On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:46:34 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:
>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.
Why does what the government was willing to do 20 years ago (and two
changes of administration) set some sort of precedent for what a
private company (acting on behalf of the BBC who are in turn acting on
behalf of the government) do now?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"If the shoe fits, buy it." Imelda Marcos
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |