Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

Grumpy Old Lemons Like You
bungeejumper
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3123
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234377

Postby bungeejumper » July 6th, 2019, 10:51 am

JoyofBrex8889 wrote:Thanks! I just have to say "No" one more time than the opponent says "Yes". It is obvious that people here value and want to pay for the Beeb. That should be evidence enough that the BBC has a viable free market future without bilking the taxpayer for subsidy.

LOL, against my better judgement I'll have a go at responding to that.

So the BBC says: "Pay us a subscription and we'll channel your TV to you without further charge."

And Netflix says: "Pay us a subscription and we'll channel your TV to you without further charge."

And Amazon Prime says :"Pay us a subscription and we'll channel your TV to you without further charge." ;)

The main difference being that the last two pay their stars better than the BBC. (As do most commercial broadcasters - see Bake Off, for example.) But wait, I must be missing something? Could it possibly be that Amazon is subsidising Clarkson's squillion-dollar pay check to promote something else?

Naah, couldn't possibly be.

BJ

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4053
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234396

Postby XFool » July 6th, 2019, 12:25 pm

richfool wrote:Wouldn't it be simpler if the BBC started showing adverts and funded itself, and let the rest of us get on with our lives, without the TV licence which amounts to yet another tax. It could then pay its presenters what it could afford to, like any other business. I resent it using my money to overpay its staff, and to support its biased programmes...

Apart from anything else...

Why is a non transparent method of paying for the BBC, via the purchase price of products being advertised, mysteriously better than being taxed transparently for watching BBC programmes?

richfool wrote:...not to mention its agents harassing the public (at further expense) who may have chosen not to have a TV .

Then they don't pay the TV licence, do they? Unlike those who have chosen not to have TVs, who still have to pay for TV advertising costs.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1461
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234420

Postby richfool » July 6th, 2019, 3:31 pm

XFool wrote:
richfool wrote:Wouldn't it be simpler if the BBC started showing adverts and funded itself, and let the rest of us get on with our lives, without the TV licence which amounts to yet another tax. It could then pay its presenters what it could afford to, like any other business. I resent it using my money to overpay its staff, and to support its biased programmes...

Apart from anything else...

Why is a non transparent method of paying for the BBC, via the purchase price of products being advertised, mysteriously better than being taxed transparently for watching BBC programmes?

richfool wrote:...not to mention its agents harassing the public (at further expense) who may have chosen not to have a TV .

Then they don't pay the TV licence, do they? Unlike those who have chosen not to have TVs, who still have to pay for TV advertising costs.

No, they don't and indeed they shouldn't, but that doesn't stop the NTVLRO (if that is what they are still called) from sending harassing and threatening letters to the occupier, even going as far as telling them what will happen in Court, - all when the occupier doesn't have a TV, nor need a license, or its an unoccupied premises.

Gaggsy
Lemon Slice
Posts: 303
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 1:42 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234441

Postby Gaggsy » July 6th, 2019, 5:27 pm

Crikey, thought I was in Bitter Lemons, but it seems I'm LoSt.
Spelling's got worse too.
Don't feed the troll!

TUK020
Lemon Slice
Posts: 712
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 319 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234511

Postby TUK020 » July 7th, 2019, 9:02 am

A more relevant question:

Why is the BBC showing football, and paying market rates for some pundit?
Surely this is something that can be left to commercially funded TV....

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1368
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 243 times
Been thanked: 447 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234640

Postby scotia » July 7th, 2019, 5:32 pm

TUK020 wrote:A more relevant question:
Why is the BBC showing football, and paying market rates for some pundit?
Surely this is something that can be left to commercially funded TV....

I think that football is of significant interest to a sizeable fraction of the populace (who are paying for the BBC service), and hence seems an entirely legitimate part of the BBC programming. As to paying for the pundit, I have never noticed any BBC presenter leaving to join our commercially funded services for a reduction in salary. So although I may think the pundits are overpaid, I suspect the free market would think otherwise. Yes - I certainly do get grumpy at the size of salaries paid to "star" presenters - but it would certainly not disappear with the demise of the BBC. Incidentally, it appears that the government is about to remove my free TV licence, and there seems to be some persons being so confused as to blame the BBC. Maybe the next ploy will be to remove our bus passes, and blame it on the bus companies. Or maybe they can get people so confused that they actually believe that Boris or Corbyn is fit to be a PM.
(with apologies to the moderator for the last part - but I'm trying hard to avoid the UK heading for a political nervous breakdown as feared by the former head of MI6, and I'm most certainly grumpy about the possibility)

dionaeamuscipula
Lemon Slice
Posts: 948
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:25 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 185 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#234738

Postby dionaeamuscipula » July 7th, 2019, 10:41 pm

TUK020 wrote:A more relevant question:

Why is the BBC showing football, and paying market rates for some pundit?
Surely this is something that can be left to commercially funded TV....


They aren't being paid market rates. Shearer is paid less than £500k for doing the same job Gary Neville does for about £1.5m for Sky.

Lineker is paid about £3m per annum by BT and about £1.75m pa by the BBC.

I have no idea, and have no way of finding out, what the hours commitment is for each job.

DM

JoyofBrex8889
Lemon Slice
Posts: 426
Joined: March 23rd, 2019, 1:02 am
Has thanked: 54 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#235055

Postby JoyofBrex8889 » July 9th, 2019, 12:54 am

On further reflection, there is a moderately acceptable libertarian workaround solution to the BBC tax.

With Amazon Prime or Netflix there is probably more content than is healthy to watch.

No need for the odious TV license.

No need to the increasingly baked-not-fried Gary Lehneger (peerless crisp-flogger and flagging micro-blogger).

It’s better than acquiescing to the TV licensing goons.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4053
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#240428

Postby XFool » July 30th, 2019, 11:37 am

richfool wrote:I think all TV presenters earning over £400K are overpaid.

Obscene salaries.

Sure thing. Just like the "obscene salaries" paid to football stars. Just like the "obscene salaries" paid to company directors - by, in effect, other company directors!

But this is the norm now in the current model of our form of capitalistic, market economy. I really do wonder just how many here foaming at the mouth about the 'egregious BBC' are opposed to that :)

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3555
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 686 times
Been thanked: 1261 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#241522

Postby Dod101 » August 3rd, 2019, 7:22 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Dod101 wrote:O and here's an idea. Why not cut the licence fee for everyone including the over 75s, except for those on benefits? Tell the BBC that they will need to live with that. The more money they have the more they will spend. It is human nature.

Dod

"Except for those on benefits" is utterly wrong: it leads to all kinds of poverty traps where cascading benefits cause a £1 rise in income to cost £1000 (or sometimes much more) in loss of benefits. As in my own situation as recently as 2003, when an income of £3000 lost me a would-be benefits package of £8000 (the majority of which would've been the local level of housing benefit) compared to sitting at home doing nothing but claim benefits.

(Since experiencing that I have sympathy for those who refuse to take low-paying work, or fail to declare it).


Just read that there has been a sudden increase in the number of applicants for 'benefits' amongst the over 75s, so that they can avoid paying the the licence fee. The Law of Unintended Consequences again in action.

I meant to say so earlier but the free licence is only for those over 75 and not many of those will be earning in paid employment I would imagine so your point is unlikely to arise.

Dod

UncleEbenezer
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3649
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 414 times
Been thanked: 619 times

Re: BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

#241536

Postby UncleEbenezer » August 3rd, 2019, 8:37 pm

Dod101 wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
Dod101 wrote:O and here's an idea. Why not cut the licence fee for everyone including the over 75s, except for those on benefits? Tell the BBC that they will need to live with that. The more money they have the more they will spend. It is human nature.

Dod

"Except for those on benefits" is utterly wrong: it leads to all kinds of poverty traps where cascading benefits cause a £1 rise in income to cost £1000 (or sometimes much more) in loss of benefits. As in my own situation as recently as 2003, when an income of £3000 lost me a would-be benefits package of £8000 (the majority of which would've been the local level of housing benefit) compared to sitting at home doing nothing but claim benefits.

(Since experiencing that I have sympathy for those who refuse to take low-paying work, or fail to declare it).


Just read that there has been a sudden increase in the number of applicants for 'benefits' amongst the over 75s, so that they can avoid paying the the licence fee. The Law of Unintended Consequences again in action.

Sounds plausible. Except, why would you suppose it unintentional? The BBC campaigns constantly for more benefits, and for all those eligible to claim them.
I meant to say so earlier but the free licence is only for those over 75 and not many of those will be earning in paid employment I would imagine so your point is unlikely to arise.
Dod

On the contrary. The £1 income that makes the difference between eligible benefits and no benefits now costs an old person at least the cost of a TV licence. Potentially thousands if other benefits are similarly linked to "being on benefits".

Of course none of that affects old people who have enough to get by and whose dignity is greater than their sense of Entitlement.


Return to “Bitter Lemons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest