Alex Heney writes:
> On Fri, 09 May 2008 08:49:29 +0100, Graham Murray
> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney writes:
>>
>>> Their job is to raise revenue. If enforcement costs significantly more
>>> than the revenue lost by not enforcing, then they won't do it.
>>
>>For how long was the cost of administering the Dog Licence more than the
>>amount collected before it was scrapped?
>
> I have absolutely no idea, nor does it have any relevance.
Yes it does. It shows that the government were willing, for a (I believe
quite substantial) period, to run a licence scheme where it cost more
to run/enforce than the amount collected. This then becomes a precedent
for it costing more to enforce the TV licence than is collected in such
enforcement. |