Broadband Tax

[powdarrmonkey]

And if you have a cable running to the house but don't have it connected, you'll still be liable for duty. For example, you move into a house that used to have a line, but you don't ever get it connected.

[Cools]

"Look Mr Brown let's tax the internet, we can all go 1st class on the trains.. the public are such mugs."

 

Fook off.. how about they make BT update there 35 year old tech,

or move to a area with Virgin, make virgin sort its service out, and cover a bigger area.

[sidewinder]

Im no great fan of BT but as a company what is their incentive to upgrade infrastructure when its going to lose them money? Hence why they concentrate on big towns/cities. The government cant force them to do it, hence the idea for this tax I assume.

 

I'm undecided on whether the tax is the best way but realistically the only way I can see our infrastructure getting up to scratch is with public money. Surely the best way would be for a new state owned company to control any new infrastructure, and then space on it be leased to BT or whoever else wants to provide BB, which would provide income to pay off the cost, and hopefully encourage more competition, rather than just donating the fibre to BT or something.

But Im probably thinking far too simplistically.

 

Either way, BB IS important in this day and age, like it or not, and if its available to someone it can make life a lot easier, so the idea of ensuring everyone has access to a certain minimum speed is something I agree with

[LosOjos]

Useful though it may be, it can't feed, clothe or house people, and I'm pretty certain nobody has ever died through lack of a fast internet connection.

[powdarrmonkey]

It's also an easy tax to collect - one 50p for every customer, collected by the operators. I'm sure we'll find it's easily spent, too. Here you go, BT - have a million quid. I want a receipt, mind you.

 

There's something else you've missed then: if you have two lines, you'll be liable for two duties.

 

Scope of the Landline Duty

 

3.3 The duty is payable on local loops. These are lines that connect an end-user’s premises to

the wider communications network.

 

3.4 The duty will be payable on all local loops that are made available for use by an owner whether or not the lines are actually used. It will also be payable on all local loops regardless of whether the loop consists of a copper pair, a co-axial cable or a fibre connection.

 

3.5 The duty will apply regardless of the service that is being provided over the local loop. Services may include traditional voice services or other data services namely broadband – Government does not intend to capture television services.

 

3.6 Where more than one local loop is provided in order for an end-user to receive two distinct services, the duty is payable on both lines. When an end-user receives services from two different providers but over the same local loop, the duty is only payable once.

 

3.7 There are some difficulties with this general approach due to how some retailers provide services to their customers. Virgin Media provide broadband services over a co-axial cable but standard voice services over a separate copper line where other providers would just use a single copper line for both voice and broadband services. BT will also face similar issues where fibre is overlaid on copper wires. Government’s intention is to ensure that there is no double liability under these circumstances.

 

(note: these are only proposals.)

[localzuk]

Useful though it may be, it can't feed, clothe or house people, and I'm pretty certain nobody has ever died through lack of a fast internet connection.

 

Yes, it can feed, clothe and house people. There are thousands of people who make their livings via online jobs - ebay sellers for example. You seem to simply be ignoring the bigger picture, the one where the internet is integral to the economy and the future of the country... The one where street shops are shutting because online services are cheaper, more efficient and more easy to use for customers. Without investment in the internet to support this, we end up with a system where shops close and online stores appear (woolworths? virgin/Zavii etc...) but the infrastructure would be stagnant, and the markets would not be able to innovate and grow with new things that require a better, faster internet connection.

[cl0n3]

I suppose broadband to some is like what roads were to the Romans

[LosOjos]

I'm just sick and tired of being taxed so that people who sit at home all day claiming benefits can get the perks I work bloody hard to pay for.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every person claiming benefits is scum, there are many out there who have legitimate reason to do so, but I'm sick of the wasters in this country who get away with doing f-all. No wonder there's no industry in this country, kids grow up in the areas where industry used to flourish (I'm from the black country) and see the benefits system as an easy meal ticket. Nobody needs a laptop (sure you've heard that proposal too), nobody needs broadband at home (and those that do have the means to pay for it!). Yes a better infrastructure would be great, but making the tax payer shell out once again is out of order IMO. We already pay ridiculously high taxes compared to many of our European counter parts, and our country is smaller than most of them as well as more densely populated; if they manage why can't we?

 

The more the government gives these people an easy ride, the worse it's going to get for those of us working to pay for it all.

[localzuk]

Wow, that's kinda a blinkered view, if I am honest! You are ignoring the larger economic issues at stake and focussing on relatively small issues. You are equating 'need' with an aged view of people's needs (food, housing, water, heat), rather than one which is based on the need in order to have a reasonable standard of living and a good possibility to make a good living wage and improve one's life. If I didn't have access to a PC at home when I was a kid, I pretty much can guarantee that I would not have landed myself this excellent job.

 

Also, our tax is not particularly high. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world]Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[teejay]

 

Also, our tax is not particularly high. Tax rates around the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Well, because in typical Wikipedia style it ignores most of Gordo's stealth taxes.

[Martin]

In other news, the government have decided to implement a "bus tax", charging passengers who use buses and trams in towns and cities a fiver a week to help subsidise those who live out in the sticks and don't have a regular service.

 

Goverment spokesperson Jemina Popplethwaite explained "we have been forced to close so many local post offices that people out in the country are having problems paying for their TV licences and so on. Thus we need to implement a ultra-fast public transport network to once again be a world-class player in the stop-to-stop person movement arena".

 

However, ministers have denied any suggestion that they are going to implement a takeaway tax, adding 15% to the cost of all fast food which will be "ring-fenced" into providing a squadron of scooter-riders delivering pizzas to outlying farms.

 

 

mb

[localzuk]

Well, because in typical Wikipedia style it ignores most of Gordo's stealth taxes.

 

It doesn't cover other countries' other taxes either? So? Those taxes it does cover make up the vast bulk of taxes...

[srochford]

Well, because in typical Wikipedia style it ignores most of Gordo's stealth taxes.

 

Did you actually look at the numbers?

 

It shows a figure of roughly 35% for the UK which means it includes the key taxes on income which everyone has to pay (income tax and NI) plus a bit more to get to that figure. There are some more taxes which most people have to pay (insurance tax, perhaps) but I'd be very surprised if that took you to 45% Assuming that the other countries shown have magically got all those other taxes included and it was just the UK that left them out then we're still looking at the UK being a lower tax economy than some of the others.

 

And while we're hurling insults around, just remember that it was Thatcher and the Conservatives who took VAT from 8% under the last Labour government to 17.5% and "Gordo" who brought it down to 5% on fuel!

[Mloynes]

I'm just sick and tired of being taxed so that people who sit at home all day claiming benefits can get the perks I work bloody hard to pay for.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every person claiming benefits is scum, there are many out there who have legitimate reason to do so, but I'm sick of the wasters in this country who get away with doing f-all. No wonder there's no industry in this country, kids grow up in the areas where industry used to flourish (I'm from the black country) and see the benefits system as an easy meal ticket. Nobody needs a laptop (sure you've heard that proposal too), nobody needs broadband at home (and those that do have the means to pay for it!). Yes a better infrastructure would be great, but making the tax payer shell out once again is out of order IMO. We already pay ridiculously high taxes compared to many of our European counter parts, and our country is smaller than most of them as well as more densely populated; if they manage why can't we?

 

The more the government gives these people an easy ride, the worse it's going to get for those of us working to pay for it all.

 

I wonder how many of the people who are actually on benefits overall you would class as wasters what 5%-10% perhaps of all benefit claimants are wasters or would you say more like 90%, I think a lot of people the way they go on about paying for wasters on benefits would probably say the latter, though I would think realistically it would be maybe upto 10%

 

Based on 10% of benefit claimants claiming falsely (being lazy asses) how much of you (and everyones) hard earned taxes go towards paying for these people? it would actually work out at much less than 10% cause as you know our taxes go on a hell of a lot more things than just benefits. Just because we see them in the newspaper and tv and on Jeremy Kyle doesnt mean they make up the majority of people on benefits, I mean who wants to read about Disabled woman rightly claims disability benefit and housing benefit?

 

How much money do you think the government squanders on trying to reform its services like the CSA and benefits agency only to fail miserably and have to spend yet another shedload (think 10's - 100's of millions) fixing the harm its done?

 

There are only ever 2 things certain in life, and one of them is death, can anyone think of the other ?

[teejay]

Did you actually look at the numbers?

 

It shows a figure of roughly 35% for the UK which means it includes the key taxes on income which everyone has to pay (income tax and NI) plus a bit more to get to that figure. There are some more taxes which most people have to pay (insurance tax, perhaps) but I'd be very surprised if that took you to 45% Assuming that the other countries shown have magically got all those other taxes included and it was just the UK that left them out then we're still looking at the UK being a lower tax economy than some of the others.

 

And while we're hurling insults around, just remember that it was Thatcher and the Conservatives who took VAT from 8% under the last Labour government to 17.5% and "Gordo" who brought it down to 5% on fuel!

 

Yes I did look at the numbers, a much better figure to look at is percentage tax by GDP, as this includes ALL tax revenue. The UK is on 39% and rising, which compares ok with other EU countries, but when you look at major economies outside the EU it is very high, US is 24% for instance. This percentage under in 1995, the last figure obtainable under OECD figures under the last Conservative government was 34.5%.

This also doesn't include problems like the PFI time bomb and national debt.

[localzuk]

Yes I did look at the numbers, a much better figure to look at is percentage tax by GDP, as this includes ALL tax revenue. The UK is on 39% and rising, which compares ok with other EU countries, but when you look at major economies outside the EU it is very high, US is 24% for instance. This percentage under in 1995, the last figure obtainable under OECD figures under the last Conservative government was 34.5%.

This also doesn't include problems like the PFI time bomb and national debt.

 

You cannot include the USA in that figure - they do not provide anywhere near the number of useful services that the UK does. Healthcare, for example! There are many other examples too.

 

I know I'm happier paying for healthcare via my government than via private companies that are out only to make profit... How do we compare to, say, France?

 

Comparing the UK to countries outside the EU is difficult to do, as the values within the different geographical zones are very different. The EU is very socialist compared to the Americas.