Thus ensuring its death.

For basic rate taxpayers, reducing the Personal Allowance by £100 would only raise £20 for the coffers. To raise the £145 you'd have to reduce the Personal Allowance by £725.

Yes but the license fee is expensive to administer, and was until recently responsible for as much as 12% of all women being in gaol. It is not a good tax because it is not fair and is expensive to collect and administer. Subscription TV would also be damaging to the BBC, it would have to chase ratings and would either destroy ITV in the process or have advertising. Either way ITV would suffer. A simple transfer from government to the BBC could fall victim to political interference, but what that is what we have now with the government imposing huge cuts on the BBC and dumping the responsibility for rural internet investment on the BBC budget. Do not forget the forced sale of BBC divisions because they compete with private business, that was politically motivated. Then add the cost of the World service onto the BBC. This should remain a Foreign Office remit as it is far more to the Governments advantage than the BBC. Hence the BBC slashed or eliminated various language output. The problem is that governments feel that they have to meddle to justify their existence, hence how they have totally screwed up the education system over the last 40 years.

Yes but the current collection costs may be 25% of the license fee, so you would only need to raise just over £108 instead. Then allow for the fact that it would be collected from far more people as many house holds have multiple earners. Otherwise two earner households would lose far more. Also it would hit higher rate tax payers at 40% or 50% so would not need to be a reduction of £725. Add in the fact that it would eliminate the cost of the pensioner subsidy. It would also clear the courts of people for non payment of TV license, and so effectively save hundreds of millions for custody of women and the support of families while they are in custody.

Well obviously higher and additional rate taxpayers would need a lower reduction (assuming they have a personal allowance at all), but I did specifically say the reduction for basic rate taxpayers would be £725.

Why should higher rate tax payers get a bigger reduction? They can surely afford to pay more?

To raise £145 from a higher or additional rate taxpayer, you wouldn't need to reduce the Personal Allowance by as much as you would for a basic rate taxpayer.

I'm not really following this, but surely a higher rate taxpayer is already paying it out of taxed earnings anyway.

Yes but you do not need to raise £145 or its equivalence from every tax payer. There are far more tax payers than households so it can be lower. Also dropping £400 from everyones allowance would raise £80 from basic rate tax payers and £160 from 40% tax payers and £200 from highest rate tax payers. Though the cost savings of collection will also reduce the actual amount of the allowance reduction as well.