Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Why is this a BBC top story? (LOCKED)

Page 48 of 152 < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >

Topic Locked

W12 03 Jul 19 10.43am
Originally posted by Badger11 Probably not I am sure plenty of others feel the same. I however don't feel it is value for money and object to being forced to pay for something I don't want. I don't read the Guardian nor do I object to it as it is a matter of personal choice. What they pay their staff is a matter purely for them and their readers. I only ask the same courtesy when it comes to TV. The number of people not paying for the TV licence is rising significantly whether that is legal or not I don't know. I think I posted a link a while back that the current rate of non payment is 7% and rising. A massive number of court cases relate to non payment. Eventually it will reach a tipping point rather like the poll tax unless the BBC does something about it. Bragging about equal pay will not solve this issue nor does it's perceived bias help. I think they are left wing and pro remain a lefty friend actually thinks the opposite. Younger people are happily paying for streaming services and that trend I think will continue. I think you are right about Sky it is expensive I have BT which I will probably ditch next year when my contract is up. I recently did an exercise to see which channels I watch the most and it turned out to be free view. The days of the licence fee are coming to an end the BBC just doesn't see it. It's a regressive tax that hits the poor. Personally I'm just not willing to support and fund activists that are undermining our democracy and doing nothing short of destroying the fabric of our society.
Alert a moderator to this post

W12 03 Jul 19 10.43am

Originally posted by Badger11

Probably not I am sure plenty of others feel the same. I however don't feel it is value for money and object to being forced to pay for something I don't want.

I don't read the Guardian nor do I object to it as it is a matter of personal choice. What they pay their staff is a matter purely for them and their readers. I only ask the same courtesy when it comes to TV.

The number of people not paying for the TV licence is rising significantly whether that is legal or not I don't know. I think I posted a link a while back that the current rate of non payment is 7% and rising. A massive number of court cases relate to non payment.

Eventually it will reach a tipping point rather like the poll tax unless the BBC does something about it.

Bragging about equal pay will not solve this issue nor does it's perceived bias help. I think they are left wing and pro remain a lefty friend actually thinks the opposite.

I recently did an exercise to see which channels I watch the most and it turned out to be free view.

The days of the licence fee are coming to an end the BBC just doesn't see it. It's a regressive tax that hits the poor.

Personally I'm just not willing to support and fund activists that are undermining our democracy and doing nothing short of destroying the fabric of our society.

Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 04 Jul 19 12.53am
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Funny how little coverage the protests in France get....which have been large and long lasting.....compared to the coverage and slant afforded to Hong Kong. I see what you did there Stirling !! Pro USA & Israel
Alert a moderator to this post

Jimenez

SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 04 Jul 19 12.53am

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Funny how little coverage the protests in France get....which have been large and long lasting.....compared to the coverage and slant afforded to Hong Kong.

I see what you did there Stirling !!

Pro USA & Israel

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 04 Jul 19 1.14am
Originally posted by Jimenez I see what you did there Stirling !! No flies on you. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

04 Jul 19 1.14am

Originally posted by Jimenez

I see what you did there Stirling !!

No flies on you.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 04 Jul 19 8.28am
Originally posted by Badger11 Probably not I am sure plenty of others feel the same. I however don't feel it is value for money and object to being forced to pay for something I don't want. I don't read the Guardian nor do I object to it as it is a matter of personal choice. What they pay their staff is a matter purely for them and their readers. I only ask the same courtesy when it comes to TV. The number of people not paying for the TV licence is rising significantly whether that is legal or not I don't know. I think I posted a link a while back that the current rate of non payment is 7% and rising. A massive number of court cases relate to non payment. Eventually it will reach a tipping point rather like the poll tax unless the BBC does something about it. Bragging about equal pay will not solve this issue nor does it's perceived bias help. I think they are left wing and pro remain a lefty friend actually thinks the opposite. Younger people are happily paying for streaming services and that trend I think will continue. I think you are right about Sky it is expensive I have BT which I will probably ditch next year when my contract is up. I recently did an exercise to see which channels I watch the most and it turned out to be free view. The days of the licence fee are coming to an end the BBC just doesn't see it. It's a regressive tax that hits the poor. More insightful would be which channels you actually do watch, rather than which platform you watch them on. To most people, me included, 'the telly' means Freeview, just as a few years ago 'the telly' meant the national broadcasting network. I only have Freeview, because that's what's built into my TV set, and the limited amount of stuff I watch tends to be on BBC1 and BBC2. And Freeview is of course part funded by the BBC and therefore by the licence fee. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 04 Jul 19 8.28am

Originally posted by Badger11

Probably not I am sure plenty of others feel the same. I however don't feel it is value for money and object to being forced to pay for something I don't want.

Eventually it will reach a tipping point rather like the poll tax unless the BBC does something about it.

Bragging about equal pay will not solve this issue nor does it's perceived bias help. I think they are left wing and pro remain a lefty friend actually thinks the opposite.

Younger people are happily paying for streaming services and that trend I think will continue. I think you are right about Sky it is expensive I have BT which I will probably ditch next year when my contract is up.

I recently did an exercise to see which channels I watch the most and it turned out to be free view.

The days of the licence fee are coming to an end the BBC just doesn't see it. It's a regressive tax that hits the poor.

More insightful would be which channels you actually do watch, rather than which platform you watch them on. To most people, me included, 'the telly' means Freeview, just as a few years ago 'the telly' meant the national broadcasting network. I only have Freeview, because that's what's built into my TV set, and the limited amount of stuff I watch tends to be on BBC1 and BBC2.

And Freeview is of course part funded by the BBC and therefore by the licence fee.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 04 Jul 19 8.52am
Originally posted by YT More insightful would be which channels you actually do watch, rather than which platform you watch them on. To most people, me included, 'the telly' means Freeview, just as a few years ago 'the telly' meant the national broadcasting network. I only have Freeview, because that's what's built into my TV set, and the limited amount of stuff I watch tends to be on BBC1 and BBC2. And Freeview is of course part funded by the BBC and therefore by the licence fee. Fair comment. I was quite surprised when I made a list of which channels I watch it turns out that I rarely watch the BBC but that also applies to ITV and C4. It seems most of the programs I like are on the minor ITV channels and C5 and it's group of channels. Basically I tend to watch imported American shows. So I am not just anti BBC it seems I don't care for British shows much. I had forgotten that Freeview was part owned by the BBC along with Sky, ITV and others. Of course the BBC spends money on providing it's own channels on Freeview and the Youview box. The Youview box is useless and is way behind the Sky and Virgin boxes there has been talk that BT would buy it from the BBC and then put some proper investment in. However if abolishing the licence had a knock on impact on Freeview so be it. Let the free market sort it out. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 04 Jul 19 8.52am

Originally posted by YT

More insightful would be which channels you actually do watch, rather than which platform you watch them on. To most people, me included, 'the telly' means Freeview, just as a few years ago 'the telly' meant the national broadcasting network. I only have Freeview, because that's what's built into my TV set, and the limited amount of stuff I watch tends to be on BBC1 and BBC2.

And Freeview is of course part funded by the BBC and therefore by the licence fee.

Fair comment.

I was quite surprised when I made a list of which channels I watch it turns out that I rarely watch the BBC but that also applies to ITV and C4. It seems most of the programs I like are on the minor ITV channels and C5 and it's group of channels. Basically I tend to watch imported American shows.

So I am not just anti BBC it seems I don't care for British shows much.

I had forgotten that Freeview was part owned by the BBC along with Sky, ITV and others. Of course the BBC spends money on providing it's own channels on Freeview and the Youview box. The Youview box is useless and is way behind the Sky and Virgin boxes there has been talk that BT would buy it from the BBC and then put some proper investment in.

However if abolishing the licence had a knock on impact on Freeview so be it. Let the free market sort it out.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 05 Jul 19 7.36am
Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars. [Link] I predicted this would happen. Whilst the BBC was wrong to force staff to set up their own companies those staff were still liable for the tax. HMRC is only asking them to pay the tax they should have done. The BBC's liability should end with paying the cost of setting and running those companies e.g. accountant fees. But hey it's not their money so why worry. Trebles all around. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 05 Jul 19 7.36am

Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars.

[Link]

I predicted this would happen. Whilst the BBC was wrong to force staff to set up their own companies those staff were still liable for the tax. HMRC is only asking them to pay the tax they should have done. The BBC's liability should end with paying the cost of setting and running those companies e.g. accountant fees.

But hey it's not their money so why worry. Trebles all around.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX. 05 Jul 19 8.04am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Am I the only one who believes that the licence fee represents wonderful value for money? Especially when compared with what Sky charge every month! In these threads I suspect I will be alone though! As I will be 75 in just a few days I can assure you I won't be refusing or protesting. I almost agree (for once) but as 'Stirling' points out...........''Funny how little coverage the protests in France get....which have been large and long lasting.....compared to the coverage and slant afforded to Hong Kong''. This obvious bias should concern you. Buy Litecoin.
Alert a moderator to this post

.TUX.

05 Jul 19 8.04am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Am I the only one who believes that the licence fee represents wonderful value for money? Especially when compared with what Sky charge every month! In these threads I suspect I will be alone though!

As I will be 75 in just a few days I can assure you I won't be refusing or protesting.

I almost agree (for once) but as 'Stirling' points out...........''Funny how little coverage the protests in France get....which have been large and long lasting.....compared to the coverage and slant afforded to Hong Kong''.

This obvious bias should concern you.

Buy Litecoin.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 05 Jul 19 9.28am
Originally posted by Badger11 Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars. [Link] I predicted this would happen. Whilst the BBC was wrong to force staff to set up their own companies those staff were still liable for the tax. HMRC is only asking them to pay the tax they should have done. The BBC's liability should end with paying the cost of setting and running those companies e.g. accountant fees. But hey it's not their money so why worry. Trebles all around. I believe that this dates back to the John Birt era. You remember John Birt; the darling of the Labour government, who is now a baron as well as a 'sir'. No worries about 'inequality' there,! Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 05 Jul 19 9.28am

Originally posted by Badger11

Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars.

[Link]

I predicted this would happen. Whilst the BBC was wrong to force staff to set up their own companies those staff were still liable for the tax. HMRC is only asking them to pay the tax they should have done. The BBC's liability should end with paying the cost of setting and running those companies e.g. accountant fees.

But hey it's not their money so why worry. Trebles all around.

I believe that this dates back to the John Birt era. You remember John Birt; the darling of the Labour government, who is now a baron as well as a 'sir'. No worries about 'inequality' there,!

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 05 Jul 19 10.16am
Originally posted by YT I believe that this dates back to the John Birt era. You remember John Birt; the darling of the Labour government, who is now a baron as well as a 'sir'. No worries about 'inequality' there,! I was in a similar position at Barclays where I was told if I want the job I had to set up my own limited company so to that extent I have some sympathy with the BBC staff. However they are only being asked to pay the tax they should have paid in the first place and HMRC will work out a payment schedule plan so it is wrong that the taxpayers money is being used to pay the taxpayer. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 05 Jul 19 10.16am

Originally posted by YT

I believe that this dates back to the John Birt era. You remember John Birt; the darling of the Labour government, who is now a baron as well as a 'sir'. No worries about 'inequality' there,!

I was in a similar position at Barclays where I was told if I want the job I had to set up my own limited company so to that extent I have some sympathy with the BBC staff. However they are only being asked to pay the tax they should have paid in the first place and HMRC will work out a payment schedule plan so it is wrong that the taxpayers money is being used to pay the taxpayer.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 05 Jul 19 10.59am
Originally posted by Badger11 Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars. [Link] I don't understand the article as it says that if the presenters were paid by invoicing from their companies then it would save income tax at 45% as only 20% Corporation Tax would be payable. That is only true if the presenter didn't draw any money out of his company as drawings whether by salary or dividend is still taxed. If presenter A has unpaid tax which the BBC pays on his behalf doesn't that become a benefit in kind which is taxable?
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

05 Jul 19 10.59am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Badger11

Money is still no object at the BBC as it pays the tax bills for some of its stars.

[Link]

I don't understand the article as it says that if the presenters were paid by invoicing from their companies then it would save income tax at 45% as only 20% Corporation Tax would be payable.

That is only true if the presenter didn't draw any money out of his company as drawings whether by salary or dividend is still taxed.

If presenter A has unpaid tax which the BBC pays on his behalf doesn't that become a benefit in kind which is taxable?

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 05 Jul 19 11.11am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I don't understand the article as it says that if the presenters were paid by invoicing from their companies then it would save income tax at 45% as only 20% Corporation Tax would be payable. That is only true if the presenter didn't draw any money out of his company as drawings whether by salary or dividend is still taxed. If presenter A has unpaid tax which the BBC pays on his behalf doesn't that become a benefit in kind which is taxable? Yes. Tax paid on someone's behalf is basically the same as paying them a bit more. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 05 Jul 19 11.11am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I don't understand the article as it says that if the presenters were paid by invoicing from their companies then it would save income tax at 45% as only 20% Corporation Tax would be payable.

That is only true if the presenter didn't draw any money out of his company as drawings whether by salary or dividend is still taxed.

If presenter A has unpaid tax which the BBC pays on his behalf doesn't that become a benefit in kind which is taxable?

Yes. Tax paid on someone's behalf is basically the same as paying them a bit more.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 05 Jul 19 12.34pm
Originally posted by YT Yes. Tax paid on someone's behalf is basically the same as paying them a bit more. Don't worry I am sure the BBC will pay that as well. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 05 Jul 19 12.34pm

Originally posted by YT

Yes. Tax paid on someone's behalf is basically the same as paying them a bit more.

Don't worry I am sure the BBC will pay that as well.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 48 of 152 < 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Why is this a BBC top story? (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors