Same in Germany, or at least it used to be that way and somewhat recently they just got rid of the requirement to have a TV.

It's just yet another tax. Moving to Germany feels a bit like they pretend to keep "tax rates" low by splitting out various things and making it "not a tax". In the Netherlands I had income tax and that was it, from that the govt just pays development aid and old age money (AOW) as needed. Here, you have church tax (if your parents signed you up for that party), new states support, broadcast fee, pension contribution, and probably more I'm forgetting.

While these things feel like taxes they are not because they are not managed by the government. Taxes (no matter their labelled purpose) are pooled and spent according to the yearly budget. Other fees collected by an agency are spent just for that purpose maybe propped up by money from the tax pool. Besides budgetary reasons, having a separate TV fee prevents (in theory) the government from interfering with the public media as there is no direct dependency.

Sounds like the options list when you buy a new BMW. Now I know where they got their inspiration from.

The fee not being a tax in Germany is an important distinction for a very basic reason: The government has no direct control over it. The whole reason for the public TV and radio to exist is to create independent media, especially also independent from the state. So while the government is involved as far as it guarantees the system, it has no further control about it. So the government can't threaten to cut funds, just because they don't like critical reporting. And guess what, the right wing extremists are constantly asking for the end of that system.

I’ve also seen this done on fines; it seems the fine is set by legal statute but, (and it’s just an impression), they get around this here in California by tacking on court fees, etc..

The UK only requires you to have a TV licence if you watch BBC iPlayer, or watch any live TV / stream, even if that content is not produced by the BBC. Also, recording something live in order to watch it later requires a TV licence.

So, if you watch something live on Amazon Prime or YouTube, you need a TV licence. I don't know if the BBC define what 'live' actually means, there's always a delay.

I have a TV but don't have a TV licence. I don't own an aerial cable and it's been factory reset to detune all the channels (I used live in a house that had a TV licence). I use it with a Chromecast.

I have one of the 'threatening letters' next to me right now. They're all addressed to 'The Legal Occupier'. That's not my name. They can go **** themselves.

Live TV is awful.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95

Live is something as broadcast by a U.K. licensed broadcaster. YouTube lives wouldn’t count for example, nor do zooms.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. You need a TV license even if you only watch foreign broadcasts: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ16

Commmunications act 2003 sec 368 specifies it applies to television programmes

A Tim Dodd livestream of a spacex launch, or Potato McWhisky live-streaming a civ6 session is not a television programme.

(If they were they would be subject to various ofcom rules)

Maybe that's one reason some TV manufactures have started removing OTA tuners. My Visio is not actually labeled as a Television, I believe it's a home theater display, because it has no TV tuner.

Which model do you have?

I have a 2018 M series Visio.

Wouldn't it make sense to just add the license fee/tax at the source of sale, just like electronic waste recycling fee etc.

It might. But currently you pay the license fee each year, and it's one license per household. So if it gets bundled in the price of the receiver then you're changing the price model - now if you buy a TV for a spare room you're paying the license fee again, and if you replace your TV earlier than the average you lose out, if you keep your TV for longer than average you win.

I expect it could be made to work, but I have no doubt people would complain about it. And the license fee is not a pure private contract - there is government involvement (hence all the political arguing about whether the BBC should be allowed to increase the fee or get rid of the exemption for senior citizens). So if there's a big change that lots of people complain about then it might be blocked for political reasons even if it actually makes sense over all.

If you share a flat with other people this exact same thing happens. In the german form, at least, you can specify that somebody is already paying for that flat (and you put their details) and they will stop asking.

In the UK, the fee is £157.50 a year, €160 in Ireland. Any workaround to try and tie it to the point of sale would make buying a TV cost a fortune.

You’d just buy the TV from the north of Ireland did it that way. If U.K. did it that way you’d buy it in the south. In Ireland you could also buy from the rest of the EU.

When you bought a new TV or video recorder then you used to have to supply your name and address. The selling business had to provide that info to the TV Licensing body by law. This was the mid-90s so it might have changed.

I remember paying 300 quid for a VCR and giving them a fake name and address before leaving with my JVC under my arm.

Not since 2013 it seems:

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/business...

Only for one time fees, most TV Licenses style taxes are recurring. If you try to base it off an 'expected lifetime' you're just guessing how often people will replace the TV and either get under or over charged based on how long they keep devices.

Perhaps you could make it mandatory for a voucher good for 1 year of license to be sold alongside every TV. You can then credit that voucher to your household account.

(If you bought more than one new TV per year, your TV license account would be in perpetual credit. I don't see that as a problem.)

That's just a tax with extra steps of dealing with the voucher. The average replacement timespan is 7-8 years so what's the point of including it in the first year?

Increases compliance rate, reduces losses from non-compliance, improves monitoring/statistics around non-compliance.

No because it should be per household or per person, not per device.