone uses roads, even if only indirectly.
Mark Goodge
You also need to replace the licence fee itself. That would be rather more
than a seventieth of a penny.
Mark Goodge
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:25:13 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:30:06 +0100, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:30:04 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>>>> the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>>>> know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> So do they not pay Capita anything for running the "service"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or do they do it for free - or do they get to keep the licence fees
>>> that they collect?
>>
>>Neither. The government pays nothing and Capita does not do it for free.
>>
>>Tony
>
>
>Capita are paid 1 million pounds per day to administer the system -
>including collecting the tax - and making a profit for themselves.
That's not actually true. The total administration costs for 2008/9 (the
most recent year for which figures are available) was £119.9 million, which
is a bit over £328,000 per day. That's divided among all the organisations
that the BBC contracts to handle aspects of the system, so it doesn't all
go to Capita.
>This is 1 million pounds per day down the pan with no benefit to the
>tax payer.
>
>How much would be have to be put on the basic rate of income tax in
>order to collect an extra 1 million pounds per day? A very, very
>small amount of money.
The real question is how much extra would have to be put on to income tax
in order to both cover the cost of the licence and to cover the costs that
HMRC would incur in administering it.
Roland Perry
>>>Does a fraction of penny on the basic rate of income tax actually
>>>increase the cost of collection?
>>
>>It changes the degree of recessives. Which is a political decision but
>>quite a massive step. it takes TV out of being a utility (where broadly
>>speaking everyone pays the same whatever their income) to another tax
>>that mainly bashes the middle classes.
>
>Have you actually worked out the cost of that extra tax.
No, but I am prepared to accept that adding and administering additional
questions on a tax form (such as "are you blind, or over 75, and
therefore entitled to free tv") will have a non-zero cost.
>How does that mainly bash "the middle classes"?
Because they are the ones who pay most of the income tax.
Here's a really simple example: if the LibDems get their way, and
everyone with an income below £10k pays no income tax... who will pay
the costs of the BBC that they are therefore no longer contributing
towards?
--
Roland Perry
JMS
Sorry - that calculation is all back to front isn't it? As I said my
maths is not good.
The Government actually pay Capita 1 million pounds per week.
That is what is saved - and you are right - the licence fee is to be
set against that (too difficult for me to work out :-)
JMS
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:55:04 +0100, JMS put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
>><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In any case, funding the BBC in full from general taxation would be
>>>politically impossible, for two reasons. Firstly, it would mean that
>>>everyone would pay for it even if they don't watch TV - at the moment, you
>>>only have to pay the licence fee if you actually watch broadcasts which are
>>>subject to the licence, so not everyone pays. Taking it out of tax would
>>>mean that everyone pays. And, secondly, government funding of the BBC would
>>>seriously compromise the BBC's independence.
>>>
>>
>>I disagree with you - unless you also believe that it costs the
>>Government nothing to collect and administer the licence fee - do you
>>think that - or do you actually know that it costs nothing?
>
>At the moment it costs the gvernment nothing to collect and administer, as
>the government isn't involved in doing so.
The Government/BBC paid Capita 500million pounds to collect the tax
for a ten year period.
There would be a net saving of at least 500 million pounds to the
Government/BBC over a ten year period - a million pounds a week.
It is a tax - it could easily be absorbed into income tax with a net
saving to the tax-payer.
Roland Perry
>It is a tax - it could easily be absorbed into income tax with a net
>saving to the tax-payer.
Unless you can provide a peer-reviewed paper that shows it would reduce
overall admin costs, I will have to disagree with your basic assumption.
You've also failed to respond to postings which clearly show that many
individual taxpayers (those actually paying tax...) would be worse off.
--
Roland Perry
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:25:13 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:30:06 +0100, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:30:04 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>>>> the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>>>> know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>
>>> So do they not pay Capita anything for running the "service"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Or do they do it for free - or do they get to keep the licence fees
>>> that they collect?
>>
>>Neither. The government pays nothing and Capita does not do it for free.
>>
>>Tony
>
>
>Capita are paid 1 million pounds per day to administer the system -
>including collecting the tax - and making a profit for themselves.
>
But they are paid by the BBC - i.e. it is deducted from the total the
BBC receives in fees.
>This is 1 million pounds per day down the pan with no benefit to the
>tax payer.
>
The "benefit" is that the licence fee is collected.
Unless you can show that some other system of collecting it would be
cheaper, that is worthwhile.
>How much would be have to be put on the basic rate of income tax in
>order to collect an extra 1 million pounds per day? A very, very
>small amount of money.
>
>Then - on top of that you have all the costs saved with court fees -
>chasing non-payment.
>
>As I said to start with - it is a no brainier.
>
A lot pf people think that.
A lot of others disagree, for various reasons.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is fatal to live too long.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
JMS
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:40:03 +0100, JMS put finger to keyboard and typed:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:25:13 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>><not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:30:06 +0100, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:30:04 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
>>>> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The TV Licence very has little to do with the Government except that they set
>>>>> the rates. Abolishing it would not save the Government any money and I don't
>>>>> know that they have any initiatives to save you money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>> So do they not pay Capita anything for running the "service"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or do they do it for free - or do they get to keep the licence fees
>>>> that they collect?
>>>
>>>Neither. The government pays nothing and Capita does not do it for free.
>>>
>>>Tony
>>
>>
>>Capita are paid 1 million pounds per day to administer the system -
>>including collecting the tax - and making a profit for themselves.
>
>That's not actually true. The total administration costs for 2008/9 (the
>most recent year for which figures are available) was £119.9 million, which
>is a bit over £328,000 per day. That's divided among all the organisations
>that the BBC contracts to handle aspects of the system, so it doesn't all
>go to Capita.
OK - so administering the system actually costs 120 Million pounds per
year - not just the £50M to Capita - I did not realise that; so the
benefits from stopping it are even greater than I thought.
>
>The real question is how much extra would have to be put on to income tax
>in order to both cover the cost of the licence and to cover the costs that
>HMRC would incur in administering it.
No - the money to be covered by increase in income tax is:
The current amount collected per year for licence fees - minus £120
millions minus the net cost of prosecuting defaulters (if not included
in £120M)
There is nothing for HMRC to administer.
There are also the (minor) savings of the costs/inconvenience to
businesses in informing Capita of purchases of TVs etc.
(There also will be less discussion in ULM of who actually needs a
licence - and does it cover TV on demand on the internet or on IPhones
:-)
Roland Perry
>There is nothing for HMRC to administer.
Yes there is - it's the exemptions for the blind an over 75's
if nothing else.
And how will HMRC compensate for licences for hotel rooms? Foreign
tourists don't pay income tax.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 30 Aug 2010, me <m...@example.invalid> remarked:
>in the long term put the licence fee on to the voters list
You'd need a name for it though. Let's see, what can we make out of
voters... (Poll?) and tax??
--
Roland Perry
JMS
wrote:
>In message <ha2o761aveb7498c9...@4ax.com>, at 22:10:04 on
I am sorry that I had not made what I was saying clear.
I am proposing the abolition of the TV licence.
Therefore there will be no need for anyone to say whether they need a
licence or not - they will not need one - they will not exist.
The licence fee/tax will be taken out of general taxation.
(I see now why you were so at odds with some of the things I was
saying - sorry I did not make my proposal quite clear).
JMS
wrote:
>In message <2s0o761ip2mbmfiic...@4ax.com>, at 20:25:14 on
>Mon, 30 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>It is a tax - it could easily be absorbed into income tax with a net
>>saving to the tax-payer.
>
>Unless you can provide a peer-reviewed paper that shows it would reduce
>overall admin costs, I will have to disagree with your basic assumption.
I am sorry - I had not realised that every statement made in this
newsgroup had to be backed up with a peer reviewed paper.
>You've also failed to respond to postings which clearly show that many
>individual taxpayers (those actually paying tax...) would be worse off.
You have claimed that *many* will be worse off - I have not seen your
figures which lead you to that conclusion.
I must have missed the posts which *clearly* showed that *many*
taxpayers would be worse off.
Tell me which post were you thinking of and I will reply to it.
You haven't even said how many are *many* - who are these people?
Do you perhaps have some figures to back up your claim.
Pedt
>On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:20:04 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <2s0o761ip2mbmfiic...@4ax.com>, at 20:25:14 on
>>Mon, 30 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>It is a tax - it could easily be absorbed into income tax with a net
>>>saving to the tax-payer.
>>
>>Unless you can provide a peer-reviewed paper that shows it would reduce
>>overall admin costs, I will have to disagree with your basic assumption.
>
>I am sorry - I had not realised that every statement made in this
>newsgroup had to be backed up with a peer reviewed paper.
>
>>You've also failed to respond to postings which clearly show that many
>>individual taxpayers (those actually paying tax...) would be worse off.
>
>You have claimed that *many* will be worse off - I have not seen your
>figures which lead you to that conclusion.
>
>I must have missed the posts which *clearly* showed that *many*
>taxpayers would be worse off.
>
>Tell me which post were you thinking of and I will reply to it.
>
>You haven't even said how many are *many* - who are these people?
>
>Do you perhaps have some figures to back up your claim.
Well, as you are implying there are to be no concessions for the over
75's and the blind...
25½ million licences @ 145.50 each = 3710.25 million pounds to be raised
through taxation (of those who pay tax). 3710.25 - 52 of savings per
year = 3660.25 million to be raised in taxes.
Assuming normal tax numbers & standard tax code:
If 1p tax rise nets 10 million per day at the moment that is 3652.50
million averaged per year. So your proposal, if implemented just as
general taxation, will put up basic rate tax by 1%. If Nick Clegg gets
his way that the income tax threshold is going up to 10000[1], then more
will be needed from the rest so that'll become 2% (Notes for Developers
from HMR&C indicate no xx.n% income tax rates need to be planned for).
Assuming normal tax numbers & standard tax code, calculations are quite
easy to see where the break even point is:
1% at current rates means that a household with single person earning
more than 21025 will be worse off.
2% at new rates means for that same household an income of 17125.
It's more complicated with 2 or more wage earners in the same household
as you can't divide the above figures in half but at 1% for two wage
earners then, if each earned more than 13750, they would be worse off.
At 2% and new rates, the figure would be earning 13625 each. (3 wage
earners the figures would be 11325 and 12425 respectively).
ONS figures for 2009 give only 10% of people earning less than 271 per
week (14092/year) and a fair proportion will be in households with 2
wage earners - so they will, in general, be paying more in tax than the
TV licence costs. The same ONS figures give a yearly income of 25000 as
the median.
The people you are also forgetting could be worse off are those who are
exempted from paying currently - up to 4 million of them. Anyone without
a TV could also be worse off (in both cases, obviously, if they have
sufficient income to be paying tax).
The people who will benefit the most will be the unemployed.
[1] Actually, he'd have to pick 9995 or 10005.
--
Pedt
Pedt
2010, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>In message <patn76p1uvciepf78...@4ax.com>, at 19:30:06 on
>Mon, 30 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>>Does a fraction of penny on the basic rate of income tax actually
>>>>increase the cost of collection?
>>>
>>>It changes the degree of recessives. Which is a political decision but
>>>quite a massive step. it takes TV out of being a utility (where broadly
>>>speaking everyone pays the same whatever their income) to another tax
>>>that mainly bashes the middle classes.
>>
>>Have you actually worked out the cost of that extra tax.
>
>No, but I am prepared to accept that adding and administering
>additional questions on a tax form (such as "are you blind, or over 75,
>and therefore entitled to free tv") will have a non-zero cost.
It will certainly have non-zero cost just to add the questions. There's
going to be essentially three inter-linked costs to add the extra
questions.
Firstly you have to upgrade all the backend databases with the extra
fields, secondly upgrading all the relevant custom software that would
need to access those fields and generate tax calculations / catch
exceptions (e.g. ticked 'over 75' box but DOB under that). Thirdly, and
finally, you also need to upgrade the scanning software that generates
the database entries as a lot of the forms are scanned and generally
only those rejected from the scanners are manually input.
However, Judith appears to be abolishing the exemptions.
--
Pedt
Chris R
news:9ME6EhmN...@fishcake.eternal-september.org...
Government spending figures (not sure if it's already in there) and the
increase in the rate of income tax has no political or economic effect. The
published statistics do matter, as they drive markets and other economic
decisions. An increase in the basic rate of income tax has a huge negative
impact on the electoral prospects of the government that introduces it,
which is why no government has dared try it for many years and why
governments like to spread revenue-raising across a range of taxes in
different parts of the economy where it is less visible. Increased taxation
reduces incentives to work and to locate businesses in the UK, and increases
incentives to emigrate or to avoid or even evade tax. Reduction of take-home
pay increases wage demands and potentially leads to inflation. Taking money
from taxpayers and giving it to non-taxpayers, and also changing the net
return on investments, affects the amounts saved or spent in the economy and
the level of investment. The expected magnitude of these effects is arguable
and depends on your political beliefs and the state of the economy, but
there would certainly be some effects.
Also, income tax is collected up to two years in arrears; the cashflow
effect of the BBC spending before it received the money would be a net
addition to the public sector deficit.
Chris R
Roland Perry
>You have claimed that *many* will be worse off - I have not seen your
>figures which lead you to that conclusion.
There are 25 million basic rate taxpayers and 3 million higher rate.
Combined, that's around half the population. All would be worse off.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>>tourists don't pay income tax.
>
>I am sorry that I had not made what I was saying clear.
>
>I am proposing the abolition of the TV licence.
>
>Therefore there will be no need for anyone to say whether they need a
>licence or not - they will not need one - they will not exist.
But currently there's a revenue stream from tourists to hotel keepers to
Capita to the BBC. Cut out the requirement for hotels (and similar
institutions) to have extra licences and taxpayers get an increased
burden to fill that gap.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
08:40:05 on Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>Also, income tax is collected up to two years in arrears
I don't think that's the case any more. While tax forms for the self
employed need to be in ten months in arrears, it's now necessary to make
a pre-payment of the estimated amount of tax for the following year [ie
the year you are in at the time of filing the forms]. The result of this
is that you are only paying on average seven months in arrears (half of
the pre-payment in January for the previous April-September, and half in
July for the previous October-March).
As far as I know, most PAYE is sent to HMRC within a month.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
return answers and launching inquiries and taking enforcement action where
it is suspected that the answer is incorrect, or in dealing with people who
fail to answer the questions or who make honest errors. The more complicated
the return overall, the more errors, omissions and delays there will be in
the system, all of which have a cost to HMRC. The idea does not sit well
with the current tax simplification project.
Chris R
Iain
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OjMqxoGM...@perry.co.uk...
> No, but I am prepared to accept that adding and administering additional
> questions on a tax form (such as "are you blind, or over 75, and therefore
> entitled to free tv") will have a non-zero cost.
These 2 questions are already asked on the standard Income Tax Return form.
There is a tick box to claim the Blind Persons allowance, and I your date of
birth is also on the form.
Regards,
Iain
JMS
How many of the over 75s and blind pay income tax any way?
>25½ million licences @ 145.50 each = 3710.25 million pounds to be raised
>through taxation (of those who pay tax). 3710.25 - 52 of savings per
>year = 3660.25 million to be raised in taxes.
Which would be raised by just 1p on income tax (1p raises 4 Billion
according to the IFS)
So 1p on income tax gives a net saving,
Yes - as you have said - there will be some winners and some losers -
but anything which saves money and has a much simpler system is to be
commended.
This could very easily be sold as a benefit - which is what it would
be.
JMS
wrote:
>In message <2c8o76dv9itg8dofv...@4ax.com>, at 22:35:04 on
That is just not true - and we have still not seen your figures.
I meant a calculation/explanation - not just a statement that 28
million people will be worse off.
I have shown that there will be a net saving on total costs if 1p is
put on Income Tax .
50% of the population will not be worse off - they will not be paying
for their licence
And in general those who already get a free licence will continue to
get one.
So please can you explain how 28 million people will be worse off.
JMS
You have obviously misunderstood - you do not have to make any
complex changes to backend data bases or anything like it.
You put 1p on basic rate of Income Tax.
Most people who were getting free TV licences will still get free TV
licences.
Roland Perry
Tue, 31 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> remarked:
>>>You have claimed that *many* will be worse off - I have not seen your
>>>figures which lead you to that conclusion.
>>
>>There are 25 million basic rate taxpayers and 3 million higher rate.
>>Combined, that's around half the population. All would be worse off.
>
>That is just not true
It is, the numbers are widely available on the web.
> - and we have still not seen your figures.
>
>I meant a calculation/explanation - not just a statement that 28
>million people will be worse off.
Half as many people paying means ...urgh... on average paying twice as
much.
>I have shown that there will be a net saving on total costs if 1p is
>put on Income Tax .
No you haven't.
>50% of the population will not be worse off - they will not be paying
>for their licence
Which clearly means you accept the other half will be paying twice as
much (on average).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
>
>You have obviously misunderstood - you do not have to make any
>complex changes to backend data bases or anything like it.
>
>You put 1p on basic rate of Income Tax.
>
>Most people who were getting free TV licences will still get free TV
>licences.
Not if they're taxpayers, they won't. Although it's probably fair to say
that most of the people eligible for free licences aren't taxpayers.
What's more pertinent is that millions of people who currently pay for a
licence will start getting it for free. Which means that those who do pay
for it will have to pay more, on average, than they do now in order to
subsidise the vastly increased numbers who don't.
Percy Picacity
> In message <nsfq76h4too7o8l1p...@4ax.com>, at
> 18:50:04 on Tue, 31 Aug 2010, JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
>>>>You have claimed that *many* will be worse off - I have not seen
>>>>your figures which lead you to that conclusion.
>>>
>>>There are 25 million basic rate taxpayers and 3 million higher
>>>rate. Combined, that's around half the population. All would be
>>>worse off.
>>
>>That is just not true
>
> It is, the numbers are widely available on the web.
>
>> - and we have still not seen your figures.
>>
>>I meant a calculation/explanation - not just a statement that 28
>>million people will be worse off.
>
> Half as many people paying means ...urgh... on average paying
> twice as much.
The fallacy here is that TV licences are frequently issued to
households consisting of two or more people. I would be surprised
if many more had TV licences than paid tax. This is before you
factor in indirect taxes.
--
Percy Picacity