Should the BBC license be mandatory?

The license fee disproportionately affects poor households

Question: Should the BBC license be mandatory?
Position‹2 of 2: No, the license should not be mandatory
Argument‹2 of 7›: The license fee disproportionately affects poor households

The BBC television license is a regressive tax on poor households.

The argument

A flat license fee is a regressive tax, meaning it disproportionately affects poor households. For a wealthy household, £154.50 is loose change, but for poor households, it makes up a sizeable amount of the monthly outgoings. To make the license fairer, it could be administered progressively. It could be tied to the annual household income and see poorer households pay less while wealthier households pay more.

Context

Administering a license fee at a flat rate of £154.50 per year makes it a larger burden on poorer households.

Premises

[P1]A flat licence fee is a regressive tax: the same £154.50 is loose change for a wealthy household but a sizeable share of a poor household's monthly outgoings. [P2] A fairer system would be progressive, tied to household income so poorer households pay less and wealthier households pay more. [C] Because the flat licence fee disproportionately burdens the poor, the BBC licence should not be mandatory.

Counter-arguments

This isn’t an argument against the fee being mandatory. It is merely an argument against the fees structure. It would be easy to build a more progressive fee system that is more fairly administered that is still mandatory.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] This is not an argument against a mandatory license fee.