Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!"
The better question is "is there nothing they won't go after?"
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
the bankers.
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
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.
* 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.
It won't go that far. Google will simply pass it on to UK advertisers. Google marches on - end of story.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
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.
Paul Leader
It's called Europe. Where liberals are conservatives and conservatives are liberals.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
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.
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
Should there be a Law?
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.
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.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.