Violin group scoops £6,500 BBC grant

A GROUP for violinists has scooped a £6,500 grant from the BBC.

'Strung Out' was founded in March 2010 to provide fans of the instrument in Waltham Forest opportunities to play together, irrespective of ability or age.

The money will help fund a project to compose a piece of music to "express" what it is like to live in east London, in collaboration with other community groups and professional musicians.

It is hoped that the 'Express Symphony' will be performed at a variety of regional music festivals in 2013, including the East End Film Festival and The Stow Festival.

Jenny Barker, of Strung Out, said: “The support from the BBC Performing Arts Fund will really boost our confidence and violin skills.

"Being given the  opportunity to be involved with composing a piece of music and working alongside professional musicians is incredible.

"Out motto is 'It's never too late' and this certainly endorses that and we hope we inspire others to  get involved and/or take up a musical instrument."

The BBC's Community Music Scheme is giving out grants totalling £250,000 to not-for-profit organisations across the UK to help develop musical talent.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:18pm Tue 13 Nov 12

sensibility says...

congratulations and well done
congratulations and well done sensibility
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not. Techno3
  • Score: 0

1:32am Wed 14 Nov 12

sensibility says...

I have no problem with my taxes being spent on worthwhile causes.

I do object to my hard earnt taxes being wasted on companies that pretend to be social housing providers who are actually acting as commercial property developers
I have no problem with my taxes being spent on worthwhile causes. I do object to my hard earnt taxes being wasted on companies that pretend to be social housing providers who are actually acting as commercial property developers sensibility
  • Score: 0

7:14am Wed 14 Nov 12

Cornbeefur says...

Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
I totally agree and when one thinks of the eye watering salaries some of the executives get this amount is minute.

Enthwhistle has just walked away will a Million Pounds after a months work.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]I totally agree and when one thinks of the eye watering salaries some of the executives get this amount is minute. Enthwhistle has just walked away will a Million Pounds after a months work. Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

11:54am Wed 14 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
I totally agree and when one thinks of the eye watering salaries some of the executives get this amount is minute.

Enthwhistle has just walked away will a Million Pounds after a months work.
Do some basic fact checking first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/performingartsfund/
aboutus

"The Charity is funded through revenue from the voting lines of BBC entertainment programmes such as Fame Academy and Over the Rainbow."

It's a registered charity. It does not come out of the license fee.

Never let the facts get in the way of a rant...
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]I totally agree and when one thinks of the eye watering salaries some of the executives get this amount is minute. Enthwhistle has just walked away will a Million Pounds after a months work.[/p][/quote]Do some basic fact checking first. http://www.bbc.co.uk /performingartsfund/ aboutus "The Charity is funded through revenue from the voting lines of BBC entertainment programmes such as Fame Academy and Over the Rainbow." It's a registered charity. It does not come out of the license fee. Never let the facts get in the way of a rant... E17_er
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RichieA70 says...

Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RichieA70 says...

Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Techno3 says...

RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way. Techno3
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Wed 14 Nov 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee E17_er
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RichieA70 says...

E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods.

With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee[/p][/quote]Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods. With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Wed 14 Nov 12

E17_er says...

RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods.

With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.
I don't disagree that it's great value for money.

It's still a regressive tax.
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee[/p][/quote]Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods. With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that it's great value for money. It's still a regressive tax. E17_er
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RichieA70 says...

E17_er wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods.

With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.
I don't disagree that it's great value for money.

It's still a regressive tax.
Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too.
As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall.
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee[/p][/quote]Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods. With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that it's great value for money. It's still a regressive tax.[/p][/quote]Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Wed 14 Nov 12

E17_er says...

RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods.

With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.
I don't disagree that it's great value for money.

It's still a regressive tax.
Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too.
As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall.
Again I don't disagree with you. The BBC should be treasured.

Regressive tax: http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Regressive_
tax

The tax remains the same regardless of income. Television license is given as an example
[quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee[/p][/quote]Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods. With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that it's great value for money. It's still a regressive tax.[/p][/quote]Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall.[/p][/quote]Again I don't disagree with you. The BBC should be treasured. Regressive tax: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Regressive_ tax The tax remains the same regardless of income. Television license is given as an example E17_er
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Wed 14 Nov 12

RichieA70 says...

E17_er wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
RichieA70 wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.
A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things.

And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.
There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in.

Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.
I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term.

However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee
Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods.

With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.
I don't disagree that it's great value for money.

It's still a regressive tax.
Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too.
As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall.
Again I don't disagree with you. The BBC should be treasured.

Regressive tax: http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Regressive_

tax

The tax remains the same regardless of income. Television license is given as an example
I like the way a comments thread culminates with a wiki link!
I could be pedantic and say the license is only 'considered' a regressive tax if we believe wiki. Anyway, the article makes interesting reading, especially noting we're not the only country to have a TV license system. Thanks for posting.
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RichieA70[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: I hope everyone involved appreciates that the money does not really come from a money tree oplanted by the BBC in the blue Peter garden but was extracted in the form of a regressive tax from local people who have had to pay their hard earned money in licence fees to the BBC, whether they want to watch it or not.[/p][/quote]A 'regressive tax' worth paying. Anyone not watching the BBC may instead be listening to its radio stations, reading its websites, calling its action line, benefiting from its charities, performing in its orchestras or reading its educational publications among many other things. And all without 20% of airtime lost to commercial advertising.[/p][/quote]There are better ways of paying for content and for organising a public broadcaster. As things stand, people who are not interested in what the BBC has to offer have to pay a tax simply in order to watch things on other channels that they are more interested in. Its like being forced to buy the guadrian before you are allowed to buy a copy of the Times - or even pick up a free copy of the Metro. The system is crazy. if they were setting up the BBC today, no-one would choose to do it this way.[/p][/quote]I agree with you that it is a regressive tax. Anyone who argues otherwise doesn't understand the term. However as above the money they have received does not come from the license fee[/p][/quote]Of course it's not crazy. No one has come up with anything better than the license fee over the past 90 years, or implemented it if they had. We ultimately pay well over the odds in comparison for commercial broadcasters due to the huge sums brands spend advertising which we cover by paying more for the goods. With the license fee frozen for 5 years it's better value than ever. I think the only improvement is to end licenses and have the cost covered in taxation instead, seeing as all of us pay for things we don't use.[/p][/quote]I don't disagree that it's great value for money. It's still a regressive tax.[/p][/quote]Most of us pay tax which covers the costs of loads of things we never use. And no one likes paying taxes. But we do all pay for the other broadcasters indirectly too. As far as I'm concerned I'm happy to think of the license as a tax - regressive or not. It benefits the nation overall.[/p][/quote]Again I don't disagree with you. The BBC should be treasured. Regressive tax: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Regressive_ tax The tax remains the same regardless of income. Television license is given as an example[/p][/quote]I like the way a comments thread culminates with a wiki link! I could be pedantic and say the license is only 'considered' a regressive tax if we believe wiki. Anyway, the article makes interesting reading, especially noting we're not the only country to have a TV license system. Thanks for posting. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree