The 'Emergency' Budget

[northwichcat]

George Osborne is holding an 'Emergency' Budget on Wednesday. The media are currently suggesting the following will be announced:

• Raising of the threshold for inheritance tax
• Reduction of the benefit cap
• Subsides for free TV licence will no longer be funded by the government but free TV licences will not be axed as the BBC will fund them (paid for by BBC iPlayer no longer being free to use.)
• Changes to housing subsides
• An increase to Capital Gains Tax
• Restrictions on Pension Tax Relief

BBC Live Feed (8th July): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-33383657

Cartoon: http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bells-if-on-george-osbornes-emergency-budget

 

[meridian2]

In other words the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

'It's Tory Policy, Jim, and depressingly we know it'.

:roll:

 

[northwichcat]

If the Financial Times is to be believed they'll be no rail improvements for pre-2020 implementation unless an already announced scheme is axed/postponed as DfT have no rail budget left.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm concerned about what is meant by BBCIplayer no longer being free. As a license fee payer, I would object to having to pay twice if I could no longer access it.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm concerned about what is meant by BBCIplayer no longer being free. As a license fee payer, I would object to having to pay twice if I could no longer access it.

Some reports are saying iPlayer will no longer be free, others are saying the law will be changed so you'll require a TV licence to watch catch-up services on iPlayer.

 

[Mojo]

I'm concerned about what is meant by BBCIplayer no longer being free. As a license fee payer, I would object to having to pay twice if I could no longer access it.

The News website seems to imply that those wishing to access it will require a TV license, rather than adding some sort of additional charge.

 

[yorksrob]

The News website seems to imply that those wishing to access it will require a TV license, rather than adding some sort of additional charge.

That would definitely be preferable!

 

[Tetchytyke]

others are saying the law will be changed so you'll require a TV licence to watch catch-up services on iPlayer.

Capita are in charge of TV Tax enforcement, and are paid by results. I'm sure the law will be charged to give them even more lovely juicy profit.

 

[AM9]

Capita are in charge of TV Tax enforcement, and are paid by results. I'm sure the law will be charged to give them even more lovely juicy profit.

.... and to stop the freeloaders.

 

[jon0844]

Isn't Capita in financial difficulties?

 

[SS4]

In other words the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

'It's Tory Policy, Jim, and depressingly we know it'.

:roll:

Austerity working as planned.

 

[Bletchleyite]

.... and to stop the freeloaders.

Quite. If the BBC is to be funded by a licensing model, those using the service need to cough up. I find it quite unacceptable that the iPlayer can be used without doing so, and I would be in support of a return of the radio licence as well, as I think BBC Radio is a far more important part of its output than much of BBC TV.

If it isn't, well, that's another matter, but it would lead to a very different BBC if indeed it survived at all.

 

[northwichcat]

I find it quite unacceptable that the iPlayer can be used without doing so

If you want to watch live TV on your computer (whether it's iPlayer, ITV Player or anything else) then a licence is still required.* The proposed change will affect watching catch-up services on your computer.

* If you don't have a TV licence and your friend Bob comes over with a laptop/mobile/handheld TV then your friend Bob is allowed to watch live TV at your house on his device provided it's not plugged in while he's watching TV (the licence at his house covers him.) If it's plugged in then a licence at your house is required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you want to watch live TV on your computer (whether it's iPlayer, ITV Player or anything else) then a licence is still required.* The proposed change will affect watching catch-up services on your computer.

I know, and I believe that watching those from the BBC should either be chargeable at a fee using a credit/debit card, perhaps as a subscription, or should be subject to the TV Licence. There is no reason BBC catch-up services should be accessible free of any charge, as a very significant cost is incurred by the BBC for their provision. Those from the ITV/C4/C5 etc are, of course, funded by way of advertising just like their main channels.

* If you don't have a TV licence and your friend Bob comes over with a laptop/mobile/handheld TV then your friend Bob is allowed to watch live TV at your house on his device provided it's not plugged in while he's watching TV (the licence at his house covers him.) If it's plugged in then a licence at your house is required.

I'm well aware of that but it isn't really relevant to the discussion; with the iPlayer it would simply be extended to the situation where Bob was using his phone to view a catch-up service on the iPlayer.

 

[SS4]

I wonder what the technical implications of iPlayer not being free are. Assuming that it's tied to the licence fee then everyone would have to register to watch giving their address or licence number at the very least (IMO it'd ask for name, address, DOB, licence number, email, and phone number [optional]. Maybe including NI number and the names of every adult in the property but I don't see it)

Having to log in to access content will allow the BBC (and GCHQ) to see what you're watching rather than what is popular using the current method. Add in age groups and regions and there is a fairly good list. Naturally this can be used for good to suggest programmes.

Like the opt-out for adult material there will be a list of users and their details which will be lucrative to those seeking to access the information both legitimately and illegitimately: the BBC could sell the data to the highest bidder (everyone knows the BBC is broke) either overtly (by using those boxes hidden in the registration page and catching those who don't opt out) or covertly (doing it anyway). More maliciously, the database can be accessed by someone up to no good and suddenly millions of people's personal details are all over the internet available to the highest bidder. I can see people in the US using your details to watch iPlayer for free with a VPN.

Now where did I put that tinfoil hat

 

[Bodiddly]

The licence fee is a different topic from the OP's original post. You could fill a whole new thread with the licence fee debate.
I'm more worried about how gormless George the git and his rich pals are preparing to slash budgets to the most needy in our society. Iain Duncan Smith, a nasty, awful liar of a man is single handedly destroying our country with his divisional rhetoric.
The Tories have no place in Scotland, none whatsoever. The quicker we can go for completely devolved powers, the better. I want no part of this horrible governments help a millionaire schemes. Are we not meant to be a caring society looking out for others? If this government did their job right and collected the tax from their rich pals we wouldn't bloody need an emergency budget!
Cameron could be the PM who was complicit in the break up of the UK.

 

[NSEFAN]

The only way of enforcing iplayer being watchable only by licence fee holders would be with a login provided with the TV licence. IP addresses are not places or people, so you can't do enforcement by that method. I would actually support having an iplayer login if the BBC requires more funding.

I'm more worried about how gormless George the git and his rich pals are preparing to slash budgets to the most needy in our society. Iain Duncan Smith, a nasty, awful liar of a man is single handedly destroying our country with his divisional rhetoric.

I sometimes hear lines like "Well if you can't afford children, don't have 'em!" Unfortunately, poor people tend to make poor financial decisions which keeps them locked in poverty without understanding why. They would probably have children regardless of whether they can afford them or not. Then you end up with even more people born into poverty who end up stuck there, unable to escape, exacerbating the problem. I'd rather not see our country decrease in social mobility and it seems to me that cuts are done with only the short-term savings in mind, without much thought for the long-term consequences.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only way of enforcing iplayer being watchable only by licence fee holders would be with a login provided with the TV licence. IP addresses are not places or people, so you can't do enforcement by that method. I would actually support having an iplayer login if the BBC requires more funding.

I would expect this to be the method - register with your TV licence details. Perhaps you would be allowed a specified number of logins per licence, or similar, with additional ones available on submitting proof of residence at the licenced address.

 

[NSEFAN]

I would expect this to be the method - register with your TV licence details. Perhaps you would be allowed a specified number of logins per licence, or similar, with additional ones available on submitting proof of residence at the licenced address.

I would expect an access code being sent, allowing a user account to be created with a user-defined login name and password. I detest companies who insist on allocating immemorable access details that you cannot change. They're almost as bad as those who limit passwords to something stupid like 7 characters, with no special chars allowed! :roll:

 

[northwichcat]

I don't get this login supplied with a TV licence idea people have come up with. A TV licence is for an address not an individual. So what's the point of issuing a login if multiple people at the same address could legally use it on different devices using a different IP address at the same time?

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure the best way to fix things, but it's pretty obvious that people are clicking that they have a license even if they don't when using the iPlayer app (on a phone, tablet, smart TV or PC). People assume there's little to no way of being detected (they all know detector vans don't exist) and now people all know that, according to the Internet, you can just tell people who knock at the door to **** off.

This is of course true in most cases, hence I do imagine that the reason we've seen such a drop/shortfall in TV licensing isn't because less people are watching TV - it's because people are blagging it.

Having a login is in fact useful anyway, as you can then build something akin to Netflix so you can login on multiple devices, at home or away, and see your favourites, previously watched (with positions saved) and so on.

How that works with a licence being for a household rather than a specific person is of course an issue that needs to be worked out. Likewise, how you might restrict the number of users that can watch simultaneously with a single login, and if you are going to allow downloads for offline viewing (as you do now) that is also linked to the login and can require an online connection to validate etc.

It needs to be done though. Otherwise more and more people year on year will start to avoid paying, as it's probably considered just as acceptable as not paying for a rail ticket if there's nobody there to check you have one.

Don't get me wrong, if you really don't have a TV and never watch live TV (or any TV) then you shouldn't be harassed about it, but now we've got far too many people who are able to take advantage of the restricted powers, and goodness knows what happens if non-payment is decriminalised.

 

[AM9]

How that works with a licence being for a household rather than a specific person is of course an issue that needs to be worked out. Likewise, how you might restrict the number of users that can watch simultaneously with a single login, and if you are going to allow downloads for offline viewing (as you do now) that is also linked to the login and can require an online connection to validate etc.

Well it could be cross checked against the electoral roll for the licenced premises when each device is registered and a code sent via e-mail for each session. Those under voting age or not registered could be restricted to CBBC and Cbeebies.

It needs to be done though. Otherwise more and more people year on year will start to avoid paying, as it's probably considered just as acceptable as not paying for a rail ticket if there's nobody there to check you have one.

Surely this is the grand plan, make the BBC inviable by reducing its income. They have made a BBC reformist the responsible minister and his agenda seems to be death by 1000 cuts. The influence of the free marketeers seems to be in tune with Murdock.

 

[Donny Dave]

In other words the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

'It's Tory Policy, Jim, and depressingly we know it'.

:roll:

Erm, not quite (see my comments below) ....

George Osborne is holding an 'Emergency' Budget on Wednesday. The media are currently suggesting the following will be announced:

• Raising of the threshold for inheritance tax
• Changes to housing subsides
• An increase to Capital Gains Tax
• Restrictions on Pension Tax Relief

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-bells-if-on-george-osbornes-emergency-budget

The IHT threshold will benefit just about everyone who owns property, and have worked hard, and saved money as well. While average property prices have been increasing most years, the threshold hasn't changed for quite a few years now, pushing more people into paying IHT.

The change to housing subsidies is not to try and extract more from low paid workers, but rather stop payments to families who have a household income above £50,000.

Capital Gains Tax, believe it or not, barely affects the low and average wage earners in this country, as the threshold is £11,100, with quite a few exceptions. For example. If you sell your house* (for any reason), you pay no CGT. Hobbies (stamp collection for example) are alse free from CGT. Once you reach the threshold however, you don't always pay the full rate, as there is a sliding scale depending on the asset sold and how long you owned it.

The change to Pension Tax Relief will only hit those who earn at least £100,000 by reducing the amount of relief paid by the goverment, and also making the relief payable at a lower rate.

So Badger89. Not quite a case of the rich getting richer, etc, is it?

 

[northwichcat]

The IHT threshold will benefit just about everyone who owns property, and have worked hard, and saved money as well. While average property prices have been increasing most years, the threshold hasn't changed for quite a few years now, pushing more people into paying IHT.

The reason it wasn't announced in the previous budget is because the Lib Dems didn't want it because they say it's the wrong thing to do if the country is short of money and making cutbacks. Labour and other parties agreed with the Lib Dems that it's not something that should be changed in the current economic climate.

It's actually the one thing George Osborne is expected to announce tomorrow that the Conservatives said they would do before the election.

 

[transmanche]

I doubt there would be a 'login to iPlayer' method of control, it would be extremely complicated and expensive to administrate.

As ever, some of our continental cousins have already solved the problem:

• In Denmark the tv licence is now a 'media licence'; which applies to all TVs, computers with Internet access/TV tuners. So even if the only device you have is a smartphone, then you'd be liable for the fee.
• Germany used to have a similar licence policy to Denmark, you needed one if you had a TV, radio or broadband. But in 2013 they scrapped this and just said every household has to pay the €17.50 monthly fee (about £12.50/month or £150/year - almost exactly the same as the UK licence fee) - although people on (certain) welfare benefits are exempt.

Now you have to say that the German system is extremely simple! According to licence fee collection organisation, the reasoning is thus (with some paraphrasing):

Easy for all broadcasting contribution. The public service broadcasting contribution is based on the idea of ​​a solidarity financing model. Therefore, is no longer relevant if someone has individual radios or uses [them]. The broadcasting contribution is paid for the opportunity to receive the public broadcasting offer.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having a login is in fact useful anyway, as you can then build something akin to Netflix so you can login on multiple devices, at home or away, and see your favourites, previously watched (with positions saved) and so on.

The BBC website already has a login option on their website. For iPlayer, it allows you to save favourite programmes, flags programmes as already watched and so on.

 

[jon0844]

Having everyone contribute through general taxation sounds good to me. Far easier to administer and predict.

 

[northwichcat]

David: Out of interest where do you live? I just checked the current inheritance tax threshold and it's £325,000. Only a minority of the houses near me are valued at £325,000 or more and I apparently live in one of the most expensive towns in the North of England to buy a house! So it's a fair conclusion that very few people in the North of England will benefit from that change and I imagine the situation is similar in the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[AM9]

Having everyone contribute through general taxation sounds good to me. Far easier to administer and predict.

The only issues then would be:
1) the freeloaders (of today) would claim that they are being taxed for something that they don't want and don't use - cries of state controlling people's own money and choices
2) the temptation for a government (particularly a right-wing one) to exert pressure on what would be in their language, a state funded broadcaster would be overbearing

1) above, so what; but right-wing politicians would be sympathetic to those views resulting in continuous downward pressure on BBC funding until it ceased to be viable.
2) above, there would be inexorable editorial pressures on the BBC, so after repeated resignations of the BBC's main stakeholders, we would have little better than Fox News UK sans adverts.

 

[transmanche]

Having everyone contribute through general taxation sounds good to me. Far easier to administer and predict.

That's certainly the method used in Australia for funding the ABC. Although it does seem that the ABC is somewhat beholden to the Government of the day, who have been accused of reducing funding if they don't like the ABC's output...

 

[muddythefish]

David: Out of interest where do you live? I just checked the current inheritance tax threshold and it's £325,000. Only a minority of the houses near me are valued at £325,000 or more and I apparently live in one of the most expensive towns in the North of England to buy a house! So it's a fair conclusion that very few people in the North of England will benefit from that change and I imagine the situation is similar in the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Proving the economy is run for the benefit and London and the SE.