UK Possibly Exploring "Google Tax"

The UK government is considering proposals that could hit Google and other search engines with an online advertising tax to help boost revenue for the BBC. While these proposals are still in their infancy, some are already attacking the idea of taxing a growth industry in the middle of a recession. "Sources say the proposed taxes have been discussed by officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They would also have to be approved by the Treasury before they could be introduced. The chair of the culture, media and sport committee, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, dismissed what he called a 'windfall tax' on search engines."

Comments

wow

[Jesterace]

Is there nothing they will go after?

Re:wow

[level_headed_midwest]

The better question is "is there nothing they won't go after?"

Re:wow

[Garbad Ropedink]

Tea?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

the bankers.

Re:wow

[interkin3tic]

Is there nothing they WON'T go after?

Actual problems.

Re:wow

[Loki_1929]

If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

If I were Google I'd just do my best to ban all of the UK.

Re:wow

[cbiltcliffe]

No.

Re:wow

[JohnBailey]

MP's expenses...

It's a matter of national security y'know.. The kind of bath plug a minister chooses, or the type of porn her hubby/advisor prefers on their pay per view is vital information that could be of use to terrorists!!!!

Re:wow

[maxume]

If they can still make a reasonable profit, why not do so?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

The better question is "is there nothing they won't go after?"

The best question of all is "when will you assholes learn to proofread?"

Proofreading! It's not only easy and trivial and trivially easy and easily trivial, but it prevents you from looking like a moron, too! Apparently the only thing easier and more trivial is neglecting to proofread and then coming up with lame excuses for why you're too lazy to do it or why you don't think it's useful. Such excuses include "it's just Slashdot, I mean after all I'll spend hours posting there and participating in discussions but what do I care if anyone actually reads it? Of course there is nothing inconsistent about my position and it's not intended to cover up laziness at all."

Re:wow

[Burkin]

Because it's not Google's job to prop up the BBC's revenues?

Re:wow

[maxume]

I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm suggesting that businesses generally treat taxes as a cost, not as something that is morally offensive, so why expect anything different here?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have just said, "If we don't control it, then control it."

Their attitude to taxes isn't so different from medieval barons. They want a piece of everything for themselves. They tell us anything they can to excuse it and make it sound ok, but ultimately they act just like the old medieval barons and its to help them.

Re:wow

[kheldan]

Humans are so damned silly. Politicians, even more so.
I wonder if they'll ever realize that control is as much an illusion as freedom is?
There has GOT to be a better way to do things than to tax the living daylights out of everything.

Re:wow

[Maxo-Texas]

If it makes a profit- it will pay a tax.

Hmmmm.
That doesn't work- they go after things that don't make a profit too.

Re:wow

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Compare this to the standard financial maxim

1) To starting to move, we need subsidies.
2) To keep moving, we need zero regulation.
3) When we stop moving, tax payers must bail us out.

Re:wow

[SupremoMan]

You mean not anymore.

Re:wow

[tomhudson]

Read the summary - or better yet, read the article. The tax is to help pay for the roll-out of universal broadband. The summary says it might also be used to subsidize the BBC - pure speculation.

So, why shouldn't google help pay for the pipes that they'll benefit from - or do you believe google is so benevolent that you'd rather they OWNED the pipes, like they've proposed in some areas?

Hint: They're not *that* benevolent.

Re:wow

[Dogtanian]

If I were Google I'd just do my best to ban all of the UK.

That's why you're not running Google.

Regardless of whether the UK government's position is right or wrong, if companies like Google threw a strop like that every time a government did something they didn't like, they'd soon end up serving Buttfuck, Illinois and Ascension Island.

Re:wow

[UnknownSoldier]

> I wonder if they'll ever realize that control is as much an illusion as freedom is?

So the ability to criticize government/politicians, religion/church, commerce/companies or any other inefficient system without going to jail, or losing your life is just an illusion? Try living in China, or Singapore, or India and trying criticizing anything on the list.

Methinks you don't understand freedom.

Re:wow

[Burkin]

Read the summary - or better yet, read the article. The tax is to help pay for the roll-out of universal broadband. The summary says it might also be used to subsidize the BBC - pure speculation.

That hardly improves the case. It isn't Google's job to subsidize universal broadband.

So, why shouldn't google help pay for the pipes that they'll benefit from

Because they already pay for their traffic usage to their upstream provider? Why should they have to pay double?

- or do you believe google is so benevolent that you'd rather they OWNED the pipes, like they've proposed in some areas?

No, I don't believe that because I don't subscribe to your false dichotomy. I think they should neither be forced to subsidize universal broadband nor should they have exclusive ownership of the pipes.

Hint: They're not *that* benevolent.

Hint: I never claimed they were.

Re:wow

[tomhudson]

That hardly improves the case. It isn't Google's job to subsidize universal broadband.

Truckers could say the same thing abut use and fuel taxes on highways - "The end user is already paying tax when they buy the shite I haul - why should *I* pay for the roads?" User pay. In this case, it's truckers. In the google case, it's google who is using the Internet to generate profits. Why should only the end user have to bear ALL the burden? Isn't it fair that everyone who dips their bucket into the pond to drink should also help pay for making sure nobody pisses in it, and that everyone has fair access?

Re:wow

[Burkin]

In the google case, it's google who is using the Internet to generate profits. Why should only the end user have to bear ALL the burden?

They don't. Google pays for the bandwidth it uses to its upstream providers. Again, what is being proposed is for them to not only pay for their own bandwidth but then subsidize other people's bandwidth. They have no such obligation.

Isn't it fair that everyone who dips their bucket into the pond to drink should also help pay for making sure nobody pisses in it, and that everyone has fair access?

Yes, it is fair hence why Google (just like every other internet company) pays an upstream provider for the bandwidth it uses. Did you somehow think that Google gets all the bandwidth it uses for free?

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"So the ability to criticize government/politicians, religion/church, commerce/companies or any other inefficient system without going to jail, or losing your life is just an illusion? Try living in China, or Singapore, or India and trying criticizing anything on the list."

That extreme is always used to justify control. The smoke screen that is sold is that our country cannot be as bad as other countries (que highlighting worse case cherry picked examples from other countries), then use that as a justification to carry on as before.

In the UK, we have rich bankers robbing millions from taxpayers. In the UK, we have corrupt politicians using false expenses to (between them all) rob millions of tax payers money. We have morally corrupt corporations like Phorm turning the UK into a Big Brother police state for their goal of spying on everyone 24/7 for their own financial gain and working with the government on this goal. The UK is becoming an ever better place for the rich and an ever worse place for the majority of people. For example, this news link is from 2004, yet it shows NuLabour's true focus...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/08/politics.socialexclusion

The majority of the population struggle to live, can't afford housing, can barely hold onto their jobs. While the elite get ever richer with ever more power to control the majority.

For example, there are ever more groups in the UK being singled out to be spied on and controlled ever more. Dangerous people like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, who have over 2 million members in the UK. (2 million people standing together on an issue can oppose government policies and their high profile campaigns can make millions more people join in and stand up to the politicians ... thats why the government spy on groups like this. Its for political goals, not safety goals).

Come to the UK, its turning into a real utopia.

Re:wow

[tomhudson]

There's more to the cost of the Internet than bandwidth ... the last mile is a major cost. Not every place has dark fiber.

Re:wow

[Meski]

The usual excuse is "I mispelt that deliberately, it's part of my persona"

Re:wow

[pete6677]

And just like in the US, the loyal subjects keep voting the same crooks back into office.

Rather than actually researching politicians, people just vote for their party or whoever tells them what they want to hear.

Re:wow

[superwiz]

I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm suggesting that businesses generally treat taxes as a cost, not as something that is morally offensive, so why expect anything different here?

I don't think it's been suggested that Google is offended. Incensed, maybe. But they are not saying if they are. I am pretty sure, however, that a number of people reading this post are offended. Before getting into any debate as to whether taxes are good or bad, just remember that for anyone concerned with ethics not being a victim of unethical behavior is not enough of a reason to look away. The previous sentence did not support or condemn taxes. It only tried to explain why anyone might care about someone else's taxes.

Re:wow

[maxume]

AC commented that Google should cease doing business in/with the UK, that seems like a suggestion that they should act offended to me.

Re:wow

[superwiz]

AC commented that Google should cease doing business in/with the UK, that seems like a suggestion that they should act offended to me.

Well, actually, you were replying to this:

Because it's not Google's job to prop up the BBC's revenues?

Which was a side track from AC's original direction of the argument. Oddly enough, the side track was more constructive than the original. But you have to admit that replying with

I'm suggesting that businesses generally treat taxes as a cost, not as something that is morally offensive, so why expect anything different here?

to

Because it's not Google's job to prop up the BBC's revenues?

puts you in a rather odd position. It makes it look like you are arguing (which I don't think you are in fact) that businesses shouldn't be bothered at all with whether they are taxed or not. Having said that, I think the AC's original post was indicative of the rage due to the fact that this form of taxation seems like a subsidy to Google's potential competitors. A number of businesses would, in fact, leave a market under such circumstances.

Re:wow

[drsquare]

Tea is taxed at 15%.

Re:wow

[drsquare]

If they want to do business in the UK and take advantage of our first world economy, why shouldn't they pay their share to the upkeep of the public services which produce such a lucrative market?

Re:wow

[maxume]

"I'm not suggesting that it is." was my reply to the immediate comment. The next sentence was an expansion of my initial thought.

Stop it already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not micro-tax every single thing on the Internet! They already get tax-revenue from the ISPs. Can't that be enough?!?!

Re:Stop it already!

[dbcad7]

If the ads are successful they also get tax revenue from goods sold.

Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[tomhudson]

some are already attacking the idea of taxing a growth industry in the middle of a recession.

What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?

"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[WCMI92]

What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?

"Hey, we're making lots of profits - don't tax us!"

How about the government for once having to do what everyone ELSE has to do in a recession? Do with LESS.

Here is how government works with respect to industry:

If it moves, TAX it.

If it survives, REGULATE it.

If it doesn't survive, SUBSIDIZE it.

I'm not saying that government should stay completely out of business with respect to consumer protection, and workplace safety, but it shouldn't be micromanaging or looking for ways to tax activity multiple times, which is what the UK is trying to do here. Google already pays taxes on earnings from their UK operations. What the government is wanting to do is essentially tax them AGAIN.

This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation, and given that with anything that is internet based, you can run it from ANYWHERE, what the UK is doing is encouraging Google to remove any operation from their soil and to lose what revenue they get from them. And I wouldn't blame them for it.

Businesses do not exist to funnel money into politicians coffers, they exist to make money.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[interkin3tic]

What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?

They may have been thinking along the lines of "don't cause another dot com crash, leave the internet alone, it's a miracle it hasn't gone down with everything else."

On the other hand, I think a twitter tax would be the nail in the coffin for twitter. If it shuts people up about twitter, that might be one of my favorite taxes of all time.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[cbiltcliffe]

If it shuts people up about twitter, that might be one of my favorite taxes of all time.

If you're so angry about it, why don't you twitter to let people know?

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Mr. Underbridge]

What, so adding more taxes to dying industries is such a hot idea?

Any time government gets involved to sort out winners from losers, the result is bad. Better idea is to tax things evenly, and let the winners and losers sort themselves out.

In this case, the fact that the BBC can't find a valid business model isn't Google's fault, and shouldn't be their problem.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[madprof]

The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.

Just not seeing the connection between Google and the BBC myself though...and it isn't as if this would be a hypothecated tax.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[jabithew]

The issue is that it is possible now to watch all of the BBC's programming on demand for a week after it is broadcast without having a TV. No TV=no TV license. And the BBC is trying to expand its tax into this new medium.

Actually the Google connection seems excessively tenuous; likely they'll just charge us £200 for the privilege of having a functioning internet connection.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[gilgongo]

The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.

Unfortunately, the Beeb doesn't make nearly enough from the licence fee to fund the programming they make (and, some say, to attract the talent they need) - this is why they have to pursue licensing and merchandising deals for the likes of Dr Who and stuff.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. It used to take an act of Congress in the U.S. to create a corporation. They would only pass the act if congress thought it would benefit themselves or the U.S. as a whole. Corporations exist to funnel money to politicians.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[drsquare]

If they're going to tax something, it may as well be parasitic industries like advertising and search engines. It definitely helps that they're foreign so we're not damaging any of our own industries.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

likely they'll just charge us £200 for the privilege of having a functioning internet connection.

Welcome to how the broadcast tax...I mean fees work in Germany. No TV, no radio? Hey doesn't matter you still have to pay for internet-enabled devices. Of course you don't even need an internet connection to get taxed. All you need is a device that could potentially do it.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[piratesyarr]

Don't tax me, bro!

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.

Just FYI, the BBC's money mostly comes from things like rights for foreign shows. TV licence fees actually contribute a relatively small proportion of the Beeb's income.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Ant P.]

I thought the TV license was mandatory to watch those TV programmes regardless of how they're accessed. If they need to enforce that, then they can distribute login credentials with the license itself instead of gouging the internet-using public.

Maybe they're worried that people are realising they can do without broadcast TV.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[mi]

Here is how government works with respect to industry (rephrasing closer to the original -mi):

• If it moves, TAX it.
• If it keeps moving, REGULATE it.
• When it stops moving, SUBSIDIZE it.

Yes, this is exactly, what happened to the US car industry over the decades... The last stage is unfolding right now with the government not only subsidizing it itself, but arm-twisting private banks into similar subsidizing.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[jabithew]

TV Licence is only mandatory for live streams. Evidence here, from Auntie herself.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[lenester]

"Business" and "corporation" are not even remotely synonymous.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[91degrees]

Unless things have changed since 2004, The licence fee is the main source of income.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[lenester]

By taxing evenly, you impose a disproportionate burden on some industries that will cause them to fail.

Really? Give examples to support that claim.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm by no means suggesting that this tax proposal is justified, but let's remember for a minute that it's not the government who have to do with less, it's citizens.

Kthx.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My apologies, I stand corrected. The proportion has changed dramatically. For example, back around 1999/2000, 95% of income was from licence fees, but the income from overseas licensing and such has increased severalfold since then. However, with the recent rises in fees, it seems they're still about 75% of the the total income. (Sources: the BBC annual reports for the relevant years.) Maybe the figures I was thinking of referred to the increase in income from other sources relative to the existing licence fee income or something, but in any case, it looks like I was wrong before.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[tomhudson]

I know this is slashdot, but people should at least read the summary:

Ministers are considering taxing search engines, download websites and broadband providers to fund public service TV and the roll-out of broadband.

Internet advertisers would see a direct benefit from "the roll-out of broadband" - it's no different than taxing fuel to help pay for roads. You get a benefit, you should help support it in some way.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Trepidity]

How about the government for once having to do what everyone ELSE has to do in a recession? Do with LESS.

I'm not sure there are significant groups of economists, on either the left or right or in between, who actually think it'd be a good idea for governments to run pro-cyclical fiscal policies. If the government spends more in good times, and less in bad times, it compounds both bubbles and recessions.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Bryansix]

I'm pretty sure Netflix pays them to carry their shows on Instant View. So they have a global audience. It's much larger then that tiny island you all live on.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Dogtanian]

Unfortunately, the Beeb doesn't make nearly enough from the licence fee to fund the programming they make (and, some say, to attract the talent they need)

Perhaps part of the problem is with them attracting such overpaid "talent" as the stunningly mediocre Jonathan Ross.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Esteanil]

Mod parent up, government spending should increase in bust times and shrink during booms.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[WCMI92]

I'm not sure there are significant groups of economists, on either the left or right or in between, who actually think it'd be a good idea for governments to run pro-cyclical fiscal policies. If the government spends more in good times, and less in bad times, it compounds both bubbles and recessions.

Increasing taxation during a recession only makes the recession worse since it puts MORE burden on the economy when it's already hurting, thus increasing both the length and severity of the recession.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Malc]

Yes, but this is Gordon Brown's Labour Party. The electorate didn't learn or don't remember what Labour did to the economy in the 1970s when they reduced the UK to third world status, the so called Sick Man of Europe. I sure hope that the remedy isn't another bout of Thatcherism, but wouldn't be surprised if it's just as painful fixing the mess Labour have made again.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[jrumney]

Actually the Google connection seems excessively tenuous; likely they'll just charge us £200 for the privilege of having a functioning internet connection.

And convert their fleet of TV detector vans to detect people using their neighbours' wireless.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The BBC already get more than enough money out of the UK public in "License Fees". Giving the BBC another legal revenue stream, would be highly damaging and disasterous.

The BBC is worst than the RIAA!! There are 22 Million homes in the UK and the fee is £142.50 approx $210.00 USD per year.

License fee facts are here http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/keyfacts/stories/licencefee.shtml

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[kabocox]

This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation, and given that with anything that is internet based, you can run it from ANYWHERE, what the UK is doing is encouraging Google to remove any operation from their soil and to lose what revenue they get from them. And I wouldn't blame them for it.

Businesses do not exist to funnel money into politicians coffers, they exist to make money.

Actually, I was wondering about this myself. I've no idea of Google's UK assets, but let's say that they don't have any, and the UK decides to throw out random search engine taxes and tries to leach money from Yahoo, Google, and MS. If those companies just decided not to play ball and stay in other countries will doing business as usual, what the heck could the UK do?

O.k. it would get harder if the UK pushes the entire EU to take up the same sort of tax as well, but that's the worst that I see them doing.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Gov does with less during a recession - they have to cut services.

Services that are more and more relied upon during recession because the private options have priced themselves out of the average market, or have just plain shut down....

So people have less money, Gov has less money => both people and Gov do without. But the companies that operate in this country solely at the discretion of both the Gov and people can live it up and reap the benefits of tax avoiding lawyers and political backhanders from business oriented politicians..?

Governments don't exist to facilitate the money making process and allow this cycle to continue; they exist to provide a functioning society without exploitation of the populace. Unfortunately they have been subverted by immoral racketeers who genuinely don't understand what effect their greed and self entitlement attitude have on the populace as a whole.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[drsquare]

Then whichever one remained would have a captive market and make money hand over fist. Or we could make our own search engine, it's not like they're a particularly sophisiticated technology. Google doesn't even let you search for exact phrases or exclude words anymore, maybe if they pulled out it would leave a gap in the market for a better engine.

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[Anonymous Coward]

...government... shouldn't be micromanaging or looking for ways to tax activity multiple times, which is what the UK is trying to do here. Google already pays taxes on earnings from their UK operations. What the government is wanting to do is essentially tax them AGAIN.

When I buy a litre of milk, I pay VAT (sales tax). The supermarket pays tax on their profits (as do the farmer and the middlemen). This isn't so terribly different. (That doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.)

Re:Taxing growth industries ... as opposed to?

[kabocox]

Then whichever one remained would have a captive market and make money hand over fist. Or we could make our own search engine, it's not like they're a particularly sophisiticated technology. Google doesn't even let you search for exact phrases or exclude words anymore, maybe if they pulled out it would leave a gap in the market for a better engine.

You don't get it. It's not that Google would be pulling out of some British internet. It's that Britain would have to put up the great firewall of Britain to keep foreign companies out. Anyone in Britain right now can start a search engine company. Here is also another thought for you. How many of those British sites are hosted internationally? They could be indexed from anywhere in the world. You seem to think that Britain can put up its own fence to keep others out. That works in physical space. It can be made to work on the net, but you've got to put alot of effort into doing or it's just not going to happen. We are talking about kicking companies out of physical space. They'd still have total access to the web space unless Britain screwed up their internet.

What for?

[Nocturna81]

Why would Google, or any other advertiser, pay taxes to fund a public broadcast station? I don't see other commercial advertisers doing this (note, I'm not from the UK)

Re:What for?

[ravenshrike]

That's because the UK is really fucking weird when it comes to the BBC. I think the people running the BBC are actually running the entire UK government from behind the scenes.

Doubletaxing?

[nmme666]

Interesting. How many different taxes can one government come up with?? Soon they will start introducing internet tax similar to your TV license (which is old fashioned anyway) but hey, why not?!

Re:Doubletaxing?

[Brad Mace]

If you were going to tax something, a general tax on internet service seems vastly simpler to manage and monitor than going after individual online entities. So they'll choose the latter if anything comes of this at all.

Re:Doubletaxing?

[hey!]

I still don't understand the conservative position on taxation. Surely the issue is not taxation, but spending. Once the spending has been decided upon, then clearly there must be either taxation or borrowing to pay for it. It seems to me that borrowing is appropriate for capital expenditures and taxation appropriate for operating expenditures.

I kind of understand the theory that limiting taxation restrains spending. I just haven't seen any proof that it actually happens.

In any case, I don't see why it's a bad thing for the government to add more transactions to the list of taxable ones. Surely, that distorts economic decisions less. Sure, I get out of state sales tax when I buy from Amazon, but they take it out of my hide in other ways. I'd happily pay sales tax on my Amazon purchases, knowing it reduces the tax burden on local businesses. Likewise ad impressions are an economic commodity that are bought and sold. Why should this commodity have an exemption.

Of course when we're talking about "taxing X to pay for Y", it's a bit different. Right off the bat we're talking about deliberate economic distortion. When we tax gas to pay for highways, we're discouraging the use of gas while encouraging the use of highways. Maybe that's a good thing. As a society we get benefits out of being tied together by roads but we are also made vulnerable by our petro addiction.

Taxing Internet revenues to pay for the BBC likewise puts its thumb on the scales of economics. Is that the same kind of thing as gas and highways? I'm not sure. Maybe it would be, if there were some impartial way to pay for news gathering. I don't think that supporting one kind of entertainment over another, but the changes the Internet is creating in news gathering are definitely undesirable.

Oh, I can see the flames rising!

[dmomo]

We love Google and we hate TAX. Dump their ruddy tea overboard!

Re:Oh, I can see the flames rising!

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Uhm, wait, what, who hates tax?

Re:Oh, I can see the flames rising!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, wait, what, who hates tax?

Maybe they can tax dumb comments like this one?

Re:Oh, I can see the flames rising!

[roman_mir]

I don't know, I just hate all taxes.

A truly impressive feat

[pzs]

This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.

Backfire?

[TTURabble]

Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?
I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.

Re:Backfire?

[xgr3gx]

Ha - Nice!
How much is enough? Surely they're already taxed for data center/office real estate and utilities, income tax, and probably scores of other taxes that come with running a company with a global presence.
But, since google is US based, most of those taxes probably go to the US gov't

Re:Backfire?

[Jaysyn]

Hilarity ensues.

Re:Backfire?

[interkin3tic]

I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.

My guess is that our (American) conservatives would find some way of blaming the entire Iraq/Afghanistan mess on Blair.

Re:Backfire?

[wizardforce]

Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.

Re:Backfire?

[91degrees]

Then I'd set up a search engine for the UK and pay the tax, on the basis that there's no longer a heft 100 ton gorilla (i.e. Google) to compete with.

Re:Backfire?

[WCMI92]

Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?
I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.

They could just shut down their UK specific service, leaving their users there with the option of google.com.

This would put the UK government in the position of ordering websites that refuse to pay them taxes to be firewalled out of the country. Which would have the effect of cutting them off the internet completely.

Re:Backfire?

[zarthrag]

It won't go that far. Google will simply pass it on to UK advertisers. Google marches on - end of story.

Re:Backfire?

[bennomatic]

Don't forget VAT. Any time you buy anything other than food, books, children's clothes, or a smattering of exempt items, you pay a "value added tax" of 15% over the base retail cost of the goods. And it's going up to 17.5% in the not too distant future.

And I thought that California's sales tax was high...

Re:Backfire?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Portugal it's called "IVA" and is at the present day 20%, it was 21%, so nothing new...

Re:Backfire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is broken.

I traded my Wii for a 360 - Why? - Because I want to play more expensive games by myself.
Now it is fixed.

Re:Backfire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't happen considering they have offices here.
It would take more than that to consider blocking off the UK.

And considering that the UK makes up a massive chunk of their users too, it would hurt them quite badly.
The tax would probably be tiny compared to cutting off all UK traffic.

Note that i do not support this stupid tax, or any form of tax that pays for BBCshit.
They should be made to find their own damn income.
To hell with them.

Re:Backfire?

[zarthrag]

(Tone that flame down, bud - it's just a hypothetical, and you're not THAT insightful.) What you suggest, could (at worst) just lead to yet another tax, and the dance starts over. At best, wouldn't those agencies have introduce a hike of their own? No one said prices have to double. Besides, Google could easily raise everything a penny everywhere and still not feel anything on their bottom line. My point is that Google is bigger than the UK.

Re:Backfire?

[falconwolf]

Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax?

Google has server farms all over the world. Google even has a .uk domain.

Falcon

Re:Backfire?

[falconwolf]

Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.

They already have market share, where would they get more?

Falcon

Re:Backfire?

[Dogtanian]

Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.

They already have market share, where would they get more?

Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share.

Re:Backfire?

[falconwolf]

Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share.

It was a serious question. Taxing ads will not increase the market for ads. However if an ad business outside of the UK starts serving ads in the UK they will not have to collect and pay a UK tax. So they could charge a lower rate and still make as much money. Who would you pay to serve ads, one who had to pay a tax or one that didn't?

Falcon

Re:Backfire?

[Dogtanian]

Go back and read what we were originally discussing:-

Couldn't Google et al just block the UK instead of paying the tax? I wonder what would happen if the entire island was unable to access any search engines.

We were talking about the (IMHO very unlikely) possibility of Google blocking UK access to search engines, not ads.

Re:Backfire?

[falconwolf]

We were talking about the (IMHO very unlikely) possibility of Google blocking UK access to search engines, not ads.

No it wasn't. I included the part I replied to, "Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share." That says nothing about blocking only search engines. The only place where they are mentioned is about their ability to occupy a vacant market share. And as I said they will not be an increase in the market for ads, I specifically said They already have market share, where would they get more?". If you can't understand that then I see no reason to continue this with you.

Falcon

Tax is possibly more broad

[Bob the Super Hamste]

After reading the article it sounds like the potential tax might be more broad based. The article mentions taxing broadband connections and that the online advertising tax may hit newspapers and commercial broadcasters who advertise online. The article also mentions that the tax would be used to fund broadband roll out along with public TV.

Re:Tax is possibly more broad

[Tuoqui]

Say NO to Tax.

They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.

Daily Mail crap

[patch0]

Typical Daily Mail headline rubbish, brought to you by the same newspaper that considers benefit fraud to be perpetrated solely by immigrants, etc etc.. You can easily confuse Daily Mail readers by telling them that asylum seekers are the natural predators of paedophiles.... I doubt there is any truth in the article. A government dept considering a thing is far from the same thing as doing it.... why should they not consider all options, even the stupid ones like this one?

Re:Daily Mail crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly our government is retarded enough to make this quite believable.

Re:Daily Mail crap

[andyfrommk]

A government dept considering a thing is far from the same thing as doing it....

I think they leaked the proposal to gauge the public's appetite for taxing on-line ads.
They don't have the balls to come out with something just in case they look foolish so they leak, gauge reaction then decide wether to go with it.

why should they not consider all options, even the stupid ones like this one?

I thought my taxes were for the underprivileged and less-well-off, the BBC doesn't strike me as such.

The mind bogles

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't put anything past governments, but how in the world are they going to tax the search engines? I can't imagine the legal nightmare associated with it. Especially the cross boarder aspects; who gets the bill when the viewer is in England, but the product's company is in china and the engine's base in the US? I'm sure there are a lot more legal hoops that could things interesting.

And isn't it a bit stupid to be taxing the encouragement of people to actually buy goods or services which are much easier to tax? Not to mention that it is goods and services that drive the economy of most countries not the advertisements. My advice is start cutting the budget instead of taxing people into oblivion.

I don't know what's worse...

[BlueKitties]

This or doling out huge fines to boost revenue. Maybe every major corporation will pull the plug on their UK operations and let them feel what freemarket can do; I'm normally not the type to get bent out of shape over taxing companies (I even voted for Obama) but the UK is getting on my bad side; especially after the huge funding they've decided to dump into spying on the Internet. If they're really needing more money, they should cut massive spending projects that do nothing but violate privacy.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[JCSoRocks]

If they're really needing more money, they should cut massive spending projects that do nothing but violate privacy.

Exactly. It seems that politicians are always under the impression that their citizens have all of this money just laying around and no idea how to use it. Fortunately for us they know exactly how our money would be better spent! Food? Rent? Don't be ridiculous! I'm going to buy you these nifty new CCTV cameras and then build an Internet activity tracking data warehouse. It'll be great! You'll wonder how you could have ever possibly lived without them before. Odd how projects like that march on regardless of economic considerations but schools and health care are always underfunded. (and by "odd" I mean they realize that those are the only two reasons anyone will ever vote for a tax increase so they never fund them.)

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Jaysyn]

Meanwhile, here & Clay county they don't have enough money to pay for the public schools. Next school year when a teacher is out, instead of getting a substitute, they will split the class & send them to another teacher's class for the period. Instead of having ~30 kids in a class, the teacher will now have 45+.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-02-17/story/clay_schools_funding_cut_may_double_to_43_million

But oddly enough Clay County has money to spend on ridiculous billboards for the Clay County sheriff's office. There are 5 or 6 of them, at least two of them on Blanding Blvd, which is one of the the busiest roads (therefore expensive) in both counties.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/slideshows/120208/362438147/slide1.shtml

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confused. The free market isn't a single monolithic thing that can act in concert. In fact acting in concert is one of the things that the free market is bad at. When it does, it's called a cartel, and it's a symptom of a nonfree market.

If anyone can find a way of making money despite a tax, then they'll do it. They won't boycott a country for some moral principle. *That's* the whole point of the free market.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you need to throw some officials out on their arse then wouldn't it?

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Jaysyn]

I don't actually live in Clay county, but I work less than 2 miles away & I have a lot of friends that do live their, including a co-worker who's mom is a teacher in Clay.

Re:I don't know what's worse...

[Jaysyn]

Their = there, oops.

Break free

[Crashspeeder]

I think the UK should declare independence from the UK...that's just my take though.

Re:Break free

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

I think your medulla oblongata has declared independence from your cerebellum... that's just my take though.

Re:Break free

[mjwx]

I think the UK should declare independence from the UK...that's just my take though.

We'd like to keep the queen, its that bloody elected parliament that's causing all the trouble.

Source

[CodeArtisan]

The Daily Mail is a right wing (slightly upmarket) tabloid who attack the Labour government on a regular basis. While the idea of such a tax may or may not be true, you can be certain this particular newspaper will try to spin in in a manner that is comensurate with its Conservative politics.

Of course, the current Government has given them plenty of ammunition, so it's quite possible that such an approach being considered. The source, however, can be compared to a news outlet such as Fox News.

Re:Source

[ProfYaff]

You speak the truth sir. Their politics combined with a general hatred of all things BBC mean this has to be taken with several pinches of salt. I'm also genuinely surprised they didn't manage to work Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand into that article.

Re:Source

[madprof]

Apparently Jonathan Ross made house prices fall and Russell Brand gave Jade Goody cancer.

Re:Source

[David Gerard]

The important thing to keep in mind is that the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers) own 20% of ITN, the direct competitor to BBC News.

Re:Source

[Anonymous Coward]

linking to the daily mail should be bannable, it is not a fucking news source, its a tabloid ffs.

Re:Source

[Anonymous Coward]

Is either of those things bad?

Re:Source

[jez9999]

The Daily Mail is a right wing (slightly upmarket) tabloid who attack the Labour government on a regular basis.

So does virtually everyone in the UK. Labour are spectacularly unpopular.

While the idea of such a tax may or may not be true, you can be certain this particular newspaper will try to spin in in a manner that is comensurate with its Conservative politics.

Virtually everyone spins stuff, INCLUDING the BBC, who show significant bias on many issues (anti-gun, anti-knife, pro-big government, pro-Palestinian, pro-censorship, to name but a few issues).

The source, however, can be compared to a news outlet such as Fox News.

I disagree. Fox News is even more full of shit that the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail tend to have more of a kernel of truth to their reporting than then 100% opinionated BS that comes out of Fox News.

Re:Source

[VJ42]

Only to the average Daily Mail reader.

Won't the search engines move abroad?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like they actually need to be hosted in the UK in order to operate. I reckon even a small tax would drive most of the larger ad-funded sites abroad, and drive the smaller ones out of the market. ...Just noticed TFA is from the Daily Mail - not exactly a reliable source!

ideas

[Howpostsgetratedsuck]

Will the UK stop giving Obama and Pelosi ideas!!! I'm part of the 40% that do pay taxes in the US.

Taxes have that effect on people

[RobotRunAmok]

This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.

On this side of the pond, I was fascinated recently to see the number of tax protests being organized by local elected Democrats. It suited the national media's agenda to portray the tax protests as some kind of right wing/redneck phenomenon, but it was clear to anyone on the ground that it cut across the whole political spectrum.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[JCSoRocks]

The government needs to learn to live within its means. I love that a recession for everyone else means that the government just has to go looking for something else to tax. Well, sorry, that's not the way it works. We aren't making money and that's why you aren't getting any money yourself. So either take a pay cut, fire some of those useless sods that are just taking up space or figure out how to repair the economy. Taking more of our money is not an option.

(Yes, I said, "our" money. What, you don't think Google will just increase advertising rates to compensate for the tax? You can't tax business. There's no such thing. The cost is always just passed down through the goods that are ultimately purchased by the consumer.)

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[bennomatic]

it was clear to anyone on the ground that it cut across the whole political spectrum

True, because there are idiots in all parties. The news portrayed it as right-wing/redneck because they can't just call people morons on the nightly news.

John Stewart's coverage--via field reporter John Oliver--however, was pretty much perfect.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

Personally, I hope the tax protests are the first step in a revolution. Most people here in the US despise the way our government is going (big government, more bureaucracy, more waste, etc.) and we are sick of these politicians (People like Barney Frank and Pelosi especially come to mind) acting like all the money we make automatically belongs to them and that we are simply allowed to keep what is left over after they have taken what they want from us as tax. Government needs to be reminded that they serve US, not the other way around.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[toQDuj]

I agree. The Government has been stupid enough to try to spend more and at the same time cut taxes. This implies that they have been spending your money and a little more on state projects (roads account for a large portion of that, and defense). Now they need to cash in on the check you gave them when you voted for their tax cuts.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, so every bit of government spending must be regained in taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes, give up your citizenship and enjoy none of its benefits. That is up to you.

The way this looks from Europe is that Americans (yes I am talking about all Americans, save for a few level-headed ones) have spent way more money than they will ever earn, both personally as well as through the government. Now the card house is coming down and you will either have to pay up or suffer the wrath of your biggest lender: China.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[$1uck]

Citation? Everything I've witnessed the "tax protests" were all carefully orchestrated by the GOP. Additionally they were rather retarded attempt to criticize the current administration which wasn't in any way shape or form responsible for the taxes being paid on the day of protest. Its even more ironic to not that since the tax policies of the current administration have actually gone into effect, my taxes have gone DOWN.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[Lemmy Caution]

The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms. I have to blame the right for this: they want all the populist cachet of always-lowering-taxes, but they don't have the balls to actually cut any programs.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[Lemmy Caution]

Like I say above, deficit spending is the right thing to do during a recession; it's the unpopular step of raising taxes (pissing off the right) and lower spending (pissing off the left) during a boom that is politically more difficult.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd remove that tin foil hat of yours, you might have seen pictures of kids waving signs showing how much in debt they're in. Now, you might say "when do kids pay taxes?". They don't, not for income or the like. The problem is that, when they get out of school, and get a job, 8-10 years down the road, they'll going to have to pay for the massive spending going on *NOW*, under *THIS PRESIDENT* and *THIS CONGRESS*. The debt is projected to increase by trillions over the next few years. Somebody has to pay it off.

That's the problem many of the tea party protestors are focusing on. Sure, April 15 is over for taxable year 2008. But there's 2009, 2010, and beyond. And someone has to pay off this debt. Government may have bailed out failing banks, mortgages, and who knows what else, but once they money comes due, somebody has to pay for it. That's why they're out there.

** Please note, when I say THIS CONGRESS, I mean just about every one of them in there, all parties, who threw fiscal responsibility to the wind. And gave themselves a nice payraise to boot.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[toQDuj]

The bad thing is that during the previous boom, they did not raise taxes but continued their deficit spending spree. Now the trouble bites.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[ravenshrike]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Susan Roesgen is actually stupid enough to believe what she was saying.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[RobotRunAmok]

Citation?

oh, please. Push yourself away from Internet message boards for a day and join the real world.

My wife works for a radio station. She had to cover this as a news story, so she reached out to the organizers of the local protests and found their party affiliation to be pretty much split down the donkey/elephant middle -- especially since we live deep inside a "blue state." Her colleagues at other radio outlets owned by the same corp concurred: not left, not right, just angry people.

But, because it's anti-government, the pro-government shills worked overtime to paint it as some kind of partisan conspiracy. Much the same way the government shills tried to portray the anti-war protests as being manipulated by pro-left media outlets.

Y'know, as scary as the right-wing lockstep horse-blindered jack-booters were under Bush -- and they were pretty scary -- the lefty apologists are shaping up to be no less the fascist tools. I guess, as the man said, "power corrupts."

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[RobotRunAmok]

Um, people in the US actually show a higher approval rating for their government than they have in years.

Eight years, specifically. The last time a US president's approval rating were as high as Obama's was 100 days into Bush's first term.

Considering how that presidency ended, I'm not sure I'd use that fact as the basis for any pro-Obama argument.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everything I've witnessed the "tax protests" were all carefully orchestrated by the GOP"

Citation?

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[falconwolf]

we are sick of these politicians (People like Barney Frank and Pelosi especially come to mind)

More like Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes. As much as I didn't like Bill Clinton at least he turned the national deficit from the biggest one to a small one. Bush Jr took the deficit back into the stratosphere.

Falcon

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[falconwolf]

The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms.

Yes, and one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited. The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it. The lower taxes are the higher economic activity is which increases tax revenues.

Falcon

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

I'm not saying that Bush II did everything right, but Obama has made the deficit much worse by continuing the bailouts and pushing that huge Omnibus bill. All of that can be laid directly at the democrats' feet. (the republicans aren't much better, but they weren't in power when all this happened) The US is probably going to end up defaulting on that debt since there is no feasible way to pay if off. They can try to raise taxes to do it, but all that is going to do is reduce everyone to peasant status.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

laffer curve is only valid for extremely high tax rates (>~60% marginal)

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

as one of the most fiscally "conservative" senators recently said "attempting to balance the budget during a recession is not adviseable" (or something along those lines)

the last time we were in this situation and we ignored it we ended up in the great depression, in the long run these LOANS the government cranked out will probably turn a profit.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

Obama is not conservative. Not even close.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

actually im fairly certain it was Fox news doing all that they coudl to take ownership of the movement that gave it the right-wing stench, nothing any major democrat did.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

Massive pork spending (The Omnibus bill had little else in it) and bailing out companies that should already be dead due to their own mismanagement is not going to help us in the long run. The money was given to the banks to loan out to people, but the banks did other things with it instead. (the AIG execs went out and had a lavish party) The whole reason for the housing crash in the first place is that the democrats forced the lenders to loan money to people who any sane lender would tell you could not afford a house.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[JCSoRocks]

I think you're missing my point. You aren't just taxing Google. You are taxing the people that are trying to advertise through Google. Which means they'll either choose to run fewer ads or they'll choose to the run the same number and make up for it by charging more for their products. People buying these products are the ones actually getting taxed.

In America income tax makes up the vast majority of government income. I would venture to guess that it's the same in the U.K. Like I said, the government is getting less money because gobs of people are unemployed / making less money. That's the way it should work. Not, "oh, so sad you're unable to pay us like you usually do, let's find a new way to tax you instead."

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

pork accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget.

unless you define "anything but military spending" as pork, but then I cannot help if someone is nutso.

I'm not saying the banks misbehaved, in fact pretty much everybody (congress and POTUS included) say they did. We were left with three choices

A) let them fail and probably end up in Great Depression 2.0
B) give them low-interest loans till they can recover and pay us back [what we did] even knowing that to a certain extent they're going to be douchnozzles with some of it
C) nationalize them to prevent their failure

we choose B.. with B we need to add B-prime which is
B-prime) reinstate the post-Great Depression banking regulations which had stopped the "boom and bust" cycle until they started to get dismantled in the 80s by Reaganomics.

it was a no-win situation.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwfffff]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

I'm not talking about the normal budget. How do you explain some of the things that were in the Omnibus Bill as anything but pork? Off the top of my head, I remember the Omnibus setting money aside for dirt trail maintenance, a study on using pig waste as fertilizer, and subsidizing wooden arrow manufacturers. There's a whole lot more than that. How is all that essential for economic recovery?

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

A) let them fail and probably end up in Great Depression 2.0

If the bad banks fail, then only the good banks would be left. Many of the smaller local banks are doing fine while the big multi-region banks are the ones who are in trouble. (Citi, Bank of America, WaMU, etc.) The problem with your "B" option is that if banks can count on getting a bailout every time they screw up, then there's no reason for them to change how they do things.

If a bank takes a bailout, you would have to be a damn fool to trust that bank ever again.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[Bryansix]

Its even more ironic to not that since the tax policies of the current administration have actually gone into effect, my taxes have gone DOWN.

How long do you think that will last when the current administration has expanded Government spending more in the first 100 days then any administration in the history of the United States? Of course they don't care because by the time America is about to go bankrupt the current administration will be safely out of office and free from any of the affects of censure or political pressure. In addition raising taxes on Business (Which Obama promises to do) effectively does tax the worker. If I have to explain why then you need a lot more help then I can offer.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

i'm not saying there was no pork, im saying that you're blowing it massively out of proportion.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

yes if there are banks "Too big to fail", that is why i mentioned the regulations - those prevented
A) banks too big to fail
B) banks getting into the situation they just got themselves into

if you let the banks fail you're have A, gauranteed. You don't want A. A is WWAAAY worse than B.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

Fox was the only channel that covered the protests adequately. CNN and the others had their own agenda. Remember the CNN reporter claiming on-site that the tax protests were anti-government, anti-CNN, and not suitable for family viewing? The media tends to be biased in one way or the other, but that was BLATANT.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

i'm not saying there was no pork, im saying that you're blowing it massively out of proportion.

How so? The whole piece of legislation was nothing but everyone's pet projects from the past 8 years or more. Pork is bad enough in good times, but this was just inexcusable in a recession. Pelosi and friends urged everyone in congress to get this thing passed while knowing full well what was in it.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[pwizard2]

Nothing is too big to fail. Falling for that mentality just supports a broken status quo. If the big players were removed, the smaller banks would have more room to grow. If a company can't stay viable, then it should die. It's strange how people here criticize the governemnt-supported measures taken to prop up the RIAA/MPAA business models but welcome government intervention in banks. It's all the same thing, really.

The bailouts are nothing but an excuse to nationalize the banks. I hate dealing with the private sector because I have to agree to their terms, but I hate dealing with the government far more. By taking the bailouts and the various TARP funds, the government would get power over the banks to some extent. Many banks who tried to return the TARP funds have been refused and would have to pay back more than they were given. This is just a power grab, plain and simple.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[shutdown -p now]

The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it.

It also illustrates that decreasing taxes can also reduce revenue, so your point is?..

The trick is in finding the point at which revenue is the highest. So far as I know, the consensus is that it's definitely above the existing tax levels in the U.S.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[falconwolf]

How so? The whole piece of legislation was nothing but everyone's pet projects from the past 8 years or more. Pork is bad enough in good times, but this was just inexcusable in a recession. Pelosi and friends urged everyone in congress to get this thing passed while knowing full well what was in it.

And here I always thought the Bridge To Nowhere was supported by a republican. Former Sen Ted Stevens wasn't a Republican? Or didn't he not support it?

Falcon

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[falconwolf]

The Laffer curve illustrates that increasing taxes can actually reduce revenue not increase it.

It also illustrates that decreasing taxes can also reduce revenue, so your point is?..

That "raising spending and lowering taxes during booms" may not have caused to current recession or budget deficit.

Falcon

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[mdmkolbe]

So far as I know, the consensus is that it's definitely above the existing tax levels in the U.S.

You got a cite for that? Otherwise, as far as I know the consensus is that it's definitely below the existing tax levels in the U.S.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

you keep ignoring the effect of their failure, that's dishonest.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

he was a republican, he did support it. Republicans don't admit that their party are the bigger porksters.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

Fox News SPONSORED no less than four of those protests. If you want to cite your claims on CNN I'm more than happy to believe them - CNN is a slight-right of center (by RATIONAL definitions of center, not the american definition of "between conservative and ultraconservative") which very little bias according to reputable research (like Pew) whereas Fox has a well documented and clear bias with measurable results in the manipulation of it's audience.

Assuming I'm a big fan of CNN because I dislike Fox is a pretty big mistake. Crying "liberal media" is a bigger one. Read some academic studies.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

The congressional budget office, which in 2005 placed us on the curve where a X reduction in total tax due to decrease in marginal tax rate only spurs enough growth to regain .28X of that back.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[LordKazan]

so you're arguing against a claim that nobody here made?

Sure the OP of that statement's analysis is extremely overly simplistic - but it is accurate.

lower marginal tax rates and higher spending help stimulate the economy in a downturn.

in a boom higher marginal tax rates are sustainable without harming the economy.

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[winwar]

"The government needs to learn to live within its means."

How? Almost all people want the government to do things for them. However not all people want it to do the same thing (except maybe some entitlements). Which means it spends alot of money on many things.

"Taking more of our money is not an option."

Sure it is. If you don't want to (or are unable to) cut the budget then it is really the only choice....

Re:Taxes have that effect on people

[kabocox]

The last time a US president's approval rating were as high as Obama's was 100 days into Bush's first term.
Considering how that presidency ended, I'm not sure I'd use that fact as the basis for any pro-Obama argument.

Well, what's Obama had to put up with? Swine Flu? How would you compare that to 9/11, Katrina, and Wall Street going under? I'm reserving all judgment on him until after he is out of office and that we've seen what kinda of real chaos that he can handle. So far he hasn't been stressed. If in 4 years nothing major pops up, he will get another.

I'd find it sad that he'd be labeled a great president just because nothing majorly unexpected happened in 8 years that he had to take care of. Bush would have been labeled an o.k. to good president if nothing unexpected had popped up.

new government

[Anonymous Coward]

Man this shows how grossly mismanage the government is. They spend and dont make. Governments by design are the serve the peoples interest. Seems like the people need to overthrow there own governments to figure out where the money is going to so they can cut the crap spending.

Now about public tv, they could easily run bbc tv on youtube. i wouldnt mind that or veoh which is abit faster than youtube.

Reality Check

[mpk]

* This is the Daily Mail - a notoriously unpleasant and right-wing newspaper which leaps at any chance to run "shock horror" stories about things like this even if they aren't actually necessarily 100% true, because it sells newspapers to their target market (right-wing anti-government types).

* The Daily Mail doesn't like the BBC either.

* "Ministers are considering" is generally code for "Someone suggested this in passing". It doesn't mean at all that there's any actual policy there or anything else. Hell, it might just mean someone talked to someone in the pub who suggested it in passing.

In summary, take this story with a pinch of salt. It might become a more concrete proposal at some point in the future, but I think that'd be unlikely.

Re:Reality Check

[jpmorgan]

It's still worth raising hell over, just in case someone does think it's a good idea. This is Labour we're talking about, a government notoriously fond of the shotgun approach to taxation.

I for one, would rather not rely on the good intentions of politicians.

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Labour government lets leaks like this out on purpose to guage the media and public reaction. If it's ferocious enough they'll say "there were never any official plans for this anyway" and blame the newspapers. Otherwise they try and implement their dumb policies (won't even attempt to name them all, but I'm sure you know some of the few hundred I'm talking about).

Re:Reality Check

[Sockatume]

Things ministers have "considered" and things the Daily Mail in particular reports they have considered. No point here, it's just interesting how often the term is used, especially when it's something controversial. Like science, it's never "John Smith", the newspapers preferring to imply that the entire profession says/thinks so.

Re:Reality Check

[Cathbard]

"Humphrey? Couldn't we divert the press's attention by leaking that idiot proposal to tax Google?"

"Yes, Minister"

Re:Reality Check

[Lemmy Caution]

That's exactly the secret of the Daily Mail hit-pieces, too. "Considering" is such a vague word, as is "ministers." What it could mean is that some little old lady from their constituency wrote a letter to their PM, the PM responded, politely, that they were "considering" their suggestion, and *boom*, the Daily Hate makes it sound like the legislation is on the way.

For those who think this keeps the "gummint" in line: what if we did this to corporations. "Oil industry executives are considering using human remains as a fuel source." "Pharmaceutical industry heads are considering a plan to get doctors to prescribe heroin to kindergarteners."

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

The "target market" of the Mail are about as unpleasant as the paper. Birds of a feather etc.

Re:Reality Check

[zakeria]

Your 100% correct! but what people fail to realize is it's the BBC that causes all these problems with the Internet in the UK, after all it's the biggest racket in the UK. Down with the BBC why the hell should I also have to pay for a license for the BBC when I never watch anything on any of there shitty channels and I don't even want them on my sky package but their forced down your throat anyhow WTF!!!!

Re:Reality Check

[Attila Dimedici]

So, from the above comments, I take it that the Daily Mail is like the New York Times, except in the opposite direction?

Re:Reality Check

[Budenny]

You have never ridden the London subway system in the rush hour. Daily mail readers are just a cross section of normal British people. It has lots of pages on issues that are important to women, so family, education, health. It is a tabloid, so its not always the greatest journalism, its not always accurate - but what tabloid is? But its just a pretty ordinary British paper, that has been demonized by the British Left.

There are really three levels. The most responsible are Times, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph. So called Broadsheets.

Below that, but not at the bottom, you'd have the Mail and Express.

At the bottom you'd have the out and out tabloids complete with topless girls on page 3. Mirror, Sketch, Record and so on.

There are still decent regional papers. Eastern Daily Press, Scotsman, for instance. The Scotsman is actually a national Scottish paper, and on the same level as the other broadsheets. The Evening Standard is a London afternoon edition paper, also read on the Underground. It might rank about with the Mail.

In terms of political orientation, Mail, Express, Evening Standard are decidedly right wing, mainly anti-Labour and pro Conservative. Guardian and Independent are left of center, the Guardian being the house organ of New Labour. The Telegraph is the house organ of the Conservative Party. The Times endorsed Labour at the last election, but is probably by nature Conservative. You could call it independent, though Guardian readers would choke at that. The Mirror is left and a strong Labour supporter.

Don't knock Mail readers. They are the swing voters who elected New Labour. They are also the swing voters who are about to kick it out.

Re:Reality Check

[Anonymous Coward]

While the above might be true both the BBC and Ireland's license fee funded RTÉ wanted computers taxed as they were deemed capable of receiving television programmes.

Re:Reality Check

[jez9999]

Like science, it's never "John Smith", the newspapers preferring to imply that the entire profession says/thinks so.

Just thought I'd add, the BBC themselves are almost always guilty of doing this too.

Many BBC stories start with an assertion, followed by an 'according to scientists', or soemthing. It's not until the body of the report that you hear it was X scientists who are in a small minority.

Re:Reality Check

[Bryansix]

You miss the point entirely. A good WHOOSH is in order here. The point is that if Politicians even THINK that way then they are seriously f'd up in the head and the public needs to put them in their place!

Re:Reality Check

[mpk]

The point I was making (and read other comments to this) is that it's actually entirely possible that politicians *aren't* in fact thinking like this - it just makes a good story for the Mail. Giving a good "whoosh" every time someone thinks there's a faint chance a politician might want to do something they wouldn't approve of would turn into a full-time job for most people - if this actually turns into a proposal it'll be made public, and that's when the actual political process (Parliament, etc) kicks off.

Re:Reality Check

[Bryansix]

Actually by the time an idea makes it to a proposal it's already to late. The public doesn't get a time to comment on the proposal and it will be rammed through before people even know what hit them. The first time many people hear about new laws is when they are being brought up on charges of breaking them or when they get the bill.

A good example of this is the latest "stimulus" (more like spending non-existent money)bill that got rammed through in the United States. Not only did the public not get a chance to read it but most of congress didn't read it either.

Google for google's tax position.

[auric_dude]

Some would suggest that Google is avoiding paying taxes that are due to the UK exchequer http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/20/google-uk-tax-avoidance so let them do no evil.

Re:Google for google's tax position.

[6031769]

Just to clarify, tax avoidance != tax evasion.

Tax avoidance is the task of structuring one's affars to pay less tax than would otherwise be due. Therefore, anyone with a pension is "guilty" of tax avoidance (for example).

What Google have done is to structure their affairs so that the bulk of the tax which they pay is due in a regime with less punitive taxation. It's a global marketplace, so more power to them for that.

It's also worth pointing out for the non-UK readership that the British system of taxation is so labyrinthine and obfuscated that it makes Vista look like a well-designed, efficient, sleek system. Half the GDP seems to go to HMRC to enforce this crock of a system while the other half goes to expensive accountants to help folks (both ordinary and extraordinary) navigate it. If the government of the day really wanted to help us out of the mess they have got us into, they would simplify taxation rather than enacting more legislation to further overcomplicate it.

Don't worry - there's only 13 more months to go.

Re:Google for google's tax position.

[tcr]

Tax avoidance isn't evil, or even illegal. Evasion is a different issue.

Rumor is...

[narfspoon]

A homeless man claiming to be a "time-traveler" was arrested for failing to pay back taxes.
He claims to have repaid them fully in the year 2010.

The stolen police box he lived in was returned to the London Police.

Stupidity has no limits

[Juan Rey]

Now it has been officially proved

Finalleee!

[linhares]

Taxes at your fingertips.

Gotta love this digital age. for (x=0;xTotalPagesInDatabase;x++) {p:=IndexedPage[x]; if (p.domain=uk) p.pagerank=0;}

Re:Finalleee!

[jonaskoelker]

if (p.domain=uk)

Suddenly, with big a whooshing sound, the whole World Wide Web moved to the United Kingdom.

Re:Finalleee!

[dodobh]

map { page.pagerank = 0, (www.google.com/search?q=uk) } ;

This is Google after all, they would use map();

Also, if this is a page in a database, UPDATE indexed_pages SET pagerank = 0 WHERE domain = 'uk';

But..

[anonieuweling]

Google does not display advertisements here due to adblock etc.
So I don't have to pay if I were Brittish?

Re:But..

[Cathbard]

I actually forgot that Google had ads until I was using chrome with no adblocker on somebody's windows box the other day. In fact the whole experience was rather disconcerting in general (and not just because I was using windows). One tends to forget that the internet is full of ads when one is used to adblock and/or privoxy. The internet episode of futurama makes more sense now. lol

Prepare your pinch of salt...

[NoNeeeed]

This is a story from the Daily Mail, a rag that makes Fox news look like quality journalism, a notorious hater of the BBC, and a supporter of the Conservative party (the current opposition).

Also, the story is based almost entirely on quotes from a member of the opposition.

So while I'm no fan of the current government (oh how I wish they would just give up and resign), this is almost certainly not what it appears.

It is pretty common for civil servants to come up with a bunch of ideas, most of which fail the giggle test or a chucked out almost immediately, but are included to that they can say they considered the options thoroughly.

This idea only just passes the giggle test and has probably been discounted, but is being revived by the opposition and the Daily Fail to help stir up their frothy-mouthed readers.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty common for civil servants to come up with a bunch of ideas, most of which fail the giggle test or a chucked out almost immediately, but are included to that they can say they considered the options thoroughly.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the ultimate objective of every politician's endless stream of "new ideas" isn't recognition or even re-election, but simply money. At the top of the power pyramid, as long as money passes through your hands, you win. For a limited time, you own the chance to exploit that revenue for your own gain. It doesn't matter if you "succeed" or "fail" -- what matters is that money passes through your hands.

There's a reason why all governments only get more expensive over time, and it's not because the people in the business of government are primarily concerned with recognition or re-election. Those are only stepping stones to the real goal, which as history shows, is simply money.

Did I just commit the cardinal sin of suggesting that government works in self-interest, just like everybody else? You're damn right I did.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm in agreement - doubt this will ever see the light of day.

But as regards some of the more loony anti tax statements in this thread, people should note that tax from corporations is needed to fund healthcare, education and assistance for those in need.

We don't abandon the poor in this country and that's down to tax. If someone does business here, or profits from being here, they should pay their fair share towards the country. It is a moral obligation and one that only the most selfish and money grabbing of people argue against.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly slightly bewildering for US readers, who may not be aware of the existence of the Outraged of Tunbridge Wells types that inhabit the Mail, but the page here should give an idea of the Mail mentality.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[mrsmiggs]

I honestly can't believe this article is even being discussed, there is absolutely no substance in the story at all. It's typical a typical Daily Fail story, when there's nothing to hate make something up. It's so ridiculously easy to spot, here's a quick checklist.

The 'idea' is so clearly unworkable and they provide so few details as to how it might be function to leave it entirely up to the imagination of the reader as to how it might work.

The opposition MP they quote isn't even talking about the non-existent proposal, he's talking about something only tenuously related to the issue at hand.

The non-political expert in this case from Google appears completely bemused by the story.

There's absolutely no quotes from a minister, ruling party mp, or government advisor with any clout in the area and to top that the low ranking spokesman who put their looney tunes story to flatly denied it. Then of course he would deny it, he works for the government they're all in on the conspiracy to tax is into oblivion.

The run a story like this everyday if even half of them were true; I'd be taxed 110% of my income.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[jez9999]

This is a story from the Daily Mail, a rag that makes Fox news look like quality journalism

This story may itself not come to fruition (hopefully), but I really wish people like you would stop spreading this bullshit. The Daily Mail is NOT worse than fucking Fox News. It's got some bullshit, and some decent stuff in it. It's a tabloid, FFS, what do you expect? ... and it's not even the worst one.

If they hate the BBC (and I've read some pieces in there that seem to suggest otherwise; papers have stuff in them written by people with more than one opinion, you know?), it's because of the outdated, anachronistic tax used to fund it, and I for one support their opposition of the licence fee 100%. They are correct.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[VJ42]

Some?
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

At least the Sun doesn't even pretend to try and the Mirror would be half decent if it wasn't so pro-Labour in it's political stance. Even the Express is better quality than the Mail, despite it's Diana fixation. Name a worse tabloid.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Englishman who's lived in the US nearly 3 years now, and traveled to a lot of other places too.

The BBC license fee is one the most necessary 'taxes' I am aware of - as it funds (directly, no less) one of the greatest institutions in the world. I always had a vague idea of the importance of the BBC growing up, but it's only when you leave the country and actually live with the complete shit that passes for TV elsewhere that you truly realise the magnitude of what they do, and also why it needs to continue.

They are not perfect, no doubt, and some of the salaries talentless fools like Jonathan Ross get paid are indecent, but overall the net gain is way, way positive. One of the few forces holding Britain back from the abyss is the BBC, and I guarantee you that within five years of the BBC losing its charter England will be a fascist state. You only have to look at Blair and Campbell during the Iraq war runup to see how furious they were at being called out on their bulshit - I didn't see FOX news UK (aka ITN) doing much of that.

If you want to have 50% of your hour filled with adverts, shows that are basically product placement vehicles themselves, and wholly biased fluff passed off as news, then by all means keep your TV set to '3', or move to the US. Just leave the BBC alone.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an Englishman who's lived in the US nearly 3 years now, and traveled to a lot of other places too.

The BBC license fee is one the most necessary 'taxes' I am aware of - as it funds (directly, no less) one of the greatest institutions in the world.

PROTIP: Stay out of the midday sun.

Re:Prepare your pinch of salt...

[jez9999]

Nonsense.

TV in the UK is, IMHO, utter shit now. The BBC has seriously gone downhill in the last 10 years to the point where I could easily live without ANY of their programming output. As far as I'm concerned, their news IS biased. I will not 'leave the BBC alone' until it leaves me alone and lets me watch other TV without paying it protection racket money.

A Conservative proposing new Taxes?! Madness!

[Alzheimers]

What kind of bizzaro-land is this, where the Conservatives are proposing new taxes? I thought that was strictly the realm of the Liberals!

Re:A Conservative proposing new Taxes?! Madness!

[ducomputergeek]

It's called Europe. Where liberals are conservatives and conservatives are liberals.

Department of culture, media, and sport?

[Mister_Stoopid]

Is is just me or does the very existence of the department of "culture, media, and sport" indicate a government gone off track?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Only thing left is a tax on taxes....

[nicodoggie]

Things going the way it is now, it's just a matter of time until the UK government starts asking people to pay 10% tax every time they pay taxes...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why Not Just Advertising?

[Bob9113]

Why specify online advertising? Why not tax advertising in general?

Advertising is hypothetically good because it increases the quality of information available to the consumer to make purchasing decisions. In practice, it typically does the opposite -- creating artificial demand -- particularly in industries like medicine and law where it is more difficult for the customer to be informed. It still serves a purpose, but it does have a negative external cost to society in reducing the quality of purchasing decisions. So, recapture that external cost the same way we recapture the external cost of pollution. A tax is a way to offset the negative externality.

More simple option; just remove advertising from deductible expenses.

See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Disclaimer: I work in the advertising industry, and a tax on advertising like I propose would actually hurt the company I work for. So, selfishly, I'd rather you ignore the rational basis for this post.

Re:Why Not Just Advertising?

[vic-traill]

Good God, an interesting post that is actually moderated as such.

What are the odds of those planets coming into alignment on /.? Should we head for the slots?

Re:Why Not Just Advertising?

[garett_spencley]

"So, selfishly, I'd rather you ignore the rational basis for this post."

There's no shred of rationality in anything that you presented.

First of all, all human rights are property rights. If the government makes a claim to a person's property, even a percentage of it, then there is no more basis for individual rights. In other words, you can not claim to protect rights while at the same time infringing on them. A person cannot have a "right" to the productive efforts of others. Thus taxes are irrational and immoral.

Secondly, there is a demand for advertising. Not just as a consumer good (information) but as a higher order good (a factor of production). So long as there is demand there is value, and I ask you: who are you to make the claim that every individual that finds value in advertising is an irrational fool ?

Advertising does create demand for a consumer good, but only in the sense that people cannot desire something that they do not know exists. With regards to truth in advertising, I argue that deception in advertising is fraud and thus an infringement of property rights, since it's the transfer of ownership under false pretenses (coercive deception).

Very little production would be possible without advertising. Only those goods absolutely essential for basic survival would be produced, and then competition would be impossible since there would be no vehicle to inform the public of a competitor. Less competition and less production would lead to a lower standard of living for absolutely everyone. Not just in the sense that we would have to forgo "creature comforts", but under the premise that abundance lowers costs, giving people more for less and freeing them to discover and pursue further wants never before imagined. I question the moral sanctity of anyone who asserts that this is "a bad thing".

I will add that I sympathize with everyone who is annoyed by intrusive advertising. There are far more appropriate, and effective ways to deliver information to a consumer who is seeking it than by bombarding them with ads for products that they're not interested in while they're doing activities that are not consistent with learning about new products. Condemning advertising in general, however, is a total logical absurdity. Even if it is demonstrable that under certain circumstances people find that a product was misrepresented or that they did not do adequate research before making a purchasing decision.

Re:Why Not Just Advertising?

[Bob9113]

Your post is clearly well-constructed, but I think there are gaps. In the hope that you are a rationalist, I would like to pose some counterpoints. If your views are dogmatic in nature, you can safely ignore this response.

First of all, all human rights are property rights. If the government makes a claim to a person's property, even a percentage of it, then there is no more basis for individual rights. In other words, you can not claim to protect rights while at the same time infringing on them. A person cannot have a "right" to the productive efforts of others. Thus taxes are irrational and immoral.

Zero taxes implies zero government. That system is well studied, and popularly misunderstood, and named anarchy.

While I like the idea of true freedom, the problem with anarchy is free riders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

Your post is sufficiently intelligent that if you openly consider the free rider problem, I believe you will understand why it necessarily implies that anarchy is suboptimal.

who are you to make the claim that every individual that finds value in advertising is an irrational fool ?

I am no one to do so, and I would not. Nor did I. If I held that position, I would propose banning advertising. As stated in my original post, there is value in advertising. Likewise, there is value in the processes which generate pollution. The problem is that there is also an external cost. If you are interested in understanding why those educated in free market economics almost universally support balancing of negative externalities, you will have to understand what externalities are. See the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Advertising does create demand for a consumer good, but only in the sense that people cannot desire something that they do not know exists.

That is not the only sense in which it creates demand. Pick up a few books on advertising, or try working in the industry for a while. A portion of advertising budgets is dedicated to informing the consumer. Another portion is for customer loyalty, such as branding campaigns. Still other portions are for casting doubt on competing products; some valid, some fabricated. There are many other objectives for ad campaigns, and most campaigns are hybrid in nature.

In short, to claim advertising is only used to inform is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of advertising. Claiming that advertising is always counterproductive would be equally uninformed.

Very little production would be possible without advertising.

You may be hypothesizing that all distribution of information about products is implicitly advertising. If that is the case, then I agree. If, however, we define advertising as a manufacturer or distributor messaging their potential customers, then your statement is not correct. There are many avenues for product information. The canonical advertising-free example is Consumer Reports. There are, of course, many hybrid solutions such as special interest magazines and websites which both distribute hypothetically objective product information and provide advertising space.

Moreover, I am not hypothesizing an end to advertising. What I am proposing is an end to taxpayer subsidization of advertising. You hypothesize anarchy above, even in that case, the deduction for advertising could be zero. It would just be that a deduction would be meaningless. I am not suggesting that advertising should be banned, only that corporations should not be allowed to reduce their tax burden (the proper level of which is a separate question) by writing off advertising expenses. We, the consumers, should not be subsidizing sponsored messaging.

Less competition and less production would lead to a lower standard of living for absolutely everyone.

This is a dangerous misunderstanding fostered by those who

So long, London.. nice knowing you!

[billcopc]

Is it just me, or do I get the funny feeling the UK will be nullrouted out of our existence Real Soon Now (tm) ?

It seems like every day, they come up with a new, dumber idea that harkens back to the turn of the century... back when the UK actually mattered in the global political arena. Today they're just a funny little piece of history, stuck in the past and fighting the future.

Re:So long, London.. nice knowing you!

[ydrol]

"our existence".. like no dumb stuff ever comes from anywhere else? Every Government in the world wants to tax the arse off the Internet. They are just trying to figure out how.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

would google pay them?

[sanosuke001]

What would force Google into paying these taxes? All I could see is it pushing Google out of that area. It's not like the physical location of their servers affects connectivity (though, the UK's filtering plans might hurt)

But, if Google just moves out of the UK (if they are even there at the moment) what would make them pay the tax at all? I'd move out just to show them how shortsighted and stupid they were...

Is there nothing they will go after?

[falconwolf]

Depending on who "they" are. Socialists don't like businesses making a profit whereas others want to dictate people's personal lives.

Falcon

Don't make them angry

[slapout]

One year from now. Somewhere in the UK.

"I just googled for that new BBC show and got no hits..."

Re:Don't make them angry

[ionix5891]

or even better

"Dear user, google.co.uk is not available in your country (UK) as your government has gone off the rails (completely), please send your complaints to #10@swinefarm.co.uk"

Re:Don't make them angry

[sa1lnr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/

Who needs google for BBC shows on iPlayer?

Not news

[xaxa]

The article is from the Daily Mail, hardly a good source. For instance: "It is thought, however, that the money, supposedly earmarked for broadband services, would also go to boost public service broadcasters."
Translation: The Daily Mail wanted an anti-BBC headline to support their political stance, so they made shit up.

The last sentence in the article is the most useful: "A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform said: 'There are no plans to impose new taxes.'"

Get back to me when a real newspaper has an article on this.

Re:Not news

[TarrVetus]

The article is from the Daily Mail, hardly a good source.

While not another paper covering the same story, this does lend some weight to it.

I'm not a British citizen, though, so I don't know which papers are fraudulent this week.

Re:Not news

[MaggieL]

There will be no plans to impose new taxes until just before they are imposed.

Don't be silly, why would someone tax a successful business to support an unprofitable one? That wouldn't make sense.

Re:Not news

[megaditto]

Don't be silly, why would someone tax a successful business to support an unprofitable one? That wouldn't make sense.

You do realize that's exactly how all taxes work?

Re:Not news

[megaditto]

I am just going to whoosh myself...

Re:Not news

[Dogtanian]

While not another paper covering the same story, this does lend some weight to it.

Despite its former reputation as a newspaper of record, The Times is now- and has been for almost 30 years- a Murdoch-owned rag.

This is a man who, going by all available evidence, does not- and has never- believed in, stood for or supported *anything* that isn't in his own business interest.

Murdoch certainly isn't overly bothered about journalistic integrity, and he has been quite happy to repeatedly use one part of his business empire to promote or defend another; and The Times certainly hasn't been immune to this.

If The Times were to run an article attacking the BBC it would hardly be surprising- they've long been one of Murdoch's most consistent pet hates, mainly due to them standing in the way of his UK broadcasting ambition.

Re:Not news

[Ihmhi]

slashturbation v. The act of replying to yourself in a Slashdot thread.

Re:Not news

[Meski]

If The Times were to run an article attacking the BBC it would hardly be surprising- they've long been one of Murdoch's most consistent pet hates, mainly due to them standing in the way of his UK broadcasting ambition.

The only silver lining I see to this is that now Murdoch spreads his pet hates globally, insteaad of confining them to here in Australia.

growth

[falconwolf]

Growth industries, by definition, are those that can afford higher taxes.

Goreth industries grow because they don't have government breathing down their backs, that or they actually receive taxpayer money from the government.

Falcon

Re:growth

[falconwolf]

Ah, so growth industries never grow because they're innovative or finding a new niche; rather it's because they're not taxed.

Where did you read I said industries didn't grow because they innovate? I don't recall saying such as thing. Are you blowing smoke up people's ass?

Falcon

Your application for Statehood is accepted

[earlymon]

Dear UK,

In the USA, one of our states, New Mexico, only allowed the sale of lottery tickets under provision that a portion goes to the local horse racers and horse tracks - can't lose that gambling money. In another, Texas, they're trying to tax satellite TV because it costs less than cable and that's just unfair.

As soon as we heard that you're taxing Google to subsidize the BBC, your application was automatically generated and submitted to committee for review. Granted, you sort of fell through a logic loophole in our take-over-the-world software as it was never targeted at you, a close friend and ally.

However, given that you are now acting like us, we are no longer a people separated by a common language - we are one.

Welcome, as our 51st state!

If you'd like any advice on how to further your insane and incredible taxation of valid business to support pet projects, just ask!

Best regards,
The United States of America Club

Re:Your application for Statehood is accepted

[mjwx]

Best regards,
The United States of America Club

Next week we are considering the acceptance of Australia and Saudi Israeli.

On the condition that New Zealand and Tasmania secede as states of Australia.

Re:Your application for Statehood is accepted

[earlymon]

Most excellent points! Following that, New Zeeland would be free for induction, provided that stop hiding and simply - and truthfully - refer to themselves as Neu Neu Zeeland.

moving corporate headquarters

[falconwolf]

This is why international corporations are packing up and moving operations to countries with less regulation and less taxation

Just when "Obama Calls for New Curbs on Offshore Tax Havens".

Falcon

Re:moving corporate headquarters

[WCMI92]

Just when "Obama Calls for New Curbs on Offshore Tax Havens [nytimes.com]".

Which won't do a damn thing except cause American companies to become foreign companies (ie: change where they are incorporated).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Seriously...its about time....

[hesaigo999ca]

I was wondering what took so long, the brits are best at what they do, and what they do is TAX!
If I were to go over the history of taxation, you would see that for par, the brits hold the title for the most taxed items around....only to be outdone by the most creative taxing system, which falls unto New York State, for having a tax for fuel inefficiency AND for fuel efficiency...

ie- if you have a smart car and DONT use up gas, we have to tax you....!!!!

I tend to wonder, why Google though, or is this a search engine first, to be followed by
yahoo, aol, M$...etc.

BBC TV

[falconwolf]

The issue is that it is possible now to watch all of the BBC's programming on demand for a week after it is broadcast without having a TV. No TV=no TV license. And the BBC is trying to expand its tax into this new medium.

The BBC can easily change that. They just don't upload their shows for free downloads. They can either charge for downloads or stop offering them.

And I say that as an American who loves the BBC. I first got into it, and Pravda-Radio Moscow, in the '80 listening to them on shortwave.

Falcon

Re:BBC TV

[jabithew]

If they did allow subscription or microtransactions, then that would allow them to open iPlayer more widely. But it would cause TV-licence rebellion here because we'd be paying for the content twice. They'd have to scrap the TV licence. Doesn't sound too bad, but if you try to explain the concept to a BBC employee they look at you as though you've suggested they shag a chicken.

Re:BBC TV

[mdwh2]

They'd have to scrap the TV licence. Doesn't sound too bad, but if you try to explain the concept to a BBC employee they look at you as though you've suggested they shag a chicken.

If people are still paying the licence fee, it's not a problem if a few extra people also get hold of it through Iplayer for free. But yes, if they decide to switch to a subscription model, that would be their choice, and of course they should scrap the licence fee. If the BBC employee thinks that strange, they can stick with the licence method.

Re:BBC TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Give those who are paying for the license a free account.

Here in Denmark, they refused to do that, and convinced the politicians to make it so that anyone with an internet connection faster than 256 kbit has paying for a full TV license.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

why should advertizers pay tax to BBC?

[falconwolf]

Why would Google, or any other advertiser, pay taxes to fund a public broadcast station? I don't see other commercial advertisers doing this (note, I'm not from the UK)

I disagree with advertizers such as Google paying a tax for the BBC, but everybody that owns a TV in the UK has to pay a yearly TV tax that goes to the BBC. I don't want to give anyone an idea, but to keep with this line a tax would be on ISPs not advertizers.

Falcon

Re:why should advertizers pay tax to BBC?

[Nocturna81]

I disagree with advertizers such as Google paying a tax for the BBC, but everybody that owns a TV in the UK has to pay a yearly TV tax that goes to the BBC. I don't want to give anyone an idea, but to keep with this line a tax would be on ISPs not advertizers.

Falcon

It's the same here, although now it's part of the income tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#Netherlands. Hope they don't get the same bright ideas over here!

uh yeah...

[nicklott]

For the unenlightened the Daily Mail is about as reliable and non-partisan as the National Enquirer. Stories from them should be filtered at source.

OMG - Oh wait, it's a Daily Mail article

[jrq]

Come on, don't be posting Daily Mail infuriate-o-grams as stories.

Tories or Conservatives?

[falconwolf]

This government is actually moronic enough to make me wish the Tories were in power.

No, a better choice would be the Conservatives' Margaret Thatcher.

Fslcon

Re:Tories or Conservatives?

[LordKazan]

you can't be serious.... oh wait you already cited the laffer curve without the caution that it's only valid for certain ranges. Dude just the other week I thought you were a pretty reasonable guy and now here you are spouting stuff that only someone that's brain is switched off could believe.

Re:Tories or Conservatives?

[falconwolf]

you can't be serious....

Yes I was serious. If a reduction in regulations is what's wanted Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives is the party that will do that.

oh wait you already cited the laffer curve without the caution that it's only valid for certain ranges.

Yes, I cited the Laffer Curve, and there is no agreement on what ranges are valid for it. If you have a link that shows there is an agreement please share it, I am willing to change my beliefs, even if other slashdotters aren't.

Dude just the other week I thought you were a pretty reasonable guy and now here you are spouting stuff that only someone that's brain is switched off could believe.

An open and willing to learn mind is better than a closed mind.

Falcon

Re:Tories or Conservatives?

[LordKazan]

don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend.

The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate, and only noticable if you drop that tax rate significantly. If you let your top marginal tax rate fall below a certain level you then start to perform wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich as the rich gain more benefit per tax dollar than the poor.

Re:Tories or Conservatives?

[LordKazan]

The Laffer Curve also doesn't mean "lower taxes are better" it's about the tax rate which maximizes revenue above that rate you get a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rate is too high, below that rate and you are not utilizing your tax base to it's fullest.

A Study by the CBO in 2005 says that we're on the point of the Laffer curve (left side) where a tax reduction is only recuperated at a rate of about 28%. Ie you cut the tax rate by X and you get growth in the economy that only gets you a .28X increase in tax revenue. This would indicate that we're significantly below the maximum utilization point and therefore are on a part of the curve that does not support what you are trying to imply (that we should lower taxes).

Some economists estimate that the maximum utilization rate in the United States may be as high as 80%.
[I won't disagree with the idea that in the past we had marginal rates that crossed to the right side - like 90% marginal for the top bracket clearly goes there]

In fact the old soviet union was a prime example of operating on the right side of the LC - where the government was above it's maximum utilization point and was harming the economy.

This is all assuming that all of the assumptions of the Laffer Curve are valid - and while the Laffer curve, in general, seems to hold water it's extreme cases haven't been tested to see how well the entire curve holds up in real world situations.

And this is all information i easily could find just pulling up wikipedia and only listening to parts with citations.

reasonable in one way

[fuliginous]

My first thought was this government are desperate for cash but...

They are selling a service into each country in terms of the advertising so under local laws of each country it is reasonable to make them pay VAT on the product.

If they don't it actually has a competitive advantage over other advertising outlets.

This is in fact an entirely reasonable proposal...

[Budenny]

The way the BBC is funded is magnificent and the envy of the world. You can see this from the awed comments here and in other places. That said, like all magnificent things, it is still capable of improvements, and we in New Labour are always anxious to improve life in Britain. We usually do this by thinking things through.

In the present case, we notice that the way the BBC is funded is that everyone who watches any sort of TV, whether he or she watches the BBC or not, is obliged under penalty of fines and jail to subscribe to the BBC. This as we say is magnificent and the envy of the world. We understand that the US is considering the same way of funding GM. Anyone who buys a car will be obliged to donate a sum, probably 10% or so of the value of their purchase, to GM, whether they buy a GM car or not. But we digress. Well actually the same model is under consideration in Belgium, where Del Haize is to get a contribution from everyone who wants to buy groceries, which will be most people. We must move on though. But first can we just say that everyone is doing this, we lead the world, they are all following our example.

Anyway, great as the BBC and its funding model are, after long thought, we realize that yes, we can do better. How?

Well, the BBC operates web sites. Clearly, anyone who uses any sort of web site should be obliged to subscribe, or at least pay something, to the BBC. Therefore, we are going to have a tax on Internet use, some or all of whose proceeds will go to the BBC, for it to operate its public service web sites.

Do you see now how reasonable this is? That's good, we thought you would.

UK tax system is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived for more than couple of years in four different countries I can say that tax system in the UK is ridiculous, you got to pay tax for watching television ... sucks to be living in UK

paying taxes

[falconwolf]

There is no such thing as a free lunch, so every bit of government spending must be regained in taxes. You can choose not to pay taxes, give up your citizenship and enjoy none of its benefits.

Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.

Falcon

Re:paying taxes

[toQDuj]

Actually, I was thinking of stateless people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_person

Re:paying taxes

[falconwolf]

Except even "illegal aliens" or immigrants pay taxes. Allowing all immigrants to work but making them pay income taxes could help tax revenues. Having them pay into Social Security for instance without being able to collect SS may keep it from going bankrupt.

Actually, I was thinking of stateless people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_person

I hadn't thought of the stateless however even they pay taxes. The only way someone will not pay tax is if they are not part of a national or regional economy. For instance those lost tribes in Brazil and elsewhere.

Falcon

Wrong solution to problem

[Roger W Moore]

The issue is that it is possible now to watch all of the BBC's programming on demand for a week after it is broadcast without having a TV. No TV=no TV license. And the BBC is trying to expand its tax into this new medium.

Surely a more sensible solution to this would be to provide the service for an annual subscription? This is effectively what a TV license is afterall and it would be far, far easier to implement and enforce this on the web than it is for tellies. It might also allow us Brits living abroad to support the BBC.

Expect to see offshore advertising agencies sprout

[falconwolf]

At best, wouldn't those agencies have introduce a hike of their own?

If the competitors have no physical presence in the UK how will the UK collect taxes?

Falcon

Say NO to Tax.

[falconwolf]

They'll use this as an excuse to do it the first time and then it'll stay on come hell or high water. The only way to get rid of a tax is through revolution.

It's past tyme to throw another Boston Tea Party.

Falcon

Re:Expect to see offshore advertising agencies spr

[zarthrag]

Good question - but would it matter? I'd expect that those ads are directed towards users in the UK, so Google would still have to track it. I'd expect rates would change accordingly (as well as Google possibly taking issue with the practice in general).

Why is it "Not News"?

[DesScorp]

"The article is from the Daily Mail, hardly a good source."

Why aren't they a good source? They're the second best selling mainstream newspaper in Britain. You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

"Translation: The Daily Mail wanted an anti-BBC headline to support their political stance, so they made shit up."

Is that why they're not "a good source"? You don't like their editorial stance?

"The last sentence in the article is the most useful: "A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform said: 'There are no plans to impose new taxes.'""

Well, that settles it then. Politicians and government officials never lie, do they?

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[jrothwell97]

Well, let's take a look.

They've consistently reported anti-BBC headlines in the past and were largely responsible in bringing up the Sachsgate scandal from a mere bad-taste joke to an issue that led to the resignation of two senior members of the BBC and a suspension of the third.

The problems go deeper than that, however. I point you to Mail Watch, a website which does well to expose the figure massaging, lazy journalism and (at times) utter lies of the Mail's journalists and editors. For example, they recently ran a story about how a 'hacker had infiltrated a Home Office' web site when, in reality, an external site linked to from the Home Office's web site had had its domain registration expire and bought up by speculators, who hosted some dodgy images on there. It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt.

They also pander to their audiences regularly: for example, they have been caught campaigning both for AND against the HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine in different nations.

In short, even though the idea of a 'search engine tax' is laughable, the Daily Mail is in no way deserving of your trust. Q.E.D.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[xaxa]

"The article is from the Daily Mail, hardly a good source."

Why aren't they a good source? They're the second best selling mainstream newspaper in Britain. You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

The best-selling daily newspaper in Britain is The Sun. Here (NWS) is a "story" linked from their front page. They will have printed those pictures on Page 3. At least half of the stories on the (web) front page are about women (preferably topless), sport, celebrities (especially the Royal Family), and sex. A story about a topless sporting celebrity having sex with a member of the Royal Family is guaranteed front-page material for a week.

That's what sells in the UK, not accurate, in-depth news.

The Daily Mail doesn't have topless models but does have celebrities and royals (and more sport than the more serious papers).

Is that why they're not "a good source"? You don't like their editorial stance?

No. The Daily Telegraph has a similar political stance (UK right-wing), but I'll trust their reporting a lot more than the Daily Mail.

I would call the style of Daily Mail reporting inflammatory.

Compare the current front page headline articles (first few sentences):
Mail: "Six children at same school hit by deadly swine flu virus as British toll hits 27
Britain's toll from the deadly swine flu virus has hit 27 as nine new cases were confirmed by the Health Protection Agency. Seven children, five at the same school, were among the latest sufferers diagnosed with the killer disease."
Hit! deadly! hits! deadly! hit! sufferers! killer!

Telegraph: "Nine new cases of swine flu in Britain with five at one leading school
Nine new cases of swine flu have been confirmed in Britain with five of them at one of Britain's leading independent [private] schools. The outbreak happened among Year 7 pupils at Alleyn's School in Dulwich, south east London, which became the fourth UK school to be closed down because of the H1N1 virus. There are now 27 confirmed cases in the UK. Of the nine confirmed today seven were spread by person-to-person contact among people who had not travelled to Mexico or the US."
Cases, confirmed, outbreak.

Mail: "Despite fears a second 'wave' of the killer virus could erupt later this year, Hilary Benn admitted the disease looks less serious than first thought."
Ouch, criticising the politician for being cautious! The Telegraph's article on this isn't critical of anyone -- in fact, it seems to support the caution.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[cayenne8]

"At least half of the stories on the (web) front page are about women (preferably topless), sport, celebrities (especially the Royal Family), and sex. A story about a topless sporting celebrity having sex with a member of the Royal Family is guaranteed front-page material for a week."

Wow...if we could have newpapers like THAT over here in the US, I dare say, we'd not have a worry about them going out of business!! Subscriptions would skyrocket!!

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[mdwh2]

Why aren't they a good source? They're the second best selling mainstream newspaper in Britain.

Are you serious - lots of readers mean it must be reliable?

Generally any tabloid should be taken with a pinch of salt - the strange thing is though that whilst Slashdot would never cite any other UK tabloid (imagine stories from The Sun listed here?), for some reason people treat the Daily Mail as a serious newspaper and a reliable source.

You don't like their editorial stance?

You appear to not understand the difference between how good a source is, and what point of view it takes. There are sources that I may often disagree with, but still respect that they argue their point well, and do not scaremonger or spread misinformation. Then you have the tabloids that - even though sometimes I might agree with their point of view, I do not enjoy the way it is reported, nor am I sure at all if I can trust it.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[mdwh2]

And just to add:

Well, that settles it then. Politicians and government officials never lie, do they?

The whole source in the first place for this plan comes from the Government, so if they're untrustworthy, we don't have a source for the claim in the first place.

Not to say that they won't do it, but I'd be curious to see another source first.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[jonbryce]

The Telegraph is often called the Torygraph, because it supports the Conservative Party.

The Daily Mail is sometimes called the Daily Wail or the Daily Heil, and its political leanings are more towards the BNP.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[superwiz]

The last sentence in the article is the most useful: "A spokesman for the Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform said: 'There are no plans to impose new taxes.'"

Well, that settles it then. Politicians and government officials never lie, do they?

No, no, you meant "politicians and government officials never plan". </sarcasm>

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[kabocox]

It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt.It also overstates immigration figures, and employs Richard Littlejohn, who is a cunt.

I've never heard of this person before, but after reading this single sentence, I've mentally modded your post troll and moved on. I'm sorry, but you had a great post until you put in that level of name calling.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[jrothwell97]

There are no words strong enough to describe him. 'Cunt' doesn't even come close to describing this odious cretin. The words 'odious cretin' don't, either.

Re:Why is it "Not News"?

[palindrome]

Perhaps "cunt-shadow" but I think you're right. The English language isn't powerful enough to describe the "man".

my take

[falconwolf]

I think the UK should declare independence from the UK...that's just my take though.

My take is that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland should declare independence from the UK leaving England alone as part of the UK. Then Cornwall should declare independence and separate from England as well.

Falcon

taxes

[falconwolf]

Will the UK stop giving Obama and Pelosi ideas!!! I'm part of the 40% that do pay taxes in the US.

Everybody, including "illegal immigrants" pay taxes in the US.

Falcon

imagine the tax bill for live.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tax bill: 18 cents

Is this really what it seems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember where the UK government takes orders from?

Under the current circumstances New Labour are almost certain to loose the next general election so this matters not to their image. However, it can pay off as a PR stunt for the EU to improve their image to those 'orrible little Englanders.

The tax won't happen. The threat though will go to the point of getting everyone riled up then Brussels will step with some directive breach or other claim to save us all from our nasty national government. Score 1 EU, national government 0, making the 'ever closer union' to a federal Europe easier for the unwashed masses to accept.

"UK tries hardest to fuckup internet"

[Latinhypercube]

You have to realize that British Telecom did a lot of advanced research ahead of the internet revolution (adsl), then pissed it all away though INEFFICIENCY and NARROW-SIGHTEDNESS I guess nothing has changed.

Re:This is in fact an entirely reasonable proposal

[itsdapead]

The way the BBC is funded is magnificent and the envy of the world.

Indeed. Where would Slashdot be without Monty Python and the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

Anyone who buys a car will be obliged to donate a sum, probably 10% or so of the value of their purchase, to GM, whether they buy a GM car or not.

Probably fairer than funding it from general taxation, so that some of your money goes to GM even if you don't buy a car at all - no?

Well, the BBC operates web sites. Clearly, anyone who uses any sort of web site should be obliged to subscribe, or at least pay something, to the BBC.

Actually, you've hit the nail on the head. The license fee system has worked fairly well for years. What it can't survive, however, is the convergence of TV with PCs and the internet. Its one thing funding public service TV channels with a levy on dedicated TV sets (the BBC channels represent a significant chunk of the available TV channels - especially if you weight for quality) - its quite something else putting a levy on something more general-purpose like a computer (which has zillions of other uses) or the internet (an ocean in which the BBC is a drop). Personally, I think the BBC is doomed in the long run - which is rather sad.

Missing tag: goodluckwiththat

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if Google doesn't pay? Will they make a law that requires British ISPs to block them?

Sure, it's not that easy to shoot yourself in the foot this way, but if you succeed, you'll certainly take at least your whole leg with you.

Where to move to next

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the party's really over here in the US. The UK is a socialist/fascist nightmare the US will soon attempt to catch up to under Bush and now Obama.

Can anybody recommend a nice libertarian country where you can shake off these vampire bureaucrats for good?

UK Gov't are 100% clueless

[Dark$ide]

This is yet another item that shows that our useless Gov't are 100% clueless about how the internet works.

They already get 15% (VAT sales tax) when I buy something in the UK or Europe. They already get import duty on stuff from outside the EU.

They're also clueless on Internet advertising, I've not had unsolicited adverts for years, thanks to AdBlock and AdBlockPlus suppressing that crap.

I'm not saying that Bush II did everything right

[falconwolf]

The only thing Bush II did right was not sign Kyoto. He said some pretty words about some things like privatizing Social Security but there was no follow through. Unfortunately that's something I suffer from myself because of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I survived.

Obama has made the deficit much worse by continuing the bailouts and pushing that huge Omnibus bill. All of that can be laid directly at the democrats' feet. (the republicans aren't much better, but they weren't in power when all this happened)

Bush was president when he signed the Wall Street Bank bailout. I opposed both that bailout and the one Obama pushed for.

The US is probably going to end up defaulting on that debt since there is no feasible way to pay if off.

There is a way the government can service it's debt, without raising taxes. It can reduce the size of government. However neither the Democrats not the Republicans will agree to that until they are forced to.

Falcon

Great Depression

[falconwolf]

as one of the most fiscally "conservative" senators recently said "attempting to balance the budget during a recession is not adviseable" (or something along those lines)

the last time we were in this situation and we ignored it we ended up in the great depression

More like protectionism made the Great Depression worse and last longer than it would have otherwise. In 1930 government approved the protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act on imports. In retaliation other nations enacted their own protectionist laws. This caused the price of imports to rise and the amount of exports to decrease. People were asked to pay more with less money. Businesses went out of business, making unemployment skyrocket.

Falcon

housing and market crash

[falconwolf]

The whole reason for the housing crash in the first place is that the democrats forced the lenders to loan money to people who any sane lender would tell you could not afford a house.

It's rather simplistic to blame one political party for the housing and market crashes. Yes, Democrats wanted it to be easy for the poor to get mortgages but Republicans wanted to and did reduce regulations. Ken Lay and others at Enron were big supporters of Bush. Clear Channel, who wanted the FCC to loosen ownership of local media regulation, was also a big supporter of Bush.

Falcon

Re:housing and market crash

[LordKazan]

and the fact is that while we did force Fannie and Freddie to issue mortgages now called "subprime" it was the mortgages we forced them to issue that was the problem.. a majority of the loans they issued were suppose to be non-subprimes so that they could absorb what losses they incurred in subprimes. this system worked for a long time until the housing market boom and every body from the brokers who lied to the customer and the bank to the bank CEOs became greedy fucks and stop doing their jobs: risk management.

blaming the senate for anything other than deregulation in this situation is dishonest. You pointed that out to GP but I wanted to reiterate the point that it wasn't the senators fault in the design of Fannie and Freddie.

pork

[falconwolf]

pork accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget.

unless you define "anything but military spending" as pork

The level of military spending we have now is pork.

I'm not saying the banks misbehaved, in fact pretty much everybody (congress and POTUS included) say they did. We were left with three choices

A) let them fail and probably end up in Great Depression 2.0

Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks.

B) give them low-interest loans till they can recover and pay us back [what we did] even knowing that to a certain extent they're going to be douchnozzles with some of it

No good deed goes unpunished.

C) nationalize them to prevent their failure

Let them go bankrupt and or break them up so they're not "too big to fail".

Falcon

Re:pork

[LordKazan]

>The level of military spending we have now is pork.

that i agree with in spirit - but the technical definition of pork as used (misused?) by the media and senators doesn't include it

> Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks.

and in the mean time the entire economy goes to shit, i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it and then regulate the fuck out of them to prevent it from happening again. Those regulations do work, we just gutted them over the last 25-30 years.

> Let them go bankrupt and or break them up so they're not "too big to fail".

as for letting them die see previous, as for breaking them up - exactly.

Laffer Curve

[falconwolf]

laffer curve is only valid for extremely high tax rates (>~60% marginal)

There is no agreement for what level of taxes there should be. It's not simply a matter of high taxes. "The point at which the curve achieves its maximum is subject to much theoretical speculation."

Falcon

Re:Laffer Curve

[LordKazan]

and the best estimates say in the US That it might be as high as 80%

no matter what point the optimal point is the CBO has determined fairly reliably that we're left of that point of the curve, significantly. If you want to argue for tax reductions then do it, but atleast be honest and stop misrepresenting the Laffer Curve, you only do disservice to your own position.

Re:Laffer Curve

[LordKazan]

I'm NOT Saying the Laffer curve doesn't have an area in which what you are claiming is true, however it's downright dishonest to claim we're anywhere near it.

You're right, taxes CAN be too high: I never disagreed with that idea. I agree with that idea, only an idiot wouldn't. However CBO reports indicate that we're nowhere near that. Not only is the top-level marginal tax rate only around 36% but very few rich people pay anywhere near that much as they can afford lawyers to exploit every tax loophole.

Re:Laffer Curve

[LordKazan]

as cited by wiki http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf

I have an idea...

[Adeptus_Luminati]

Have google turn off the search engine to the UK for 1 business day and then let's see if they still want to tax google.

I'll start voting when governments stop getting in the way.

Good question - but would it matter?

[falconwolf]

If the competitors have no physical presence in the UK how will the UK collect taxes?

I'd expect that those ads are directed towards users in the UK, so Google would still have to track it.

Yeap, whereas those ad servers with no physical presence in the UK wouldn't have to, which would be to their advantage. They would be able to make more money charging the same rates than servers who have a presence in the UK and had to pay taxes.

I'd expect rates would change accordingly (as well as Google possibly taking issue with the practice in general).

Therein those who don't have to pay a tax will have an advantage.

Falcon

Great Depression II

[falconwolf]

i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it

I can't believe people think we're anywhere near having another great depression. One indicator of a depression is unemployment. The unemployment rate in the US is less than 10%, it was greater than 20% in the Great Depression. In 1933 unemployment peaked at 25%. And what caused it? Protectionism and protectionist laws.

Falcon

Re:Great Depression II

[LordKazan]

dont misrepresent my statements. you're smarter than that.

i said if we LET THEM. preventing bank failures while it bails out said douchebags mitigates the severity of the downturn. Te solution to this situation is
A) prevent rampant bank failures
B) reinstate the very effective regulations that prevented this from happening for 50 years before they started being gutted (almost immediately resulting in the Savings and Loan Crisis

When I was saying I cannot believe some people would let this happen it was two fold: first I cannot believe people were dumb enough to lift those regulations [actually I can, because the religion of the free market was involved], second I cannot believe people cant see past [the admittedly sucky fact] that we're having to bail out douchebags to save everyone else from worse.

PS the definition of depression is four consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage. we're had that - so this is a depression, even if we've PREVENTED it from becoming much much much worse with this "bailout"

Re:Great Depression II

[LordKazan]

oh PS unemployment was a SYMPTOM not a CAUSE. Don't confuse what the antecedent is.

From Wikipedia: "The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries."

Starting in 1929.. With the stock market crash. You cite unemployment 4 years later.

Re:Great Depression II

[falconwolf]

First, I'm going to combine my reply to this post with your other reply. First your first one:

dont misrepresent my statements. you're smarter than that.

Instead of saying:

"> Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks."

"and in the mean time the entire economy goes to shit, i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it and then regulate the fuck out of them to prevent it from happening again."

If you did not mean I was one of those who would allow us to do into another Great Depression you could have said that, but you didn't.

I cannot believe people were dumb enough to lift those regulations [actually I can, because the religion of the free market was involved], second I cannot believe people cant see past [the admittedly sucky fact] that we're having to bail out douchebags to save everyone else from worse.

We didn't have to bail out douche bags though. One proposal was to allow those banks that didn't make bad loans and were still in good shape buy the bad banks. Now while that would still create banks too large to allow to fail, once the banks were turned around the buyer could have thenm spun off the recovered bank. They may of even made a pretty penny doing it by buying bad banks at low prices then selling them at higher prices. On of course there's the question of whether the good banks would want to do that.

PS the definition of depression is four consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage. we're had that - so this is a depression

However you didn't use "depression" you used "Great Depression 2.0".

Now your next one:

oh PS unemployment was a SYMPTOM not a CAUSE. Don't confuse what the antecedent is.

I'm not confused, as you say unemployment was a symptom not a cause. As I've said a number of tymes along with some economists I believe protectionism and protectionist laws like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression to be much worse than it would have been otherwise. My point in bringing up unemployment was that it is no where near as bad as it was then.

Starting in 1929.. With the stock market crash. You cite unemployment 4 years later.

I cite unemployment in 1933 because that's when unemployment peaked. It was at 7.8% in 1930 when the act was passed. A year later it jumped to 16.3%, "24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933", from the wiki article.

Falcon

Re:Great Depression II

[LordKazan]

I wasn't commenting on protectionism, it was not a relevant topic. The unemployment, again, was a symptom. My statements was comparing our situation to the start of the great depression EXCEPT instead of ignoring it and acting like everything would be fine if some huge banks failed we prevented their failure. A great many economists consider the bank failures and the coinciding stock market crash as the primary cause of the Great Depression - and logic would bear this out. [A lot of "wealth" in the stock market evaporating due to a lot of "real wealth" ie bank deposits evaporating wiping out the entire savings of a great many individuals and companies].

Did protectionism worsen the situation once the ball got rolling downhill? yes
was it the primary cause? no

We're not talking about exacerbating factors here - we're taking about primary antecedents.

Laffer Curve

[falconwolf]

don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend. don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend.

The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate

So, where is this agreement among economists on what ranges are appropriate for the Laffer Curve? I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and checked a bunch of results and not one said there any agreement of the validity of a range of the Laffer Curve.

The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate,

One of the pages I found has this scenario:
"By June, you've already made a million dollars, and the progressive tax system promised to tax that income 50 percent. However, anything you make over a million will be taxed 90 percent. Why work the rest of the year when you know you can only keep 10 percent of your income? You'd probably take your half a million and retire to your beach house until next year. At this point, the taxes are discouraging work and tax revenue."

If you let your top marginal tax rate fall below a certain level you then start to perform wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich as the rich gain more benefit per tax dollar than the poor.

If you drop the marginal tax rate the wealthy will keep more money. And they will spend it and or invest it. More spending helps the economy grow, as does more investments. Where money is redistributed by government giving subsidies. Vary few poor people will see any of that whereas the already wealthy will get those subsidies. Cargill, one of the world's largest privately owned corporations, has been called a corporate welfare queen due to the massive subsidies it gets. Government is taking money out of poor workers and giving it to a hugh private business.

Falcon

Laffer Curve

[falconwolf]

The Laffer Curve also doesn't mean "lower taxes are better" it's about the tax rate which maximizes revenue above that rate you get a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rate is too high, below that rate and you are not utilizing your tax base to it's fullest.

True, but as I replied to the post before yours there is no agreement by economists on where tax revenue can be maxed out.

A Study by the CBO in 2005 says that we're on the point of the Laffer curve (left side) where a tax reduction is only recuperated at a rate of about 28%. Ie you cut the tax rate by X and you get growth in the economy that only gets you a .28X increase in tax revenue.

Do you have a link to this? As I said to the previous poster I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and looked at a bunch of results without finding any agreement between economists.

Falcon

Ted Stevens and the Bridge To Nowhere

[falconwolf]

he was a republican, he did support it. Republicans don't admit that their party are the bigger porksters.

Okay.

I wasn't going to reply however I know I just replied to 2 posts of yours that were replies to one of mine. In the second one I said how I replied to the first but didn't realize it that you had made both until after sending both of my replies.

Falcon

so you're arguing against a claim that nobody here

[falconwolf]

made?

I included the part I was replying to, can you comprehend what you read?

The postpost I first replied to said "The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms." So I pointed out that "one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited." Clinton lowered taxes but increased spending and still managed to reduce the deficit. The only way to do that is if there was more revenue, which the Laffer Curve predicts.

Maybe we're talking past each other so I'll let our disagreement slide for now, and hope you'll do the same.

Falcon

i'm outta here

[KingBenny]

Anyone got a spare ticket for the next wormhole ?

Re:This is in fact an entirely reasonable proposal

[nickos]

Well, the BBC operates web sites. Clearly, anyone who uses any sort of web site should be obliged to subscribe, or at least pay something, to the BBC. Therefore, we are going to have a tax on Internet use, some or all of whose proceeds will go to the BBC, for it to operate its public service web sites.

I know you think you were joking, but a couple of years ago it was announced that the TV licence for DR (Danmark's Radio - the Danish equivalent of the BBC which is responsible for some radio stations, TV channels and websites just like the BBC) would become a "media licence", and it would be extended from radio and TV owners to anyone who owned a device with an internet connection (including mobile phones).

So, in Denmark if you have an internet connection you're paying for DR, whether you access their content or not.

Why on earth are states involved in producing media anyway? They don't make newsapers after all (although the USSR had Pravda).