Slashdot Mirror
European Commission To Raise Camera Costs in Europe
An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent CNET article, digital camera costs could increase in Europe as result of trade inequalities. 'At the moment, all digital cameras are manufactured outside Europe. They're all imported. All of them. Currently, there's a European Commission-imposed 4.9 per cent import tariff on camcorders, but not on cameras, whatever their video-recording abilities. The EC's Nomenclature Committee has cottoned on to this and wants to slap a tax on cameras that can record at least 30 minutes of video in one go, with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at 23 frames per second or higher. The Nomenclature Committee has recommended the proposal but has not, as yet, garnered the required majority vote.'" Update: 07/23 02:18 GMT by Z : Took out a bit of hyperbole.
So does this affect phones? Slapping arbitrary technical specs on something might later on bleed over into emerging technologies. Hell, I think my phone is almost capable of that... It's not, but it can't be long before your average phone is... So, what's the plans for that?
TLF
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Cause if there are people in China who are willing to work for cheaper than people in your country then you best make sure business and consumers can't benefit from that.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I foresee special "EU edition" cameras with the video recording function switched off in firmware so it won't qualify for the tariff. Of course manufacturers will "forget" certain cheat codes in the firmware that will permanently enable said functionality. These codes will of course be mysteriously "leaked" to the internet.
To put this in perspective for anyone who's not doing the math, this means the cost of a $500 camera has now increased by *gasp* 25 dollars. You pay far more tax than that when you buy a new car.
It seems to me that with the constant growth & change of the high-tech marketplace the stuffed shirts responsible for levying taxes are going to have to significantly overhaul how taxes are levied in the not-too-distant future. The way this tax appears to be defined it could apply to devices that are not primarily cameras. Mobile phones are close to fitting into this definition. You can also buy binoculars capable of recording to digital media. A similar problem thats already rearing its ugly head is the recent decision by Canada to levy an "ipod tax" on mp3 players. They're already collecting taxes on the sale of music, so this in effect is taxing the end user twice. I'd be willing to bet that somebody in Canada will sue over that soon. Imagine if Canada implemented this digital camera tax and then in a few years ipods started showing up with built-in cameras... You'll end up with devices that are heavily taxed under a slew of "digital rights" taxes.
Let's look at what you said more closely:
Claim: "The less tax the better"
Evidence: "because at it's core government is horribly inefficent"
Conclusion: "so the less money going to them the better."
Even if, "at its core", government is horribly inefficient, that does not mean it's not useful, or even necessary. Of course, sometimes government is exceptionally *efficient*. Your evidence does not support your conclusion, which is just a rewording of your claim.
Then you continue: "Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military,"
This completely contradicts your conclusion above. If "the less money, the better", then you can't get better than zero. However, zero and the above are contradictory.
Finally: "but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics."
And funneling your wealth out of the country is *good* economics? Extreme anti-protectionism protects only two classes: the multinational corporations and the extremely wealthy. If you are not in either of those two classes, you are arguing against your own best interests. Congratulations.
Here is an interesting point. Who is this kind of market manipulation unfair to? People in Europe and the US buy goods from China at "below market" prices. That means that the Chinese are getting shafted because they are exchanging goods of greater value for goods of lesser value. Sure, they are building up treasury bills that they can exchange with us for goods and services later, but those will be worth even less when they do get around to spending them than they would be if they spent them today (and today they are worth less than the goods they originally exchanged for them).
What is going on here? The Chinese government is selling labour at below market cost to increase its global influence and finance a rapid build up of industrial infrastructure. In the mean time, Chinese citizens are getting shafted by being forced to work more to gain less personal benefit than other people in the industrialized world. In other words, the government is accumulating power on the backs of Chinese citizens.
Of course, it is impossible for us to reform this situation, since only the Chinese may put a stop to it by telling their government they won't stand for it any longer. Refusing to trade with China will only slow their industrial progress and make the Chinese less willing and able to stand up to these blatant governmental abuses.
In the case of tariffs, the EU is attempting to encourage local manufacturing and reduce trade imbalances
If the EU rally wanted to correct for a trade imbalance then what they need to do is get rid of the 100s of billions of euros in subsidies given to European farmers. Because of these subsidies food grown in Europe can be exported to third world nations and sold there retail for less than farmers there can grow food. That's a big reason the WTO meeting in Geneva fell apart in the summer of 2006. India walked out because first world nations, the EU, Japan, and the US wouldn't cut farm subsidies. India has literally thousands of farmers committing suicide because they can't compeat with farmers who collect hugh subsidies. Slashing US farm subsidies to $13 billion a year is "unacceptable," a Bush administration official said on Wednesday. All these tariffs are is protectionism.
whereas airline "security" is not about making flying safer, but about social engineering, making people more accepting of micro-management from a nanny state, and introducing the perception of safety even though everyone knows that it won't do a lick of good.
Yeap, our overseer lords want us all to believe the only way to keep safe is by having a nanny state. What they're really doing is a power grab, they want to tell people how to live, and if the people won't then force them to live the way they say.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm afraid you do, though I think it's a matter of not expressing yourself clearly.
Sometimes protectionism can benefit a country. Witness the success of MITI in Japan. Beyond that, however, you must ask the question "bad for whom"? What is it that your economics is trying to maximize? Equality? National wealth? Global wealth? Well being? Sustainability? That's a moral choice, whose answer depends on your ethical framework.
Finally, you provide a hypothetical illustration of one form of bureaucratic inefficiency. This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence... except it's not even anecdotal. It's about on the level of, "Take an American worker who watches some TV. If he's watching TV, he's not working. But the poor Chinese peasant seldom watches TV - he's always working. The Chinese also has to focus on the bottom line, because if he is inefficient he'll starve - the American will just end up on welfare."
If you want to show that goverment is "horribly inefficient" - or, more importantly, that it is less efficient than the market - then you need to compare more than just one possible form of government behavior. There are many ways of organizing economic activity, corporations, and governments. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, which vary depending on the government, th esociety in which it operates, the specific activity in question, etc. - and which must be judged relative to what ever standard you choose for efficiency (which is again an ethical question). If you want to show that government is "horribly inefficient" - or that it is more or less efficient than the market for a particular activity - you need to explain what you mean by "inefficient" and then you need to actually make a comparsion - not just cherry-pick an example, then smack your hands together with glee exclaiming: "see! they're horribly inefficient!"
It may be attractive to look for cute "laws" like "the less tax the better". But they don't exist. What you're stating there is not an objective characterization of the worth of goverment: it's a subjective ethical claim. If you really care about this kind of thing, you would be well advised to read some thoughtful arguments by people with varying perspectives, not run around calling people "dolts".
As it happens, I'm with you in this particular case: I susspect it's pernicious corporate welfare. Though frankly, it's small beans compared to many other goverment activities (software patents, copyright extension, barriers to third world agricultural products, etc.).