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."
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
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.
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
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.