NO more free TV licence from today

That will have been before they changed the rules about unemployed over 60s being able to sign on just for NI credits without passing the "looking for work" test

those days have long gone

since when has 50,000 been millions

unless you are counting pennies

I never signed on. Never have. Once the work as computer contractor dried up, I just no longer paid any tax and NI and every 19th filled in the part of the HMRC website that indicates no payments made.

Since when have you been so literal ... ah ... ;-(

Look after the pennies ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

BBC agreed to it in return for index linked licence fee and the covering of iplayer.

when the difference is material to the discussion

expecting that someone who has retired several years early (with no obvious income) might have a cash fund of some sort is not unreasonable

and circa £50,000 is a not an unreasonable amount to suggest for that fund

BBC were strong armed into it

I suspect that they didn't fully realise the effect that it had on their income

Personally, I resent the idea that I should subsidise (though my license payments), "family in main home, granny in a granny annex" getting a free TV licence. (yes, it does work like that!)

and if putting in a very simple means test to avoid that (and similar) abuse of the system causes a number of others who might more reasonably qualify not to do so, then so be it. HMG should have solved that problem before foisting the concession onto the BBC.

Ok ...

Of course, and we do, just not 'millions'. (

They did at the time. But come the time for reviewing the licence fee, surely that is up for negotiation too?

Of course. But many see the licence as just another tax, rather than one which is ring fenced to a specific purpose.

I'll say it again. If it is up to the BBC to subsidise anyone for whatever reason, why not the energy and telephone etc companies too?

Of course the answer is simple. This government hates the idea of the BBC not being an organ of government and doing what it tells them to.

No different from Trump trying to silence any opposition to him in the US.

I check all 'copper' with a magnet and save the non-ferrous ones. I suspect they are already worth more than their face value.

The 2p also make useful non-rustable washers or shims.

There is never any chance at all that the BBC will extract fee increases above inflation from this process (which would be needed to make up any shortfall from elsewhere)

It's a tough enough job getting inflation increases agreed

Who cares, let's call it a tax

I'd still resent some people, unjustifiably, not having to pay that tax

I'm not disagreeing with you

They'll miss it when it's gone (which it will if the nonsense idea of subscription model ever gets passed)

given the "needs" here, I can't accept it as a proxy for such a tiny amount

at the levels I am talking you *can't* live on the interest

you have to draw down

even much less than 50K is not going to make much difference to a 30 year retirement.

perhaps the costs of a restaurant meal (for 2) once per fortnight

and I'm talking "what is it that makes a capital retirement sum, small or large"

and I'm saying, that less than 100K is small less than 50K, very small

HTH

tim

Then that's your problem.

Quite?

I know, as was I, and I stated that we don't have enough savings to do that on.

Yup.

Not me as I knew everything you eventually came round to up front (and why I haven't done anything about the two private pensions that matured a couple of years ago).

Cheers, T i m

In article , tim... writes

Aw poor little snowflakes. Only paid 1/2 million pa.

All those directors and none could do a few sums.

It's part of the basic state pension system. Unfortunately means testing is a very blunt instrument and millions don't apply for what they are entitled to, usually ones who need it most. The cost often outweighs the savings. You could of course make it a taxable benefit and claw back 20 or 40%

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

It's not a subsidy by the BBC it is a reduction in their revenue. But if they now don't like ti then reset the fee back to 2015, government pay the ?93m this year and renegotiate the deal.

Conspiracy theory again. Just a simple case of government trying to reduce cost of welfare and hence budget deficit.

And being careful to shift the apparent blame onto the BBC.

Love your logic.

Collins GEM English Dictionary subsidize v. help financially. ?subsidy n. financial aid.

But a good Tory, you'll reserve that for things you don't approve of.

Rather sad you can't afford to pay a TV licence.

Of course. And, of course, many competitors to the BBC contribute to Tory party coffers.

They're not going to do that without getting something for it.

Who would that be then ?. Sky is now owned by Disney and C5 is no longer owned by Jenricks mate.