Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Deth7 on July 16, 2007, 11:03:26 AM
-
17- Threads started devoid of commentary will not be allowed (i.e. links, cut-n-pastes, clicky, read this...)
-
In the UK (Northern Ireland as well?) There has been a "tax" or "licence" required to watch TV and listen to the radio.
It USED to be pretty cheap (but 135 BPS seems a little steep to me) and harkens back to the day when The Beeb was the only game in town.
Seems insane to us Yanks, as radio & TV have always been free (until satallite and cable showed up).
Maybe some of our UK bretheren can explain it better...
<> deth7!!!!
68ROX
-
the govt needs your money , the govt wants all your money.
-
The IRS collects your license fee for the tax-supported part of NPR.
"Free" TV is 1/3 commercials. The BBC has no commercials. Cable TV is where you pay for TV, the networks still sell commercials and you get to enjoy the same 1/3 commercials, while the network makes money on both ends. Movie theaters are places where you buy a ticket to watch commercials, and a license to be robbed at the refreshment counter.
-
Top Gear is worth the license fee alone...
Then shows like Rome, Seven Ages of Rock, Blue Planet, Planet Earth and the like just make it a bargain.
No stupid infomercials every 5 minutes like American tv.
-
Does cost of cable in England included into taxes? How much would it be?
Commercial free TV would be a great thing.
-
but without Commercials, how would you know what to buy?:rolleyes:
-
Pay extra for satellite/cable TV.
These are free channels which you can get through a freeview digital box here, only the BBC is funded by the TV license fee, and are the only ones commercial free: -
http://www.freeview.co.uk/channels
Or you can pick up five channels through a standard aerial (two of which are bbc). But this is going to change soon, as all channels are going digital - most new tv's come with an inbuilt digibox.
-
No TV is free; commercials are too high a price for me to pay, so I'll stick with the license fee. It's great to watch a whole show without the adverts.
-
It looks like he's holding a green dild*.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
It looks like he's holding a green dild*.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Dowding
No TV is free; commercials are too high a price for me to pay, so I'll stick with the license fee. It's great to watch a whole show without the adverts.
I watch without adverts and don't pay a license fee. DVR's are great! :aok
-
Shows also get cut in order to make time for the commercials, so you do not see the full show.
-
Got one. But alot of the time I watch a program 'live'. Their sports coverage is also better because of the lack of adverts.
-
Subjects never complain about taxes, and actually *liked* to be taxed. Imagine that! ;)
-
The licences simply said sucks, they don't serve the purpose anymore today, with a bunch of commercial channels and everyone owning a TV. It's the same thing over here in Finland as well - Gotta pay if you can watch any TV channel (foreign included).
Back in the days the money was used to improve the TV network and fund an "impartial" TV company (oddly though, it has been always in line with the government) which only funding comes from the government and the license fees. It worked back in the days when there wasn't many channels at all and not many had a TV.
Nowadays the license fee is hindering the technological advancements. We're about to turn into a digital TV era, which has been funded by the fees and government. The process has been nothing short of a rushed project with amateurs in the lead of it. Now that we have the capability, which will be soon enforced (no digital box, no finnish channels for you. Analog goes bye bye), they have decided at the fee funded company that they're not going to use all the capabilities of the digital TV. They have a capability to broadcast programs with higher quality, but they don't want to invest into it (heck, they already got the capability hardware wise!) . The commercial channels, however, are one by one beginning to broadcast programs with the higher quality. In the near future most households will be equipped with HDTV capability, but the fee funded company has no plans for it at all. Digital TV has lesser quality than HDTV, but we're not even having the full potential of the highly hyped digital TV technology.
An era has died - the TV license fee has outlived its days. Our new minister for communication is critical towards the fee, unlike the predecessors. Some government officials/TV fee funded company representives have even hinted the possibility of having to pay TV license for having an internet connection, because it's possible to watch TV over the net. Supposedly "the quality of internet broadcasts is insufficient" for the fee to be necessary at the time being. AFAIK germans have to pay the fee for an internet connection.
-
Personally can't stand commercial TV. The bloody adverts drive me mad. Treat ya like some kind of imbecile. Often the adverts don't even sell the stupid product just the perceived life style of those that actually buy the meaningless crap........ Give me a *&^%ing brake.
Unlike some American stations our poxy adverts are not smack bang in the middle of the punch line or cruscendo of a movie. Their roughly spaced at 15 min or 30 min intervals. Excluding Brit cable or satellite on this analogy where there's adverts almost every 10 bleeding minutes.
As for the hundred an forty quid for all BBC stations I say it's a cheap price to pay. Film starts and no stops until the end. Same for any show go stop. Couple mins of whats coming on tonight or whats on next week and bang into the next show, film or news program. NO POXY ADVERTS.
Just wish there was more programs I like. Can't bloody well stand Dead Enders or freaking period drama's. "Oh Mr Bleedin Darcy" I am undone". BBC's big failing are repeats. "Good life" from the 70's gets repeated near enough every year. Not enough investment in new talent and paying to much for certain hosts. Johanath Ross or Rowth as he says it has been paid, in a 3 year deal, 17 Million quid of licenses payers money just host a show. Yer he's a funny guy, informed and not a complete avacado but 17 million quid. Give me a %^&*ing brake.
BBC 1,2,3,and 4. BCC news 24. Radio's 1,2,3,4,5, and all the regional BBC station are all COMMERCIAL free.
Recommend you guys listen to BBC Radio2 on the Internet in your mornings. You'll get a geezer called Steve Wright with his possy. Light hearted show with music a 45 year old could listen to and all without 1 poxy commercial.
.....................Have BBC Radio 2 on me guys :aok ............................. .
-
PS....No lusting after Sally Traffic there's half a million Brit truckers in line for her.
-
The license fee pays for the BBC, which is a great thing. It means:
1. The BBC is commercial free.
2. The BBC is not a slave to ratings and can therefore take risks with programming other channels wouldn't. No commercial channel would ever have brought you 'Little Britain' or 'The Office'.
Its unrelated to the license fee, but the quality of journalism from the BBC is also unmatched elsewhere.
The only downside is that in recent years, the Beeb has not been able to match the bids for major sporting and other events from companies like Sky. This has meant a lot of people missing out on showpiece event like FA Cup Finals etc.
-
I wish the license fee channels over here would have some of the quality of BBC. Too big part of the channel's programs are in swedish and the swedish section gets more funding per program than the finnish section, even though finn-swedes are a huge minority of 5%, which of most are fluent in finnish. With all the license fees we don't even get everything out of the highly hyped digital TV. The license fees aren't such a big success over here.
-
BBC radio has no peers. Radio 4 has had an amazing success rate with new comedy talent over last 15 years.
-
Originally posted by wooley
2. The BBC is not a slave to ratings and can therefore take risks with programming other channels wouldn't. No commercial channel would ever have brought you 'Little Britain' or 'The Office'.
NBC, which is commercial, shows 'The Office' every Thursday night. Granted, I'm in America, but I've been watching TV for quite some time now, and the commercials don't bother me. It just adds to the wait for what's going to happen next in the movie, and gives it more suspense. And one channel doesn't have commercials, channel 15, which is public television. And it has most of the shows that I watch, like Nature, and Nova, which are scientific shows. But if someone tried to make me pay for a license to watch TV, I'd call him an idiot. If they're allowed to radiate me property with their radio waves, I'm allowed to intercept a few and watch them on TV.
-
Just do what them yanks do and STEAL your cable!!!!
yeah stick it to the MAN......man
-
Actually, we had free cable for a while. When me aunt and uncle were living with me papaw, they got cable. Well, when they left, they cancelled the subscription. The cable company never came and cut the line, so we had free cable for aboot 7 years.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
NBC, which is commercial, shows 'The Office' every Thursday night.
Yes, but the American or any of the other national versions of The Office would never have been made if it were not for the success of the BBC original.
-
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
-
I'm sure he doesn't understand the history of "The Office." I wonder how much he pays to support the public television channel that has most of the shows he likes to watch?
-
so what is the actual fee .. say / month to have a tv with an antenna on it?
what if you choose a cable provider.. do you still pay the fee?
-
The license fee is about 135UKP / $270US per year per household.
You need to pay it if you own a TV set regardless of whether you intend to watch BBC or not (its carried by all the commercial cable and satellite companies anyway).
-
To clarify a few points the License fee is used by the BBC. It's not a tax. The money goes into shows both on TV and Radio. If you have 1 TV or 6 you have to pay the fee. Not sure about Internet.
If you don't have a TV you don't need a license and some guy will call at your house to see that you don't. Hence detector vans if my some chance your never in or answer the door when they call:lol
You can be fined up to a thousand quid for not having a license.
Cable and Satellite stations are pay per month and have different packages. Makes it hard to tell you what the fee's are. As an average you would be paying 25 quid ($50) but even then they punt pay for view for things like movies or major sporting events. may only be 80 pence for a movie but it could be a fiver ($10). Expect any sporting event to start at a fiver.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Shows also get cut in order to make time for the commercials, so you do not see the full show.
They edit for the time allotted, regardless of the length of the program.
So BBC edits what it has to get it to fit into 30 minutes.
Commercial TV typically allots 22 minutes for a half hour program in commercial TV.
If that is the best 22 minutes of a typical show, I would rather not see the full 30.
If you don’t want to watch commercials, you can always pay a voluntary tax and pay for HBO, or bypass TV tax and commercials entirely and read of surf.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
PS....No lusting after Sally Traffic there's half a million Brit truckers in line for her.
Zandra? She is a cutie.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
No TV is free; commercials are too high a price for me to pay, so I'll stick with the license fee. It's great to watch a whole show without the adverts.
With commercial television, we aren't consumers. We're product.
With subscriber television, we are truly consumers.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
and the commercials don't bother me. It just adds to the wait for what's going to happen next in the movie, and gives it more suspense.
:lol :lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They edit for the time allotted, regardless of the length of the program.
So BBC edits what it has to get it to fit into 30 minutes.
Commercial TV typically allots 22 minutes for a half hour program in commercial TV.
If that is the best 22 minutes of a typical show, I would rather not see the full 30.
If you don’t want to watch commercials, you can always pay a voluntary tax and pay for HBO, or bypass TV tax and commercials entirely and read of surf.
I was thinking of when i watch Top Gear on the channel UKTV. The original show is filmed for the BBC which has no adverts, it is an hour long.
The UKTV version is also an hour long, but has to lose something like 20 mins of the show i order to get the commercials in - so you lose out on some of the funniest bits of the show, usually the banter between the presenters and the news sections.
Shows filmed for the BBC will have the full 30mins/1hr of quality, whereas when they are screened on US tv, or rebroadcast on UK tv channels, they are not as good.
-
Originally posted by Furball
Shows also get cut in order to make time for the commercials, so you do not see the full show.
That's done by the NZ TV networks with some shows to the point where the shows actually interrupt the commercial breaks.. no kidding. Some programmes are butchered to the point they are almost unwatchable
But there's one show they have learnt not to mess with too much... that energizer bunny of soap operas- sodding Coronation street heh . There's allready plenty of commercials during it but they edited the crap out of it so they could cram even more in, but an infuriated blue rinse brigade went ape sheet and forced the state run network to change their minds.
-
so if you want to watch anything other than the government channels how do you do that?
would you pay a seperate fee for say HBO or showtime?
you pay a tax in order to watch what they allow you to watch but what if you want to watch movie channels?
lazs
-
and rolex.... we do pay a tiny little portion of our tax dollar to fund public radio.. I would rather we didn't but the socialists have had their way.. It is so bad that it needs to be tax funded.. can't make it on it's own.
I believe it amounts to a few cents a year per person and if we don't pay any tax at all we won't have a van full of TV police coming to shut off our tv and put us in jail. You can not pay a cent in taxes and still buy and watch tv.
If you don't like commercial tv and can't work a recorder.. you can order movie channels.
I hate commercials but when I was in england... I would have rather have watched a commercial than the stuff that was on the TV there. some guy talking an almost familiar language or a bunch of grown men wearing shorts in the rain and kicking a ball around or swinging a frat paddle.
lazs
-
HBO generally are in partnership with BBC on the decent programmes - Band of Brothers and Rome for instance.
Everything else can either be seen on free-view channels or through a Sky or cable subscription. I personally have Sky and get hundreds of commercial channels with all manner of imported and homegrown crap on them. I only really have it for sports, the odd documentary, series like Battlestar Galactica and the repeats of classic comedies/series.
Movies are available through Sky and cable too, including pay per view.
I don't think British TV is very different from US in terms of the availability of crap at the touch of a bottom. We probably have the same number of channels, but we have the BBC channels and radio to offer a bit of quality as well (most of the time anyway).
-
so you pay two fees?
the one the government charges you to even own a tv and to watch what they allow you to and then another fee to watch what you want?
lazs
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Actually, we had free cable for a while. When me aunt and uncle were living with me papaw, they got cable. Well, when they left, they cancelled the subscription. The cable company never came and cut the line, so we had free cable for aboot 7 years.
Thats theft, shouldn't you go and shoot yourself now? You were after all taking something that you hadn't paid for. I'd think, reading the Good Book like you do, you might have felt bad about that and called the cable company to inform them of their error. Maybe it's only bad when someone steals from you though.:rolleyes:
-
17- Threads started devoid of commentary will not be allowed (i.e. links, cut-n-pastes, clicky, read this...)
__________________
Last edited by MP3 on 07-17-2007 at 07:15 AM
YIKES, Mr. MP3...
He DID have commentary on it before you yanked the post.
If I remember right, it said: "Ya gotta be kidding me?"
68ROX
-
turn off the TV, go outside, experience real life.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Thats theft, shouldn't you go and shoot yourself now? You were after all taking something that you hadn't paid for. I'd think, reading the Good Book like you do, you might have felt bad about that and called the cable company to inform them of their error. Maybe it's only bad when someone steals from you though.:rolleyes:
No, we told them to come cut it off, they were too lazy to do it, so we had free cable. If they don't feel like it, they don't feel like it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so you pay two fees?
the one the government charges you to even own a tv and to watch what they allow you to and then another fee to watch what you want?
lazs
Anything starting with the letters BBC is funded by the License payer and not the Government. The head of the BBC is appointed by, I think, the Arts Minister. The BBC has a charter to the effect of not being biased to a particular political party. You can look it up on the net. I can't be arsed.
The programs "they allow you to watch" aren't constraint to rating although they do compete for rating. The fact that they aren't constraint means, we the viewer, are privy to some talented and controversial shows that no "sponsor" would touch with your hands let alone their own.
:aok
Independent Television, an old term, is commercial TV with a crap load of adverts. The sponsors money is used exactly like the BBC but if shows are too risky or demeaned untasteful they have a devil of a job to find "sponsors". So the sponsor rules the roost. These stations can be political biased because the are indeed "Independent". They are free to watch so long as you have a TV license.
Subscription TV is just that. You pay per month for certain packages that they promote. Could be 8 channels could be 30. Up to you what you pay for but here's the bite back. They slam in adverts and with their double revenue (sponsors and your subs) they can buy just about any program or event they feel fit. Wanna watch the FA cup the NFL then you gotta subscribe to them. It's paid monthly but minimum term is a YEAR.
As far as I'm aware I don't think they pay to develop shows. They just buy them. I am open to be proved wrong.
They also can be politic biased and you need a TV license to view.
All isn't as you insinuate. Just this year some BBC dude was fired for bias on a show he developed. Keep ya commercial TV mate 140 quid is cheap to me.
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
17- Threads started devoid of commentary will not be allowed (i.e. links, cut-n-pastes, clicky, read this...)
__________________
Last edited by MP3 on 07-17-2007 at 07:15 AM
YIKES, Mr. MP3...
He DID have commentary on it before you yanked the post.
If I remember right, it said: "Ya gotta be kidding me?"
68ROX
MP3 went on a roll of "Rule 17's". There WAS commentary in this post too.
-
lynx.. I think you didn't answer my question. It would appear that you pay a fee to the government to have any tv and watch the stations that you have no choice in.
If you want to watch what you want then you have to do like us and get a subscription.
difference is... if you want to drop the latter it is no big deal... if you try to drop the former without turning in your tv you are arrested correct?
I think we have a difference of opinion on what "choice" means.
lazs
-
It's no different than paying car taxes or other licence fees. It does seem a little anachronistic now but the original reason for licence fees was to fund the service without recourse to using taxpayers money. At first not everyone had a TV so in fact it was somewhat akin to buying cable TV. Remember too, that if it was taxpayer funded it would effectively be government controlled. The BBC could hardly be described as a British government poodle. It irritates all British governments equally.:lol
Here in Ireland we pay a licence fee too. It pays for three stations and several radio stations. Unfortunately they also show commercials. But it had to funded that way, originally as quite simply it could not have survived in any other way. Without it the only TV we would have would have been foreign or British. The licence fee does give the station the funds to produce local programming. There is a couple of commercial stations here now but their output is dominated by British and American shows. The income they derive from advertising doesn't allow much home produced programming.
Imagine if you will, if all TV in America was foreign produced. You wouldn't like it much. :O
So in effect, few enough people here or in Britain would really like to get rid of the licence fee. American TV, particularly at the moment, from channels like HBO is superb but we really would like to watch some of our home produced shows occasionally. If a fee is needed then so be it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lynx.. I think you didn't answer my question. It would appear that you pay a fee to the government to have any tv and watch the stations that you have no choice in.
If you want to watch what you want then you have to do like us and get a subscription.
difference is... if you want to drop the latter it is no big deal... if you try to drop the former without turning in your tv you are arrested correct?
I think we have a difference of opinion on what "choice" means.
lazs
I see where your coming but I'll define it further.
To own a TV in the UK you have to have a TV license. The LICENSE is 140 quid or free if your over 74 years of age. You can be fined up to 1,000 quid for watching TV, irrespective of what you are tuned or subscribed to, without one. You CANNOT be arrested.
There is about as much "Government" in the BBC, Independent Television, Satellite or Cable as there is in the USA. To broadcast you need government licenses. Often purchased through a "bid" type process. Here they have to abide by certain standards and adhere to laws involved with broadcasting. Including the "public service" broadcasts. I should imagine it's similar in the USA.
Of the stations you "have no choice in" meaning terrestrial broadcasting. The many channels that you receive by virtue of just turning the TV on, only the BBC channels are advert free ......part of the license.
Many of us Brits fined this a blessing and 140 per year (39 Pence a day) a cheap price to pay for uninterrupted broadcasts. No avacadoty adverts no arsing around setting a VCR, no interruptions at the crescendo and foot ball, if your into it, is still a game of 2 halves. :rofl
Oh, nearly forgot. The license covers all BBC Radio as well. May I invite you to visit BBC Radio2 on the Internet. You'll then understand the benefits of uninterrupted broadcasting. You can have that one on me and all the License fee payers here in the UK.
-
How is a licence not a tax?
Yes.. I realize that cars are regestered and taxed and that is purportedly to support the regulation and staffing of the agency that licenses individuals to use the road.. there is an element of safety involved you may admit tho with driving.
I see a huge difference tho with tv or radio.. you buying a tv and turning it on is not at all dangerous and it requires no agency to support safe use.
You will be arrested if you do not pay the fine tho.. if you resist... you will be killed.. that is a tax my friend.
You are paying for the government to choose what you watch. If you want to watch something else... you have to pay a user fee to the supplier but...
you have a choice. Don't like HBO? don't pay for it. Want to watch HBO but not BBC? tough... pay up anyway or face death.
Go ahead.. tell em you aren't paying. tell em if they try to take your property away you will resist. I gurarentee you will see who has the guns in your country and who is willing to shoot you.
lazs
-
Go ahead.. tell em you aren't paying. tell em if they try to take your property away you will resist. I gurarentee you will see who has the guns in your country and who is willing to shoot you.
And if you don't pay your car license in the US? Does the US goverment just quiver at the thought of you being 'tooled up' and walk away?
-
dowding.. I fail to see what your point is. All taxes are such that if you resist paying them the government will kill you.
I do think that it is more than a simple matter of degree tho when you get killed over driving without a license and endangering others on the road and when you simply buy a TV and turn it on.
lazs
-
Ummm....if you don't pay your taxes you go to jail.
I've never heard of an execution for failing to pay taxes. Texas maybe?
-
I beleive it was called "Ruby Hill" or something like that.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
I beleive it was called "Ruby Hill" or something like that.
You may be thinking of Ruby Ridge, but that wasn't about taxes, it was about shotguns. Info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge)
-
Either way...hardly a lawful execution.
If the IRS come to take you to jail and you try and resist there will be gunplay.
They aren't coming to put you in the electric chair.
If they do in Texas though...I stand corrected.
;)
-
Lessee, to license my auto every year, $30 per vehicle.
(The boat costs $110 a year though...)
My TV is free of tax, except what I pay on the cable bill.
I like it this way.
:)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How is a licence not a tax?
Yes.. I realize that cars are regestered and taxed and that is purportedly to support the regulation and staffing of the agency that licenses individuals to use the road.. there is an element of safety involved you may admit tho with driving.
I see a huge difference tho with tv or radio.. you buying a tv and turning it on is not at all dangerous and it requires no agency to support safe use.
You will be arrested if you do not pay the fine tho.. if you resist... you will be killed.. that is a tax my friend.
You are paying for the government to choose what you watch. If you want to watch something else... you have to pay a user fee to the supplier but...
you have a choice. Don't like HBO? don't pay for it. Want to watch HBO but not BBC? tough... pay up anyway or face death.
Go ahead.. tell em you aren't paying. tell em if they try to take your property away you will resist. I gurarentee you will see who has the guns in your country and who is willing to shoot you.
lazs
OK. I get it. Your just taking the piss. Enjoy your incessant adverts. Enjoy your interrupted sporting event. Enjoy arsing about with the VCR editing out commercials with fast forward, gone to far, rewind malarkey.
We're happy watching the BBC:D
-
Commercials only bother people who are impatient.
-
You got it LYNX. Lazs has a fairly droll sense of humour.
-
Originally posted by McFarland
Commercials only bother people who are impatient.
When you get a 3 minute commercial break for every 4 to 5 minutes of programme time during the climatic part of an episode of Lost you'll blow right pass impatience and straight in to homicidal maniac territory.
As bad as commercial TV can get no way would I want to see the return of the days of having to pay a license fee to subsidise state owned TV and radio. These days in NZ they have to pay their own way and at the same time return a dividend to a greedy gov't...which mostly explains the high number of commercials. And if we don't like the commercial infested networks there is always the alternative choice of pay TV. User pays rules, as it should do. Why should anyone who owns a TV have to pay a tax like we use too, to prop up TV and radio stations that they might not ever watch or listen too, the concept is archaic and socialist.
-
curval...yes.. that is what I said... they will take your property.. if you resist they will kill you.
fbbone... Ruby ridge was about shotguns? No.. it was about not paying a tax on a type of shotgun. that is like saying that stills are about booze.
It is true to an extent but no one would care about sawed off shotguns or booze if the taxes were payed.
lynx.. despite not really understanding your expressions.. I think you are saying that I am kidding.
I was not kidding. I do not want to support state TV. I don't really watch much TV but I want as little government in it as possible. I have no interest in sporting events and everything else... I just record anyway to watch at my leisure. If it has commercials I have a 30 sec button on my DVD recorder that jumps ahead 30 sec at a time. It is not inconvienient.
I watched your tv a little several years ago when I was there and commericials would have been more entertaining.. talking heads and grown men in shorts kicking a ball around in the mud...
The simpsons was the best thing I could find on the tv.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
My TV is free of tax, except what I pay on the cable bill.
I like it this way.
You do realise who ultimately pays the cost of the advertising that funds "free" commercial TV don't you?
-
who momus? who pays?
If we can buy goods cheaper than you then what is the problem? I find that england is far more expensive to buy anything than it is here. Your system doesn't do it for me. You seem to have less choice and higher prices.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
who momus? who pays?
If we can buy goods cheaper than you then what is the problem? I find that england is far more expensive to buy anything than it is here. Your system doesn't do it for me. You seem to have less choice and higher prices.
lazs
At $2 to the pound, of course BRITAIN is expensive. However, your point is taken, its not a cheap place to buy certain things. I'm curious about what you think there is less choice in though? I can't think of anything I can buy here in the US, I couldn't get just as easily back in the UK (other than the assault rifle no home should be without).
I'm also curious about your comment about the BRITISH 'system'. All in all, my experience (having lived in both countries recently) is there is very, very little difference between living in UK and US.
Costs of living - overall - are about the same. Direct taxation is about the same in both countries. Property tax is lower (and fairer) in the UK (compared with California at least). Indirect taxation is higher in the UK (sales tax etc), but that is offset by lower health-care and education costs. Gas, cars and electrical good are generally cheaper in the US, but groceries and utilities are cheaper in the UK. Basically - you win some, you lose some. I'm possible a little bit better off here at the moment, but that would likely reverse if I were to have kids or (heaven forbid), myself or my wife were to get seriously ill.
Government intrusion in daily life (despite the sensationalist claims by certain members on this board to the contrary) is pretty much the same. The US government takes just as many liberties with the rights of its citizens as the UK government does with its.
Back on the original topic, I think the confusion about the TV license stems from comparing the BBC with a commercial TV companies. The BBC is - in fact - a public service broadcaster and is therefore rightly paid for by public funds. Any assumption that that makes it a propaganda mouthpiece for the government would be wrong. In fact, it's charter expressly forbids it from aligning itself with any political movement. What that means is the BBC provides some of the highest quality journalism available anywhere in the world without the need to include editorial comment. American news broadcasting and current affairs programs are virtually Party Political Broadcast by comparison (Bill O'Reilly anyone?).
I like living in the US. I like the weather, I like the attitude of the people. But the realities of day-to-day living is that there is next to no difference between the two countries.
Wooley.
-
so long as nothing you like is illegal or.. the tax system is tailored to a particular lifestyle you enjoy... you could interchange the countries and not notice.
the people in england were friendly and there were very few minorities around..
everything seemed old and worn out and musty.. the electronics.. say TV in this case were ancient looking.. regular tube type TV was selling for a great deal more than it would have for a big screen here. fuel prices were insane and shopping was limited.
The food seemed more expensive to me not less. And everything had a high tax on it.
The problem comes when you live a certain way and then try to adapt.. I would say that it is much much easier for a brit to adapt to the US than vice versa..
For one... he will understand everything said to him even if he can't make himself understood. If he wants a firearm... he simply goes and buys one... if he wants a TV he buys it and plugs it in.. If he wants cable he picks and pays or satalite.
If he wants to eat or drink in the car while driving no one pays any attention... he doesn't have trouble adapting to our idiotic seatbelt of helmet laws cause he has had em for years.
That may be why we see so many brits here. the opposite is not true. An American in england is a stranger in a strange land. Unless he is from seattle the weather will probly have him wishing he could have his gun back so that he could blow his brains out.. He won't be able to understand anything anyone is saying and he will wish he had his old health care provider or at least... could visit his own dentist when he starts noticing the teeth around him.
While a brit here is happy with any law that the government might throw at them.. an American in england will be angry and confused. he will wonder why he has to pay a TV tax for a crap tv and crap stations and why he can't buy a used, big old sedan to get around in and why, even if he could it wouldn't fit on the roads and he couldn't afford to fill the tank anyway.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...there were very few minorities around...
I take it you didn't make it to Leeds or Bradford then. Or Birmingham. Or SE London. Or the south-side of Glasgow...
. everything seemed old and worn out and musty..
Lets see how US cities look in a couple of hundred years time.
the electronics.. say TV in this case were ancient looking.. regular tube type TV was selling for a great deal more than it would have for a big screen here.
Electronics are expensive compared with here. But they are not ancient. Digital and widescreen TV was widespread in the UK long before the US. Lets not even start on cell-phones.
fuel prices were insane
Guilty mu'lord
shopping was limited. [/B]
Depends where you were - just like the US. I would challenge you to tell me one thing you could go out and get this afternoon that you couldn't also get in any British city. The shopping in cities like London, Leeds and Glasgow is some of the finest in the world. Plus the UK cities have city centers which make public transport viable, so at the end of a hard day's retail therapy you can have a couple of beers and not worry about who's driving home.
The food seemed more expensive to me not less. [/B]
Eating out is. Groceries are not.
And everything had a high tax on it.[/B]
I did say sales tax was high (17.5% if you're interested).
The problem comes when you live a certain way and then try to adapt.. [/B]
And there-in lies the problem. Many (by no means all) Americans are just not good at adapting. I guess its a consequence of living in a continent-sized country. Most Americans will never leave America and so the need for adaptability doesn't come up.
-
wooley.. not sure if I agree with you on adapting... We live in a very large country where there is a huge difference in just about everything from one place to another.
If you mean that all our money is the same and most of the traffic laws then I would agree.
As for the minorities.. ghettos don't count. small little pockets don't count. I am talking the overall percentage of the population. We are much much much more diverse.. even a cursory glance at the numbers will prove my point.
I seen people in england who were making more than me.. what I thought was a good wage but... they couldn't even buy a home with some land around it. Here, a person can own hundreds of acres and a huge home without too much problem. I own two and some land. I am far from wealthy.
I have 3 cars and a motorcycle and a safe full of guns including handguns. V8's and hot rods... can't have em there... couldn't adapt to that. You could come here tho and not have guns and not have hot rods... you could have the same lifestyle or.... not.. your choice... you could buy a TV and watch anything that came on or... buy cable...your choice... how is that hard to adapt to?
Are you saying that having more choices is just as hard to adapt to as having less? I may be just old fashioned but I want to live in the place that offers the most choice and anything less would just irritate.
lazs