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."
...When TVs are becoming replaced by computers as a method of visual communication. It's far easier to live without a TV than a computer now, and they know that. So much for the people protesting the tax by not using a TV, if this goes through.
I'm a big fan of the BBC's independence, and also of the license fee to pay for it, therefore I would like to continue seeing the BBC funded by the taxpayer for the forseeable future. Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced that a computer tax is the right way to go about this.
If you buy a television, you're pretty likely to be watching tv shows on it, and therefore the license fee seems like a good idea. With PCs, the scope of activity is pretty much unlimited, so I can't really see the connection between computers and BBC funding. Although, this may all change in the future as no-one really yet knows how television will eventually integrate with computers. All we can do is speculate.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
No, they're saying that broadcast television is likely to give way to internet delivered content, and so it makes no sense to charge those people using TVs, and let Internet users have access to the content for free. Even now, I use the BBC's online resources far more than I watch their television shows. By 2017 (the earliest these plans are expected to be enacted), I very much doubt I will still own a television as a stand-alone device.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
We fought against taxation without representation. Now, we have representation without enough taxation (at least for our level of of spending). Makes me think about the line in the patriot when MG says, "A king 1000's of miles away can do as much as 1000 kings 1 mile away" (or something like that).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Good. Another 12 years before I risk trying to evade certain taxes.
I'm sorry, but on this one they can go jump. VAT already means that over a hundred quid of a decent computer goes towards absolutely nothing to do with the manufacture or sale fo the actual equipment. That's more than the cost of some of the components, and almost as much as a retail copy of Windows.
Yes, I know that governments have to get their money somewhere. It just seems wrong to me that, for example, if going for a 12" iBook with a 60GB drive, 512MB RAM and Bluetooth module the cost of the upgrades is 3GBP less than the cost of the tax incurred.
(And that's with upgrades that some people class as being overpriced compared to third-party alternatives)
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
If I am to be taxed for ownership of a PC, with the grounds being that I can use this to access BBC-produced broadcasts, then I better actually had be able to access that content.
In other words, that content has to be accessible on a Mac, on Linux (any distro, my choice), on a PC, on some wondeful-but-yet-to-be-conceived-of OS that gets written in 2009...anything. If they're taxing me for it, then I must be able to receive the benefit the tax is actually on.
Incidently, I'm not opposed to the license fee (I'm in the UK). I believe my money to be well spent on the Beeb, though not necesasrily on television so much as radio and the internet.
Cheers,
Ian
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Actually at the time of the revolution in the United States British taxes were lower, in fact, were almost non-existent. This is why the capitalist businessmen in the eastern states launched the Boston Tea Party and "No taxation without representation" - because they could not compete with better, cheaper British imports. Thus began the current United States - capitalism without a real principle of fair competition.
Dave Bell
Incase anybody didn't notice, this comment was made as part of a general debate on possible loop holes and issues that might exist when the 10 year renewal is up, it was not part of any formal law or decision making process.
As an MP was rightly pointing out, there is a potential loophole where a household may not own any televisions at all, and only computers and monitors (without any tv tuner card, as thats already covered) through which they may be able to watch the increasing amount of tv programs the bbc make available over the internet, and thus avoid paying the tv license fee under the current rules.
its pretty obvious that someone is going to suggest 'tax all computers instead then' as a solution to that loop hole, it doesnt mean thats sensible or will ever be seriously considered, its just media sensationalism on an otherwise dull topic.
It's going to be interesting to see what a computer precisely is. PCs and laptops are obvious, but how about a dreambox or divx-player or wifi accesspoint running linux or something similar? A firewall appliance? How about a Xbox or a Playstation? Is a subnotebook a computer? A PDA? A smartphone?
Not to mention stuff like internet-connected fridges - an internet connection tax, like one AC mentioned, is more likely. Except that most new mobile phones can connect to the Net, even if they can't display webpages...
Of course this generalisation applies more to the left than to the right, but then the left are in power at the moment... The Tories still try to win votes with tax cuts, but interestingly these days they focus on choice. As you note, tax cuts are not as popular as they once were. I would suggest this is because people realise that taking money away from public services is hardly going to improve them, but that's just my feeling.
The public dental health issue is tricky, but for all other health areas the NHS is considering a lumbering dinosaur, but one that will still suffice for most people. Dental health is difficult because all the dentists are going private, and thus it is hard to actually find an NHS dentist. The quality of NHS dentists is considered by just about everyone to be equivalent to the quality of private, it's just the supply of them that is a problem.
The tax on PCs appears (I haven't RTFA) to be a possible replacement for the TV licence. If this is the case, it would not be a new tax - just moving an old one onto new technology.
Nope, the law is if you're USING the device to recieve broadcasts. IF you're using it for other purposes (Camcorder, DVD player etc) you don't have to pay.
I've since emigrated to Australia and here is where you see what effect the TV licence has: the BBC stations provide a benchmark of quality that the commercial stations have to match and they generally do. Well, compared to the Australian stations, they do.
Australian commercial stations treat the audience like a numbers game. They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings, and by 'commitment', I mean that they won't keep a series in prime time long enough for it to the story to mature and to catch on (examples: Farscape got booted to beyond midnight after about 4 episodes and you should have seen the backflip with The Sopranos series 4) or they'll decide to axe a show because the station owner doesn't like what he sees (example: Packer pulling the "Michallef" show because of a comment Michallef made).
They show movies, but intersperse them with so many adverts, animated station ID's, "what's next" scrolling banners and the like that you lose any sense of the 'magic' that a good movie can bring. Maybe British TV has gone to hell since I left, but I doubt it can be as bad as commercial Australian TV.
A solution for viewing sanity is the PVR and here's where I link back to the posted topic: by taxing PCs, the British government ministers are looking to the future (2017) when TVs are computers in their own right and internet broadcasting is a much, much bigger phenomenon. Provided that the tax keeps the quality of programming high, then you can't complain - the money is going where it should and you don't end up with a crappy viewing experience.
But what we also like is getting stuff at a reasonably price instead of paying through the nose for it. That's why we tend to support the BBC (cheaper than US-style subscription TV channels, which we also have, despite the fact that there's no adverts) and the health service (no need for all that expensive insurance in case you get cancer and need to stay in hospital for 6 months).
Smuggling was big in England too, with the fortunes of some modern day companies being founded on smuggling, Avery being one of them.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Mainly because the OP is full of shit. People don't "like" tax rises, however if a service is seen to be doing particularly badly at a time (see: the NHS) people will accept tax rises despite grumbling. There is also the fact that the NHS isn't that bad, and hasn't the cost of "health insurance" risen by a huge amount in the US recently?
Also, in the UK, most people don't go the private route, even though it's avaliable for them.
A tax on PCs is probably one of the suggestions so that people go "OMG" and then they throw it out favouring a less controversial suggestion (lets keep the TV licence) etc.
It's been done before: http://www.longparish.org.uk/history/windowtax.htm
References to operating systems aside, the window tax is often cited as one of the worst examples of taxation in British history. You still see old buildings where the windows were bricked up, so the owners could pay less tax.
Taxing specific items is usually a bad idea: hard / expensive to enforce and fundamentally unfair. Better would be a tax which goes directly to the BBC like a "Public Information Services" tax.
Of course that might lead people to demand higher qualities from the BBC plus more say and accountability. That in itself might lead to a shift in perspective of the UK public from government being the masters to government being the servants and no politician wants that to happen.
Ultimately people need to wake up to the idea that http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Which will mean competing for ratings, which will mean more reality crap being flooded over the channel, which will mean an end to the BBC's quality programming. No other channel in the UK can compete with the BBC's documentaries (and dare I say it, cult comedy - QI, HIGNFY, etc).
I'm perfectly happy to pay the liscense fee, and to be fair, the license fee is actually a lot less than what people in other countries are paying for cable and Pay-per-view to get the same quality of programming. Is £10 a month too much? Hell, I'd be willing to pay that just for the BBC News channel and BBC News Online.
Really? I'm interested to see where Microsoft are taxing me on my current server (All components individually bought, running Gentoo Linux).
In fact, even my XP desktop is lacking in a Microsoft tax since I actually bought my copy seperate from the components.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Who, The Times, for publishing such unfounded speculation as "news", or the story submitter, for considering it the same?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Not exactly true.
They will pester you but if you can prove that you have rendered it incapable of receiving a broadcast, and detuning the receiver is enough, then you are not technically breaking the law.
It's hard to do on "idiot" proof sets, but it can and has been done.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
Can I ask why so many people have modded up an obvious troll? Cracks about socialism, protecting property, English teeth? C'mon, engage your critical faculties when modding.
UK taxes are not popular, but yes, increased taxes for important services like the National Health Services will be tolerated. We like public services, we recognise that taxes are necessary, but we don't like them, we don't generally* want more of them, and proposing a tax raise is always an unpopular move.
* Side note: I'd cheerfully pay my taxes provided I can tick boxes for what I want them to go on. I might choose to tick plenty for healthcare and education for example, and perhaps choose to tick fewer related to, eg, military spending.
okay.
:)
BBC starts from assumption that all PCs have software installed that makes it capable of displaying sound and video over the internet.
that's a fuck right up from the word go.
so let's assume that iWhacks, MAC OS/1, BeOS, FreeBSD, Atari ST500s and BBC Micros (the ones with the ARM processor) are all capable of viewing video and listening to sound, over the internet.
great. so the BBC must first fund [patent-unencumbered!] free software development of video and sound compression and broadcasting technology, in order to guarantee that the technology is available across all platforms.
that sounds good to me.
so your computer _is_ capable, your OS _is_ capable, but you choose _not_ to install capable software: will the BBC force people to pay a license fee just because your PC is _capable_ of being used to view video, listen to sound, and be connected to the internet?
mmm
This doesn't mean anything. The people still LOVE tax cuts. It's just that they also seem to like a truly-epic-in-proportions Government and they don't tend to mind being about 8 Trillion dollars in debt.
Note to Republicans: if you're going to cut taxes, how about you cut Government spending, first?
This last tax cut reminded me of quitting your job and buying everything with a credit card instead. I mean, uh, sure, you can do it, but eventually, you're going to get fucked.
Note to Democrats: Stop smiling. You're not much better.
One interesting side effect of the NHS is that because they're not concerned about charging you for the treatment, the process of getting that treatment is vastly simplified --- no billing, no registration, no lengthy identification process to ensure that you are actually entitled to treatment. Getting a doctor's appointment is as simple as walking into a surgery and asking for one... they'll ask you your name, and that's about it. (They will check to see if you're on their records, because you're supposed to go to one particular surgery, but you can see a doctor anywhere if you have to.) This means that the NHS saves a vast amount of money when compared to a private health care system, simply on administration fees and process.
The state of dental care is another matter, of course...
Yeah, public dental care here is a farce, and does everything wrong that the NHS as a whole gets right. I basically don't bother any more; I go to a private dentist. (I get so little help from the NHS for dental care that it's not worth going through the paperwork.)
Well I DON'T use the poxy railway, so why should I subsidise your transport needs? Can't you walk? What's wrong with a bike? I've NEVER claimed unemployment benefit, so why should I pay for it? I didn't go to a state school, so why's MY pocket being picked for those that do?
You see, collective responsibility is the basis of our taxation-funded society. You can't just opt out because you're one of the luddite TV or radio or WWW refusniks. You don't use the BBC, that's your problem, the majority of us DO, and consider it a valuable national social resource.
That was classic intercourse!
My mobile phone has more processing power than was required to put people on the moon.
My wristwatch has a faster processor than my first PC had.
Is either of these a "computer" ?
find more potp = www.planetofthepenguins.com
Let me ask you this: who defines "quality" in TV? If no one wants to watch what you call "quality" TV, then why should they pay a tax for it? The only possible just and reasonable justification for a tax on TV would be if the results were distributed among producers based on viewer ratings. Anything else would be, at least, undemocratic.
They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings
Yes, they are absolutely right in doing so, why should they ever consider doing otherwise? Do you think Ford should have made a lasting commitment to the Edsel? If a series doesn't get good ratings, it's not a good series according to the public and should be dropped.
The annual taxes on my cable bill are about $48.
The various taxes and mandatory "fees" on my various phone lines is $132 a year.
This is about half what the Brits pay, but not insiginificant.
However, if you never turn on the TV, the detector vans they send around to check license compliance won't find it and so the law becomes unenforceable.
(Wow, that sounds like paranoid ranting from an American perspective, but I understand enforcement is actually done that way in the UK).
I don't think people are about to stop watching TV in exchange for PC-based watching, so I don't see much validity in the license fee for computers.
From what I can see, the Media Center PC is still a flop.
D
If I were trying to think of creative things to tax, I would propose an additional tax on Food. It would probably do us Fatties in the USA some good anyway.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill