Best Of
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.The basic problem is - why a digital tax?That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
That’s a tax on every business or person online.
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
Foss
1
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Wouldn't those earning over that level just opt out of having a licence? I know I would. BBC content isn't worth very much to me, certainly not £2k per year.I think if you charge everyone earning over £100k about £2,000 for a TV licence then that would allow you to exempt everyone else.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Surprised that none of the Chancellors for the last 20 years have done that.
MaxPB
3
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Can we not impose a tax on Americans, and use that to pay for the BBC? If every American resident paid just $2/month, that would more than cover the BBC's entire annual budget.The more you spread the cost the easier it is to pretend that it isn’t actually that big and that we’re all funding it and watching together. They seem to believe that if they wish hard enough and wait long enough all of their opponents will somehow just drop dead and that they won’t have to actually think about what people want to watch rather than what they want to make.But why tax people online, rather than an extra tax on retired accountants?Because subscription rates are dropping along with use rates.The basic problem is - why a digital tax?That sounds ok. But I think I prefer general taxation. Or do I? Not sure. So long as we don't lose the BBC. I value it highly.The BBC themselves want a digital tax. On ISPs.That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
Because that way the tax will be hidden from the public. Whose bills for internet connections will go up, of course.
Then all the BBC has to do is ask for more free money every year.
That’s a tax on every business or person online.
The latter would cause a lesser reduction in economic activity.
rcs1000
1
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Aliens. It's right there in the announcement. 'ET'. At 9pm.BREAKING:Martial law?
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
President Trump says he'll be addressing the nation tomorrow night at 9 p.m. ET.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2000995956700143628
Selebian
3
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Shame about the Telegraph. Used to be reliable if you could stomach the politics. Now it's about as reliable as The Star, and a lot less fun.Telegraph though. They don't report they create.Latest logic in PPE land:That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
1. Everyone under 25, just about, is a NEET - a whole generation does nothing. Life on benefits until they make state pension if they do thanks to all the pizza consumption.
2. No one under 25 watches TV
3. Let's give TV licence for free to people on benefits.
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
BREAKING:He's got tickets for the World Cup and wants everyone to know?
Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
President Trump says he'll be addressing the nation tomorrow night at 9 p.m. ET.
https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2000995956700143628
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Telegraph though. They don't report they create.Latest logic in PPE land:That's the 'fund from general taxation' option. Then like schools, hospitals etc it's free at the point of delivery.Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
1. Everyone under 25, just about, is a NEET - a whole generation does nothing. Life on benefits until they make state pension if they do thanks to all the pizza consumption.
2. No one under 25 watches TV
3. Let's give TV licence for free to people on benefits.
kinabalu
2
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
Per Telegraph:Why not just give everyone a free TV licence?
"Benefit claimants could receive free television licences under sweeping BBC reforms being considered by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary."
So the actual license payer will not just be stumping up for Trump's amour propre
1
Re: Starmer once again displays his lawyerly brilliance – politicalbetting.com
George Osborne
@George_Osborne
Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is HSBC.
Unfortunately they turned me down so I am doing some side gig with a lot of computer muppets for a couple of years just so Nick Clegg and I can chat properly at dinner about the difference between a bit and a byte.
@George_Osborne
Hi, some personal news - I’m changing job. I recently asked myself the question: what’s the most exciting and promising company in the world right now? The answer I believe is HSBC.
Unfortunately they turned me down so I am doing some side gig with a lot of computer muppets for a couple of years just so Nick Clegg and I can chat properly at dinner about the difference between a bit and a byte.
Re: It’s always the economy, stupid – politicalbetting.com
His pre-revolution exploits would make a pretty good film. Handsome, reckless, a criminal with a cause. I'm amazed no-ones done it.I don't remember hearing about that. Maybe my recollection about the other things is quite wrong then.Stalin was ladykiller when young, and a complete party animal.Ah, I'd forgotten the 'Uncle Joe' title, but I thought I'd read he was genuinely fond of children, or animals, or something very touchy-feely; which somehow made up for all the mass slaughter.Stalin became Uncle Joe as soon as Hitler invaded and the USSR became our besties.aWasn't Stalin supposed to be a doting uncle or similar?After Gaddafi rather a lot of Libyans migrated to the U.K…Just had the interesting experience of being present for a rare political discussion among a couple of my older relatives, which gave me a different peception on things. Key details included:Interesting indeed. I'm old and I wouldn't agree with any of those (except to say I know little of Col. Gaddafi and for all I know he may have been a genial chap to his friends).
- The government is deliberately trying to destroy the NHS (reasons unclear)
- Politicians don't care about old people (that's news to me)
- Older people should not have to pay tax (naturally)
- Colonel Gaddafi did a lot of good actually (ok, that was a surprising inclusion)
- Roads used to be better (might be true for all I know)
He graduated to killing ladies (and gents) on an epic scale. And used parties as a kind of punishment for his coterie - force people who didn’t like drinking to drink etc


