Mate, you're going to spit blood when you hear about all the roads, hospitals and armed forces you're paying for but not directly using.
Hospitals can technically be billed per-use but the US is a real life example of why the system doesn't work in practice. You could also argue it's a necessity for life and everyone should have the right to medical treatment.
Armed forces? We're gonna disagree big time on that one but that would be off-topic.
But the BBC? It's something that's not necessary to life, affordable and trivial technical solutions exist to make it paid per-use (pay TV existed for decades and streaming platforms have solved the "online paid subscription TV" problem) instead of threatening people into paying and producing a significant amount of paper waste as a side-effect.
I always find it funny when people come out with "but that would mean X!" and the target answers "yes, that would be great".
Broadcast television is at an entirely different level of the Maslow hierarchy. It's quite possible to lead a productive and enjoyable life without consuming broadcast television at all, much less one particular channel of broadcast television.
A significant bulk of BBC funding seems to go into news and education, an educated and informed population is generally better for everyone.
Could we live without entertainment TV such as Eastenders? Probably, though it can often serve a purpose in education such as (poor) representation of schizophrenia and suicide which can point people (and their family&friends) to helplines for getting adequate support.
Entertainment TV maybe also lends credibility to the idea that the BBC isn't just "boring" stuff like PBS might be considered in the USA, and thus people might be more inclined to engage with the content.
I'm speculating, but even when I view the BBC coldly I don't see it as being as black and white as all that, I would say the net contribution to society is so high that you would feel it's effects even if you don't directly engage with it.