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."
With TV's its pretty simple, you have this massive aerial plus they can pick up signals off your TV (or so they claim), does anyone know if PC's give off any types of signal like this?
;-)
Try using an FM radio near a PC, and scan through the frequencies. All sorts of buzzing, shrieking, farting and so on can be picked up - some of the fun harmonics chatter and clunk as the screen updates or the hard disk is accessed.
On my old Atari ST, I could even tune into the sound chip, and listen to whatever it was playing at the other side of the room. And I wondered why it was called a 104.0 ST FM...
Admittedly, TV detector vans are mostly a myth, and this proposed 'computer tax' is about as realistic - but do read up on Tempest radiation - they'd have plenty of signals to play with if they wanted to.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
This is how British politics works. In the UK, there is a knee-jerk reaction to like more taxes, however unfair and unwise, just as in the US there is an automatic tendency to like tax cuts, however unfair and unwise.
British counter-example.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
UK govt imposed this absolutely HUGE tax hike for the benefit of 'health'
Ah, that would be the National Health Service - you'll find many _civilised_ countries have them, perhaps that's why your unused to universal healthcare.
P.S. My teeth are pretty good, but your morality has a large area of significant decay.
I can see where they are coming from with this. I think that there are good reasons for this. There should not be an extra tax per-se, but the TV Licence to cover computers too would be a good thing overall. There may well be people who have computers and no TV, so that's increased revenue. If the BBC recieved revenue from another stream then their production will have to reflect that too.
Ultimately this means that for my TV License fee the BBC will have to provide internet streams of those programs in a free and open way (ala direc codec?). This is pretty good, the BBC already make most stuff available (Radio) for the week after broadcast, and have some channels internet streamed (News 24), so a license fee would likely bring more of this.
I pay for the BBC already, so expanding it to my computer (where I actually access it most) is fine by me.
A blanket license on computers instead of TVs seems a bit silly.
What they can do is this. Keep the TV license as it stands. However, if you want to watch BBC TV content on the Internet, you must log into the BBC website, providing your TV license details. This shows you have a TV license, and then you can go and watch BBC TV on the Internet.
This means people with TVs only are paying and people with no TV but a computer and broadband get to support the BBC too if they are using BBC content. And people with both a TV and a computer don't end up paying twice since they supply their TV license details to the BBC website when creating their account.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Absolutely true. You can still see older buildings in Scotland (where I live) with "fake" windows - there's an appropriately-sized window shape in the wall, but it's solid stone and the window's just painted on over it. People used to make these when they wanted to avoid paying the window tax, but didn't want to spoil the symmetry of their house.
No, you are wrong. A friend has a TV which he only uses as a display for retro consoles and home computers. A man from TV Licensing dropped by unannounced one day, observed that the aerial lead was disconnected and all channels detuned from those frequencies in use in his region, and declared that no license fee was payable.
They also discovered the internet and do some fair amount of crossfinancing to run their web sites which they now use as a justification to force people to pay for unwanted "basic supply" also via internet. The EU currently has another sharp eye on them because of that.
However, you can block that signal with a faraday cage. TV detectors pick up the signal being rebroadcast from your arial. Quite a few office buildings have a steel frame construction that make it difficult to get signals into/outof the building. So you could put your monitor into a place where they cannot detect it.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Are you saying that you're routinely visited by guys to check if you have a TV license?!? For air broadcast?!?!?!? What's the difference between that and inspecting your computer to check if you have illegal stuff in it? What kind of law allows that?!? In my country you need a judge to order it. Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
Your head a splode
You'll be surprised.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
However, not many people know that certain agencies are permitted, at any time.
HM Customs & Excise can without notice, but even British Gas and the Post Office are permitted to enter your home.
I was surprised when I found out about the Post Office - gas I can understand for gas leaks etc.
There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing, but I'm pretty sure they can.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
At one point in the distant past there was a tax on wallpaper too!
Look, mate;
I use the railway daily; without it, I'd be totally stuffed, since I can't drive. And I will note here that the amount the UK government provides to its railways is laughably tiny compared to spending on the Continent. I have once used unemployment benefit, and it was fortunate that it existed, because otherwise I'd have been living under a bridge.
When I was a kid, I used the state education system. When I am old, I strongly expect to use old peoples' homes. If I have kids and then die horribly in a freak slipping-on-banana-peel accident, then I strongly expect that my children will find themselves in a children's home. At least, I hope they will, because otherwise the poor little buggers will be out on the streets begging, you get my point?
But I don't use the BBC. I survive just fine without it, and expect that state of affairs to persist indefinitely. TV is not education, it's not health, it's not contingency planning and it's not a basic human need; it's amusement. I'm aware that the ancient Romans used to refer to bread and circuses as the two things that the population desire, and I'm perfectly - indeed radiantly - happy for my taxes to go on the bread. That's the stuff that keeps you alive, well, educated and able to go out there and pursue happiness - but once we've got you to that point, the actual pursuit is your own problem.
I'm happy to cough up for libraries, but damn it, there's enough amusement in books. If people want to watch television, they can do it on their own wage packet.
They knew what they were doing when they decided not to fund the BBC from income tax. It meant that it was possible for the weird fringes of society to be either totally indifferent or become conscientious objectors, and that as quietly as possible.
That said, there is an interesting technical question in dealing with billing non-TV owners for watching online broadcast services. It is not, however, a question that necessarily needs to be answered by undoing one of the fairer elements of British law.
> TV is not education, it's not health
Well, it ought to be, at least partially, and in the UK it's closer to being so than most places thanks to the BBC.
I'm fine with continuing to fund BBC in current manner, but you do derive benefit from it even if you never watch it, listen to the radio, or read the website.
The BBC justifies its cost due to its PR benefit alone. The world service enhances UK's reputation abroard and leads via circuitous routes to more money for British companies etc.
Increased obesity levels in US are partly due to excessive advertising for fast food. The strain on the NHS extra commerical channels would have is enough to justify the license fee.
But, you're still right, its better that those who directly use it should pay for it. I just wish that other areas of government spending worked in the same way... for instance, let those who support invasion of Iraq pay for it.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
state controlled TV network
The BBC is not state controlled! It is a chartered, independent , publically funded body. The BBC's prime responsibility is to the UK public (not to the UK government, not to some media mogul). And the organisations' news division have a history of critical examination of the UK government.
I don't pay a british licence fee, but I *wish* I could (if it would allow to me access their digital satellite transmissions. It's encrypted but access is free to UK residents - which I'm not.).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
...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...
I had one of their meatheads come to me a few weeks ago who insisted even on looking in my wardrobes and bathroom for concealed tv equipment. Of course I had none so he went away satisfied that I wasn't breaking the law.. and lo and behold not a month has passed and already they're sending me their propaganda again.
Plus £1000 council tax and £3500 (17.5% of remainder) as Value Added (sales) Tax, for a total of £12500 a year, for a tax burden of about 40%.
I feel I shouldn't have to; let the parents pay for their kids education.
I was going to start by asking you if you have any idea how much it costs to put a child through school for at least eleven years, but you clearly don't so I'll skip that.
There is no way that the majority of people could afford to pay for even one of their childrens education, even if a) There are two parents & b) Both parents worked full time.
If you think returning to an Edwardian two teir system where only the wealthy get educated then I guess it all makes sense to you, but it perpetuates a large ignorant underclass within society. It's a self purpetuating problem; a child doesn't go to school, can't get a proper job because they have no education and so can't afford to send their children to school. What a great system that would be; a country where the majority are uneducated and unable to even read or write.
The idea that you don't directly benefit from helping to pay for educating someone elses children is laughable.
Don't forget that the UK endures 17.5% VAT (sales tax) on almost all purchases made with already-taxed-once income. Not to mention additional tax (duty) on a range of other goods such as fuel and alcohol.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
r e_evil_impli.html
Might be worth pointing out that the House of Commons has already voted to reverse this in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and the House of Lords will probably allow it.
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2005/02/mo
That's bad for the same reason that laws prohibiting devices capable of breaking encryption or sharing copyrighted works are bad.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
They do hide the fact that you can do this pretty well though.
I too have been caught without a license. When the inspector turned up at my door with three (yes, three) colleagues demanding to be let in to inspect my TVs, I told him he could come in with two police officers and a warrant from a judge. Whereupon he turned and left, and I haven't seen or heard anything from the licensing authority since then (summer 2002).
I absolutely will not pay for a TV license. It's complete horse shit, and nothing less than a tax on receiving information, which I'm quite sure is banned under some European Court of Human Rights judgement.