The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded?
The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded?
Interesting. I would still consider that government funded, personally, since it's a mandatory fee imposed by the government and applied to all TV watchers, not just consumers of the BBc. It's certainly a bit more blurry though with the direct collection.
> The US mandates obamacare I believe, does that mean it's government funded?
It depends what you mean. "Obamacare" is an extremely broad term.
Speaking generally: If the government is mandating a fee for some activity, and allocating the funds from said fee to some entity, that entity is government funded. Those fees are defacto taxes.
Not all consumers. No need for a TV license to listen to radio 4, or use the website.
I do have a TV license, but that's mainly because I very occasionally use iplayer - I don't even own a TV aerial.
Some states in America require a dog license and/or a cat license, is that a tax? Is a fishing license a tax? How about a fee to enter a national park?
In at least some states in the US the government mandates you to have car insurance if the car is operated on the public highway. This mandatory fee is collected by private companies and goes to private companies, is it a tax?
I may misunderstand then. In order to watch live TV in the UK you must pay a fee, mandated by the government, and that fee is paid to the BBC? If that's the case, I stand by what I said previously.
> Some states in America require a dog license and/or a cat license, is that a tax? Is a fishing license a tax? How about a fee to enter a national park?
A defacto tax, yes, to all of these. Taking the definition of tax I receive from Google and trimming to the relevant bit: "a compulsory contribution to state revenue ... added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions." The state says "you must have permission to have a dog. If you want permission, you must pay". That's a compulsory contribution added to the cost of some service.
> In at least some states in the US the government mandates you to have car insurance if the car is operated on the public highway. This mandatory fee is collected by private companies and goes to private companies, is it a tax?
That's an interesting question! My knee jerk reaction is no, and I think it is because the insurance provider is actually selling me a service separate and distinct from the activity. That is to say, the BBC is selling "TV" and you're paying a fee. The insurance carrier is selling me a promise that they'll pay me if something should go wrong while I drive, not driving itself.
I fully admit that's a tenuous difference, and I could probably be convinced otherwise. You make a good point.
A license fee, be it for a dog, cat, or television
1) Is not compulsory
2) Is not added to the cost of anything
And in the case of a UK Television license it doesn't go to the state.
I think the problem is getting hung up on the definition of tax, which itself is a rather meaningless debate. The UK government, and indeed parliament, has no say over the BBC budget or income, only the level of the license. If a million more houses decided to license a tv set, BBC income increases by £150m, if a million more houses "cut the cord" and just watch netflix, disney, etc, then BBC income decreases by £150m.
Compare with primary/secondary education, where the government decides how much money to spend on education each year. It could increase it one year, decrease it the next, it's a government funded service.
Trying to define the BBC funding model as "tax for a government department" or "not a tax to an independent company" is itself problematic, the BBC is pretty much unique in its funding model and its control. It's overseen by a board which comprises of zero members of government, although the chair and some non-executive directors are appointed by the government.
EDF, the energy company, is owned by the French state, but I don't think people consider it to be government funded.