Not another tax.

This forum is for Garden Law problems that don't fit into the other categories. Please treat it with respect.

Moderator: Angelisle

Emulated
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Exeter

Not another tax.

Post by Emulated »

:evil: Another stealth tax of 50p a month on your phone bill. OK so its only 50p but added to all the other few pence on everything. What about those who don't use the internet, still 50p to pay I bet.
gordonbennet
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:03 am

Post by gordonbennet »

Yeah it's a disgrace. Myself I NEVER use the internet, never have, never will, but I have to pay 50p a month to subsidise you lot. Absolutely disgraceful.

What next? Taxes to pay for roads or schools or doctors for the poor? Ridiculous. I never use roads, didn't go to school and don't get sick.
Emulated
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:13 am
Location: Exeter

Post by Emulated »

Obviously a supporter of MP's dodgy expenses.

quote="gordonbennet"]Yeah it's a disgrace. Myself I NEVER use the internet, never have, never will, but I have to pay 50p a month to subsidise you lot. Absolutely disgraceful.

What next? Taxes to pay for roads or schools or doctors for the poor? Ridiculous. I never use roads, didn't go to school and don't get sick.[/quote]
gordonbennet
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:03 am

Post by gordonbennet »

So this 50p is going on MPs expenses? Is that right? Oh dear, well that's different. No, no I want it to go to benefit cheats. There must be 000's of them. There are only 650 MPs.
User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Post by thin and crispy »

gordonbennet wrote:Yeah it's a disgrace. Myself I NEVER use the internet, never have, never will, but I have to pay 50p a month to subsidise you lot...
I see your point, but many people live their lives quite happily without using the Internet, and they have no desire to use it - ever. Why should they pay to fund this investment. It's of no direct benefit to them.

It will benefit those members of the public who choose to use the Internet, but the biggest winners will be businesses - and big business at that. They are the ones who should pay.

Also, this is a flat-rate tax on landlines only. What about all the people that use mobiles? Where's the fairness in that?

If this has to be paid for by taxation, it would be much fairer if it was "ringfenced" and funded via Corporation Tax, or even Income Tax. At least the latter is determined to some extent by the ability to pay.
gordonbennet
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 7:03 am

Post by gordonbennet »

That's not how taxes work ... I pay for schools but send no kids to school, I pay for hospitals but I'm fit and healthy, I pay for social services but don't need them, I pay for housing but own my own house ... and so on.
Janner 007
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Leicestershire

Post by Janner 007 »

I pay for schools but send no kids to school
But you did go to school at some point?
I pay for hospitals but I'm fit and healthy
Good, but you will need them at some point in your life.
I pay for social services but don't need them
Thats for them to decide. I do not think it is up to you whether or not you are sectioned.

I agree with thin and crispy. A landline tax does not seem to be a fair system. A tax on existing broadband packages would be far fairer, as ultimately they would be the end users.
User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Post by thin and crispy »

gordonbennet wrote:That's not how taxes work ... I pay for schools but send no kids to school, I pay for hospitals but I'm fit and healthy, I pay for social services but don't need them, I pay for housing but own my own house ... and so on.
Taxation is justified when it funds necessities. For most members of the public, ultra-high-speed internet access is not a necessity; it's simply a convenience.

For many businesses, on the other hand, the Internet is a necessity, and the extra bandwidth available to their customers (the public) will allow businesses to charge for ever more complex services. Ultimately, it is these businesses that will benefit the most. That's why I think businesses should bear the cost.

Incidentally, if you think I'm biassed, I am. I run a business that is heavily involved in, and reliant upon, the Internet. I know I will benefit directly from faster connections, but most of my customers won't.

It's just one more incentive for people to take up mobiles instead of land lines. Why?

Actually, I think there's far more to this taxation plan than meets the eye...
.
Last edited by thin and crispy on Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
despair
Posts: 16644
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:07 am

Post by despair »

One things for sure

Rural areas will still get a lousy slow speed broadband and still be forced to pay the tax to fund high speed in the cities
subjecttocontract
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France
Contact:

Post by subjecttocontract »

£6 a year is fine by me. :)

I realise that the world is changing and the speed of change is getting faster. Many of the older people who use this forum are scared of change. :shock:

We already live in an electronic world where £millions of sales take place on the internet. In fact many businesses have been created by, for and as a result of the internet.

Many of you buy goods in shops where the price you pay has been reduced directly as a result of pressure from internet sales.

Get real, open your eyes, move with the times and keep up or you will get left behind. :roll:

Next some of you will be telling me that you don't like trampolines...... 8)
Almost everything I say is tinged with irony !
Janner 007
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Leicestershire

Post by Janner 007 »

Many of the older people who use this forum are scared of change.
Sorry? :shock:

If are there are "old" people using this forum, they have embraced the internet in the first place to read this. If there are no posts to the contrary then I accept your point.
Rural areas will still get a lousy slow speed broadband and still be forced to pay the tax to fund high speed in the cities
True as ADSL2+ will only be avialable to around 80% of people.
User avatar
thin and crispy
Posts: 895
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 8:57 pm

Post by thin and crispy »

subjecttocontract wrote:We already live in an electronic world where £millions of sales take place on the internet. In fact many businesses have been created by, for and as a result of the internet.
Nice to know you agree with me, STC.
subjecttocontract wrote:Many of you buy goods in shops where the price you pay has been reduced directly as a result of pressure from internet sales.
Price reductions are due to market forces. Government taxation of the form proposed has not been responsible for the development of that market.
.
Slated
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:20 pm

Post by Slated »

I work for a company that is reliant on the internet, but I really do not agree with the extra tax. If there is a requirement for it, then those private industries that will make money from it should fund it.

Besides which, it will only go into a big tax hole created by this government, with small drizzles going to those companies that employ ex-ministers, or their friends and families.
Trog
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:18 am
Location: S Beds.

Post by Trog »

Lets face it if the Government is doing this of the £6 half will go on administation, £1.50 will go in fees to their mates on the QANGO they set up to run it, and the rest will be spent on equipment that is out of date or unsuitable.

Therefore the tax is a bad idea.
Cats they crap on your drive, on your lawn and in your flower beds, they are vermin.
subjecttocontract
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:06 pm
Location: Essex, Spain, South of France
Contact:

Post by subjecttocontract »

Trog wrote:Lets face it if the Government is doing this of the £6 half will go on administation, £1.50 will go in fees to their mates on the QANGO they set up to run it, and the rest will be spent on equipment that is out of date or unsuitable.

Therefore the tax is a bad idea.
Well you won't catch me being cynical ! 8)
Almost everything I say is tinged with irony !
Post Reply