Ten more years for the licence fee

Quite agree with all the rest of your post, AJ, but don't forget that World Service is NOT funded by the licence fee; that comes from a separate subsidy from the government, which the fee does NOT go towards.

This would help a lot of people and it's a shame it hasn't been implemented. But why do we still have a universal license fee which does not reflect ability to pay? To the BBC exec on a ludicrous salary, it's mere change. To the pensioner/people on low incomes it's a king's ransom.

The license fee is too vital to axe, just as the BBC is more important than ever in the digital age. However, expecting everyone to pay the same amount ifs plain unfair.

Although going off the main point, having all costs and taxes based on the ability to pay removes the incentive to earn a higher wage so i'd oppose it on that basis. Basing it on income would also cause collection costs to rocket.

Ah yes, I did know that - but I forgot when I was trying to hammer the point home!

Thank you Michael Howard. You make it sound like we could all give up roadsweeping to become a doctor, lawyer or managing director! High-income jobs will always be off limits to many people for a number of reasons. Of course the onus is on the individual to work hard at school, get the best exam results and consequently more options will be open to them...but we can't all get to university or build our corner shop into a national supermarket chain. Lots of people slog their guts out for little reward - and for them the TV license is a steep outgoing.

You are missing the point. If being able to go to university found it to be of no financial gain to myself I would reconsider that choice [well I wouldn't I love the student life..but anyway]. I then may not become a doctor (the financial rewards for better paying jobs are in the majority of cases linked with the extra time and responsibility involved) meaning that either fewer people are treated or that someone less qualified decides to take the position.

I know that is an extreme example; either way the collection costs would as I said before, be prohibitive.

Just a quick point. It's "Licence" and not "License" as a few of you have incorrectly posted.

The minimum wage is £4.85 an hour. If someone works at that rate for 35 hours a week, they will earn £8827. Of that, the licence fee would be under 1.5%. That's hardly steep when you consider most people spend far more than 1.5% of their time watching TV. And it seems to me that most people opposed to the licence fee already pay at least double the amount for satellite and cable services and other such luxuries.

The BBC is an in invaluable asset to this country and I would hate to see it, and possibly the other broadcasters that indirectly rely on the licence fee, diminished if the BBC was forced to be funded by subscription or advertising.