Slashdot Mirror


British Government Considers Tax on Computers

Jumbo Jimbo writes "A story in the UK Times talks about the UK government's proposals to tax personal computers, as a replacement for the television license currently paid by every household with a TV. These are proposals and aren't intended for a few years yet, but due to the growth of computer ownership, this would probably amount to a tax on nearly everybody. Hope it's not per computer, or those people with a pile of old 286s in the shed could be in for a shock."

11 of 638 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm by gowen · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know its better than old news, but are you aware that this is just one of many possible schemes, and that none of them are due to take effect before 2017.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Hmmm by MancDiceman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Incorrect.

      If you have a tuning crystal (or equivalent) you have to pay unless you can prove it has never been used for the purpose of receiving TV programs. So, unless you live in a Faraday cage and can prove you have no way of receiving the programs, you have to pay.

      Having a TV you never turn on does not exempt you. Not having an aerial does not exempt you. Using your TV for other things and never watching TV does not exempt you.

      The license is for capability, not use.

  2. Total conjecture by tom+taylor · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is so much conjecture and guess work in this, that I don't know where to start. The BBC has only just had its charter renewed for the next 10 years, so imagining what will happen after that is total guess work.

  3. tax on windows? by migloo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Once upon a time in Europe, there used to be a tax on windows (they were considered a sign of wealth)

  4. Re:Note for Americans by BenjyD · · Score: 5, Informative

    The point is that the NHS was very badly underfunded in the past, so increased funding was clearly needed. British people want free health care: the National Insurance premiums are based on your ability to pay and available to everyone.

    Nobody in the UK *wants* to pay more taxes. However, people have made the logical connection between more funding and better services, so are prepared to pay higer taxes if it brings them a benefit. This happened back in 1997 when the right-wing Conservatives were thrown out after decades of heading towards a more US style small government, free market approach to government.

    Our taxes are still lower than much of Europe. On a £30,000 salary, you could expect to pay £5300 tax and £2800 National Insurance (health and state pension contributions)

    There is something of a warm and fuzzy feeling about the NHS - it was founded in the socialist reforms after world war 2 that aimed to create a more equitable society out of the incredibly poor state the war left the UK in.

    The NHS is good enough for most purposes: waiting times are down, staff recruitment is up. I went into my local hospital with a broken arm on a busy afternoon, was seen straight away and was on my way home within a couple of hours. The state of dental care is another matter, of course, and so is the whole MRSA/nursing staff not knowing how to wash their hands thing. I don't know many people with private health insurance.

  5. BBC Radio by Richard_J_N · · Score: 3, Informative

    No one has yet mentioned the greatest jewel of the BBC: BBC radio. Whether you are considering Radio 4 (news), Radio 3 (culture), or the World Service (international), these are all funded as part of the TV license fee.

    Also, I think that it is important that the BBC (especially radio) remains free to access. Personally, I'd like to see the BBC adopt a model such as Mandrake use, i.e. people who like it pay, in order to keep it free for everyone to use.

  6. Sweden by isecore · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll forego the option of moderating this discussion to tell anyone interested that Sweden is contemplating a very similar change.

    The TV-license is going to transform into a "media license" and everyone with access to a computer, TV or other "media"-item is going to have to pay for the use of it.

    Personally I'm not a fan of TV-licensing, and this is even less titillating to me.

    --
    I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
  7. Re:Nope, you are wrong. by beders · · Score: 4, Informative

    tosh! Have a look at:
    http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19 95004 5_en_4.htm

    Gas Act 1995

    22.--(1) Where a public gas transporter has reasonable cause to suspect--

    (a) that gas conveyed by him is escaping, or may escape, in any premises; or

    (b) that gas so conveyed which has escaped has entered, or may enter, any premises,
    any officer authorised by the transporter may, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises

  8. Re:Cue.. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

    The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.

    Try the world! The BBC's TV and Radio programs are widely watched and listened to around the world by alot more people than use the service in the UK. I don't think people in the UK are quite aware of just how big an international PR medium the BBC is. Other countries can only dream of having a state controlled TV network that is watched by this kind of an international audience. Furthermore, at least in so far as news reporting is concerned, the BBC commands alot more respect internationally than the big US networks do (Althoug to be fair there is a number of notable exceptions to this rule among the latter but it is depressingly small) recent reporting scandals not withstanding.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  9. Re:Nope, you are wrong. by ayjay29 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I always thought the law was "If you have equipment capable of receiving..."

    But the BBC says this:

    "If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."

    Looks like using one for a DVD player, or your old Commadore 64 would be OK without a licence, the key is "If you use", not "If you have".

    You DO need one "If you use" a tuner card in your PC to watch TV, but not if you use it for digitising home movies.

    --
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
  10. Re:Nope, you are wrong. by rpjs · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TV licencing people work by writing to all the residential addresses in the country that don't have licences telling them that they'll be in big trouble if they have a TV and no licence. They will usually follow that up by sending an inspector round. There's no obligation to let the inspector in, but if you do so voluntarily and the inspector is satisfied you don't have a telly, the threatening letters will stop, but only for a few years.

    If you don't let the inspector in, they can only gain entry to search for an illegal telly by providing evidence that you have one to a court - typically this will be done by using TV detector equipment, or observing the glow of a TV through the curtains from the street at night. Not sure if they use that one so much today seeing as it could be a PC monitor and not a telly.

    However, if you don't have a telly and you don't let the inspectors in to have a look around, they will keep pestering you with letters and doorstepping until you give in. From the TV licencing people's PoV it makes sense as only something like 1% of the population genuinely don't own a TV, but it does royally piss off the people who don't and keep getting pestered.

    A few years ago they ran an advertising campaign where they displayed randomly selected street signs from around the country with the slogan "we know that X households in this street are watching television illegally" but they had to drop it after complaints from the residents in those streets who felt they were being unfairly accused.