I think you are mixing things up a bit there.
Grants for electric vehicles are a positive tax incentive to get people to switch from polluting engines to emission free ones in the interests of the health of the nation. (let's leave aside for the moment the upfront pollution issues on manufacturing electric cars etc.) If you are iin the market for either a petrol car for £20k or an electric equivalent at £30k which has a battery which might degenerate into a lifeless brick in five years time which one will you choose? Unless you are a Saint it's a no brainer. A subsidy might change your mind however.
Historical buildings are different. These are effectively national heirlooms which should be preserved for posterity. In the meantime they are in the ownership (custodianship?) of people who will incur much higher than average costs in maintaining them. All buildings need to be maintained but it is a lot cheaper if you can fit replacement UPVC windows instead of Georgian leaded lights or replace the thatched roof with concrete tiles rather than having it re thatched. You can't turn all these places into museums funded from the public purse so it is much more cost effective to financially support those who are willing to take on these money pits to help preserve our historic heritage.
And if you don't recognise that such historic heritage exists then label yourself as a Philistine!
These things are never as simple as people want to believe.
Colin
Buying
any new car is a choice - you don't have to. and yes government money is spent to modify behaviour but it is still me paying for you to buy a car. My taxes your car whilst I go most places on the bus or train.
Historical buildings might be national heirlooms but a lot of people never visit them nor have any particular interest in them but pay for them. They obviously matter to you and you don't have to be a philistine not to be interested in them. Personally I would like to have saved one of the big railway coaling towers but what do I know?
This comes down to what each of us like is essential & "right" but the rest is waste. I doubt if any of us share a definition.
The BBC is just one of a long list. I don't watch much of it but I do regard it as the standard setter and without it I would be concerned about the race to the bottom.
I reckon a fair chunk of what I am taxed for is a waste & a fair chunk of the rest is spent badly - 2 aircraft carriers being a case in point - but I am equally sure that your list would be different. The BBC is a very small part of this.
Agree about death & taxes. There is always someone who thinks that they can spend my money better than I can and claim legitimacy in so doing.
I will be leaving this topic now as there is little hope of a consensus answer.