BBC Aged-Related TV Licence Consultation - have your say

3C

3c

3c. Why should a millionaire need a free TV licence? And I would do the same for prescriptions too.

Option 3

3a but as others have suggested, the salaries paid to sport presenters and others should be seriously looked at. Why is it that it is always the most vunerable members of society that are targeted, namely senior citizens? The population, who are still in employment, are the ones who can more easily afford to subsidize those that are in retirement. When it's their turn, they will reap the benefits, if any, of the older population.

Option 3 - reforming the concession so it doesn't cost as much, but continuing to provide a concession. Or - an option I haven't noticed above - the government should continue to contribute. And the BBC should definitely look for savings that don't affect most of their output, such as salaries.

As a rider, I think the attack on old people should cease! I'm fed up of hearing how much we're coasting everyone! I've paid in all my life, and never grudged concessions to the elderly and retired.

Option 3C

The BBC are the only channel in the world with no annoying adverts and long may it last. I’m keenest on option 3c.

I think it should be kept free not all people would be able to afford the fee. I think the BBC should be made to fund themselves like other ones. If they stopped over paying senior executives and some TV 'stars' and wasting money they wouldn't be having this problem.

Hard to believe that with all the viewing options available nowadays. we are still paying an annual license fee to an outdated organisation which once had a near monopoly and now is just one of many. I think that the BBC needs to put its house in order and adopt a more modern flexible charging system which is fit for purpose in today's world. It seems wrong that we can't watch ANYTHING, on any channel on a tv unless we have a BBC license.
If I had to choose one option from those listed above, it would be 3C.

Leave the 75 year olds alone to enjoy their free TV. It is one of their pleasures and is possibly their only means of "companionship", especially for those people with reduced mobility.

So many programmes are repeats anyway. Presenters are paid far too much money (some don't even know what they actually earn!)

I'd go for 3C

3C - means tested. Let those of us who can, keep on paying, but not not penalise those who can't

3c seems fairest.

I absolutely disagree with those who want the BBC to be funded by advertising. I cannot imagine anything worse. I hate the time taken up by ads (which I always mute) - they totally ruin films and you end up with other programmes starting each section with a recap as if we have all lost the plot during the ad break.

I could go on about the evils inherent in public service broadcasting having to rely on advertising but I will spare you all! I happily pay my licence fee for ad-free quality television. I think it's a great bargain compared to all the commercial packages.

I do agree with those Gransnetters who would like the salaries reduced. I would like to see more up-and-coming presenters/actors etc given a chance as it becomes dull when the same "stars" keep showing up on everything. It would also mean that they couldn't demand such ridiculous salaries.

In some other countries the TV licence is included in the annual equivalent of council tax so many older people living on their own would qualify for whatever discount is applied. Many European countries seem to value their older folk much more than we seem to do and care and respect are built into most laws.

How on earth would it cost the BBC £745 million a year to administer free licences for over 75s households? I would go for Option 3a or 3b

3

I'd be happy to see the license fee means tested to make sure those on a low income don't have to miss out on entertainment at home. Otherwise make it free to all & use commercials to fund the service as other channels do (with maybe paid ad free options for those willing to do so)

Option 1. The BBC are not really catering to all ages and tastes anyway. They are biased and appear to me to exist only to benefit themselves.
If they want to save money stop sending large casts of actors to Caribbean islands for months at a time to record dramas that only a minority watch.

Keep it free. Loneliness is prevalent and a connection to the outside world via television can help, at least partly, to alleviate this. The BBC should stop paying such ridiculously (and undeserved) high salaries: the money saved would go towards supplementing those of us in need.

Let the over 75s keep their free tv licence and make the BBC stop and think about paying out enormous sums to their presenters and celebrities. Give the young and talented a chance and cut back on huge game prizes too

Question ==

Could you please tell me how the £745 million is made up from in option 1?

I'm leaning towards 3 a, i.e. discounting the licence fee for over 75's., which could reduce further every 5 years, perhaps?
Means testing sounds fair in principle, but there are probably a lot of people who would not apply/wouldn't know how to apply/don't want to apply for 'handouts' as they might see it.
I also agree that the huge salaries paid to some tv personalities needs looking at, and also some of the programmes that air. We have far too many rubbishy and repetitive "reality" programmes and soaps, in my opinion.

The £745 million is (I assume) the money the BBC are currently getting from the government to cover the loss of income from free tv licences.
Over 75s are currently around 8% of the total population of just over 66 million. The TV licence costs £150.50

(66,000,000x8%)x150.5= 794,640,000
So if the government is currently paying £745 million a year, they are actually underpaying by about £50 million compared to what the BBC would get if every over-75 bought a licence. Some, of course, would not have a licence of their own (eg those in care homes) so £745 million is probably a reasonable estimate.

Option 3c please.