Linked to inflation seems fair enough to me.
I know wage rises aree below inflation at the moment, but historically that's not common. In the long term this might be a good idea.

Since it is a tax why not abolish it and roll the costs up into general taxation. It would then be an immediate tax cut of £145.50 for every household and it would be extremely progressive as the TV License is very regressive as it is. It would also eliminate the thorny problem of means testing free TV licenses for pensioners anyway. Limiting the BBC budget to inflation is also good.

Actually, wouldn't it appear to be a tax rise of £145.50 per household? OK you're not paying a TV licence any more but would people immediately equate the two? And what about people who as it stands pay no tax? What about people who share a household like flatmates, who pays the extra then?

I'd have thought if you're going to make BBC centrally funded through income tax, rather than a blanket addition to everyone's tax bill you simply increase the rates of tax by enough so that the extra revenue generated is the same as the current BBC licence fee revenue. You could adjust things so the poor/lightly taxed paid less and the rich paid more, or whatever. If the licence fee itself is regressive, a blanket increase in everyone's tax bill regardless of income is equally so.

All might only apply if they made abolition of the TV license completely revenue neutral. There is no debate about whether the TV license is regressive, it is, fact. It impacts the poorest harder than the rich. It does not mean an increase in the tax rates of anyone else.

What about those of us who don't own a tv? I'm not paying more tax so that other people can watch some of the bolleaux that is spouted on the idiot-box!

Feh. we all pay tax that is spent on things we don't or aren't ever likely to use.

About the only thing I can think of is child benefit (personally) The majority of everything else is effectively insurance. I may never need a fire engine but I'd rather pay the 'insurance' on the understanding I may never need it. A TV license isn't the same thing!

So the teaching of children is insurance against what? What about road building? Insurance against traffic jams? They spend money on many things that might not benefit us personally but do for many others. I do not watch ITV that much but there are millions who do.

That's not even nearly what I meant, I use roads and my nephews use schools, I'm talking specifically about the things that my taxes pay for that I have never used. I don't pay for mains sewage because we don't have any, I may not have kids but I recognise the good that educating other people's does for society as a whole. I've never needed an ambulance or a fire engine, but I am happy to pay for those (like I do my car insurance) against the chance that one day I might need them.

TV licensing is not even remotely like those things, if you want to have a tv then pay for a license, if you don't want to pay for the license then don't have a tv. Considering some of the absolute dross that gets churned out in the name of 'entertainment' I would suggest it's an active detriment to society and I certainly don't want to have any part in funding it.

Yes but most of that dross is produced by organisations that are not the BBC. I might not watch or listen to much of what the BBC produces but someone does. I do not watch soaps but millions do. Just because you do not use some of the things now that taxes pay for does not mean that you have not benefited from them. You would certainly have been helped directly or indirectly by someone paying for the school you were taught in, and the education of the teachers out of taxes. You may not have a car, but the roads paid for by taxes brought you the foods and products that you buy via some other service. If you decide to not pay for something that you do not agree with then others are perfectly justified to cut the funding of something that you do approve of, so you might have to pay considerably more for it, far more than if you carried on paying the way it is done now.

In one breath you're talking about 'societal' needs; roads, education, emergency services that taxes pay for because we need those things to continue to function and in another breath you're talking about TV. My point is that TV is not one of those societal things, having access to a billion TV channels, or even four or five, however many there are now isn't a need, it isn't something that everyone should have to contribute to, just like (as an example) if I choose not to have a car I don't pay for petrol, road tax or insurance. If in future my needs and budget change and I buy a car, only then do I pay to run it.

Your point seems to be saying that because some people want to watch sky channels we should pay for everyone to have sky TV through taxes? TV isn't a right, it isn't a thing that society depends on to continue to function, it is a luxury that people pay for on an individual basis according to their own budget, their own needs and wants. I choose not to have a TV, I don't believe that people need to have access to a TV in order to thrive and survive and therefore I don't expect to have to pay for other people to watch theirs.

I don't think paying for the BBC through general taxation is a terribly good idea.
At the moment there is at least a nominal level of independence from the state. The secretary of state of Culture Media and Sports can lob the odd hand grenade in from time to time to be sure but that's some distance from having one of the countries largest broadcasters completely in the pockets of whoever is in charge of Westminster at this particular point in time.

i honestly believe it is time to abolish the licence fee for the BBC
the licence has served its purpose, its time the BBC entered the real world ...

Given the unbelievably [LIFTED] output of every broadcaster that does operate "in the real world", no thanks.