Just read on The Register that government will be introducing a 50pcm landline duty on everyone even if all you have is broadband regardless of whether your with BT, Virgin or another supplier.

The actual consultation can be found [url="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/consult_landlineduty.pdf"]here[/url].

My main gripe is those that have a landline only (no internet) will still have to pay even though the so-called tax is for super-fast broadband way, way in the future. Personally, I think this is unfair - basically taxing everyone even though they may not have, nor want/need, the internet!

Don't we get taxed enough in this country to add yet another tax!!

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

Just read on [url="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/broadband_tax/"]The Register[/url] that government will be introducing a 50pcm landline duty on everyone even if all you have is broadband regardless of whether your with BT, Virgin or another supplier.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you can have broadband only is on Virgin Media's cable network. Should we not be allowed ADSL only from BT (and other suppliers)?

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

Don't we get taxed enough in this country to add yet another tax!!

There are indeed many who would argue that broadband should only be provided to those who are prepared to pay the actual cost of providing it. They would make the case that those who live in rural areas should pay far more than those who live in towns because of the greater per unit cost of providing it. They may also argue that the same should apply to all other public services, or that there should be no public services and therefore no taxation.

The basic reason why we have a disturbingly high structural deficit is because taxation is too low in relation to spending.

This is no new announcement, the proposal has now reached the stage of a public consultation. The government argued in Stephen Carter's work "Digital Britain", which was published in the Summer, that this is most equitable way of raising the money necessary to subsidise broadband provision for the vast majority of the country, notably in areas where it would otherwise not be thought economic. There are other ways of raising the money, or it could be diverted from other areas of government spending (that would otherwise not be cut) in order to avoid additional taxation.

Respondents to the consultation are free to argue for no subsidy for broadband in rural areas, alternative ways of raising the money (e.g. by adding to borrowing) or perhaps for cuts in areas of spending that would not otherwise be cut. I would not expect to attract widespread public support for any of these suggestions. My personal view is that the benefits of widespread broadband usage as a worthy social measure demand more careful examination with reference to the direct and consequential ill effects.

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 11^th, 2009 at 10:11pm:

My main gripe is those that have a landline only (no internet) will still have to pay even though the so-called tax is for super-fast broadband way, way in the future. Personally, I think this is unfair - basically taxing everyone even though they may not have, nor want/need, the internet!

Well, if you say we shouldn't pay  tax on the services we don't use, I might as well say, as I do not have children, why am I paying for education, children's services and contributing to child benefits? On your theory  I should have my income and council taxes reduced?

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 12:10am:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way you can have broadband only is on Virgin Media's cable network. Should we not be allowed ADSL only from BT (and other suppliers)?

Personally, i think you should.


SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 2:49am:

There are indeed many who would argue that broadband should only be provided to those who are prepared to pay the actual cost of providing it. They would make the case that those who live in rural areas should pay far more than those who live in towns because of the greater per unit cost of providing it.

There is no easy, right answer to that.  Actually, I think everyone regardless of where you are should pay the same.  Some ADSL providers charge more if you're outside their 'area' than those that live inside their area.  This is mainly due to how their connected to the internet.


Quote:

The basic reason why we have a disturbingly high structural deficit is because taxation is too low in relation to spending.

That is technically true but the deficit became even more disturbingly high due to gov bailing (nearly) all the banks out.  Going by what I read banks took a lot of risks because they were able to and unhindered from gov, all in the name of higher bonuses.


Quote:

This is no new announcement, the proposal has now reached the stage of a public consultation. The government argued in Stephen Carter's work "Digital Britain", which was published in the Summer, that this is most equitable way of raising the money necessary to subsidise broadband provision for the vast majority of the country, notably in areas where it would otherwise not be thought economic.

My main problem is that those that have a landline only and don't want/need broadband are also forced to pay.

Oh and why is it called a landline duty when I thought the term 'broadband duty' would be more fitting as it is only those that will benefit?

sherbert wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:20am:

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 11th, 2009 at 10:11pm: My main gripe is those that have a landline only (no internet) will still have to pay even though the so-called tax is for super-fast broadband way, way in the future. Personally, I think this is unfair - basically taxing everyone even though they may not have, nor want/need, the internet! Well, if you say we shouldn't pay  tax on the services we don't use, I might as well say, as I do not have children, why am I paying for education, children's services and contributing to child benefits? On your theory  I should have my income and council taxes reduced?

I think most people would ideally like this but we all know it's not going to happen but surely there comes a point in time when it should stop.

Would it not be a little fairer to have the tax on those that actually use broadband?

I guess the problem is, for example, if you did not have  broadband and did not pay the new levy. When you decide to have  broadband a few years later, you will be getting broadband at the expense of others.

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:25am:

Quote: The basic reason why we have a disturbingly high structural deficit is because taxation is too low in relation to spending. That is technically true but the deficit became even more disturbingly high due to gov bailing (nearly) all the banks out.  Going by what I read banks took a lot of risks because they were able to and unhindered from gov, all in the name of higher bonuses.

Sorry to press the technical point, but the "structural deficit" (which is the main cause for concern) exists regardless of the bank bail-outs.



bbb_uk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:25am:

My main problem is that those that have a landline only and don't want/need broadband are also forced to pay.

The whole point of the tax is to raise money for those who could not meet the full economic cost of them being provided with broadband to be able to get it. It is, in effect, an enforced cross-subsidy within the telecoms sector. As has been said elsewhere, if only those who benefited from an item of public spending paid the tax to fund it, the whole exercise would be utterly pointless.



bbb_uk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:25am:

Oh and why is it called a landline duty when I thought the term 'broadband duty' would be more fitting as it is only those that will benefit?

The name chosen is unusually honest, as it refers to where the tax will hurt, rather than hinting at the benefit that it is supposed to deliver. I have not checked this out in Carter, but there may be the potential for this tax to be used to fund further investment in other new telecoms technologies. Taxing legacy operations to fund the new is an effective way of forcing any industry to move forward. Have not similar approaches been considered in relation to energy sources.

sherbert wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 11:59am:

I guess the problem is, for example, if you did not have  broadband and did not pay the new levy. When you decide to have  broadband a few years later, you will be getting broadband at the expense of others.

Is that why we get taxed to pay for those with children (to use your example) just in case you decide to have kids later?  So that makes it okay and right then does it?  Same could be said for all the things our taxes go towards that I may never need/use, etc lol

This is turning very political i think lol

Another example is, what this website is about with regards to use of 08x numbers, is that it's okay to tax everyone because it's being used for something else.  The money made from phone calls to these numbers are used for something else (either to increase profits or subsidise the cost of a telephone system) so does that mean that it's okay to ring 08x numbers?

The thing is, we know that this 50 pence a month  levy is just another form of taxation. Do we really believe it is going to be used to improve the broadband network? Anymore than the road tax is going towards improving roads,  our national insurance contributions goes towards improving hospitals etc. I notice council tax will be rising about 4% next year and the councils will be cutting the services, so therefore we are going to have to pay more dosh for nothing.

Yes I agree we are getting a bit political here, however sadly we just  have pay up when asked. >:(

There is no point in ending it all to avoid these taxes as we even get taxed on death ;D

bbb_uk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

This is turning very political i think lol

To be fair, I think that the political tone for the discussion was set by the final sentence of the initial posting.


bbb_uk wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

Another example is, what this website is about with regards to use of 08x numbers, is that it's okay to tax everyone because it's being used for something else.  The money made from phone calls to these numbers are used for something else (either to increase profits or subsidise the cost of a telephone system) so does that mean that it's okay to ring 08x numbers?

I think this point is being made the wrong way around, certainly in respect of the public sector.

The amount of revenue share earned from 084x numbers can do little more than subsidise the cost of the telephone service. It certainly cannot go on to pay for the time of the person speaking in response to the call. That is where the significant difference between 08 and 09 numbers resides. Both are worthy of the title "premium rate" as the same mechanism is engaged, however the difference between subsidy and direct profit is significant.

Without the revenue share, all of the costs incurred in handling the telephone call would have to come from someone other than the caller. In the case of public services funded by taxation that is the taxpayer. When the issue is examined directly, it is the taxpayer who benefits from public sector use of 084x numbers (notwithstanding the profiteering of many telephone companies). Those who campaign for use of revenue sharing numbers to be halted are asking for all of the cost burden associated with handling the call to be removed from the caller.

There may be those amongst us who would rather that public services moved onto using 09 numbers, so that the premium charge was at least a little more transparent. Most significantly it would mean that service users paid more towards the cost of providing the services they use. Those who avoid premium charges by using alternatives published on saynoto0870 are effectively moving the burden  of paying for the service they are using from themselves back onto others. In the case of the public sector that is taxpayers, in the private sector it is other customers and the shareholders of the company.

If we are going to do politics here, let us at least understand what it is that we are asking for when we invite people to "SayNoto0870".

sherbert wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 1:17pm:

The thing is, we know that this 50 pence a month  levy is just another form of taxation. Do we really believe it is going to be used to improve the broadband network? Anymore than the road tax is going towards improving roads,  our national insurance contributions goes towards improving hospitals etc. I notice council tax will be rising about 4% next year and the councils will be cutting the services, so therefore we are going to have to pay more dosh for nothing. Yes I agree we are getting a bit political here, however sadly we just  have pay up when asked. >:( There is no point in ending it all to avoid these taxes as we even get taxed on death ;D

I agree with everything you mention  ;)



SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 2:37pm:

To be fair, I think that the political tone for the discussion was set by the final sentence of the initial posting.

I suppose, to be fair, it was me that initiated it so I will give the political debate a miss as this forum isn't really about politics.  That and the fact that it could go on forever lol.

'High speed broadband' (whatever that means) for everyone by 2017 indeed!

The Conservatives have said that, if they get in at the General Election (June 2010 or before), they will scrap this tax anyway.

Heinz wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 5:26pm:

I think the link to The Register article in the OP is broken so HERE it is again.

Link corrected, thanks.


Quote:

The Conservatives have said that, if they get in at the General Election (June 2010 or before), they will scrap this tax anyway.

but according to the report, they haven't confirmed it  ;D

Quote:

The Conservatives have said that, if they get in at the General Election (June 2010 or before), they will scrap this tax anyway.

but according to the report, they haven't confirmed it  ;D
[/quote]


From yesterday's Financial Times.

The Conservatives are opposed to the tax. Jeremy Hunt, shadow culture secretary, said the Tories would look to abolish the levy, although the opposition party has not made a firm commitment to do so.

If this new tax comes in I will be giving very serious consideration to moving to a mobile broadband provider if I can find one that actually provides any kind of fast, stable or reliable service with a decent download limit.

A landline is already the most outrageously over-priced utility in the home in terms of fixed standing charge by far and now the bloated BT expects even more of our hard earned money to keep their grotesquely inefficient empire in business. :o >:( >:( >:(

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

If this new tax comes in I will be giving very serious consideration to moving to a mobile broadband provider if I can find one that actually provides any kind of fast, stable or reliable service with a decent download limit. A landline is already the most outrageously over-priced utility in the home in terms of fixed standing charge by far and now the bloated BT expects even more of our hard earned money to keep their grotesquely inefficient empire in business. :o >:( >:( >:(

The full article from the FT is here. The governement looks to be closing some loop holes.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b133383a-e650-11de-bcbe-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1


Homes that have two landlines face paying the broadband tax twice. The levy is also due to attract value-added tax.

Without getting involved in the detail of this debate too deeply, particularly where there seems to be some convoluted attempt to justify the never justifiable use of 084X nos by the public sector, I would make the following comments.

Firstly, I think this 50p tax is very unfair, as the original post said, there are many people who cannot have, would not benefit from or just do not want broadband, eg the very elderly (who will be dead before superfast broadband is a reality!), those suffering from certain disabilities etc, those who can't afford a computer.  As someone said, you don't pay road tax is you don't have a car, also you don't pay a TV licence is you don't have a television.  It would be far fairer to levy the tax on the broadband connection, as for the argument about people benefitting in future from payments now, well, doesn't that apply to everything provided eg roads, we all benefit from roads that may have been built before we were born, same with hospitals and schools?

Finally, the point about not paying tax towards education and child benefit if you don't have children - this arguments really bugs me (sorry guys!) because, if people don't have children, where are the doctors, nurses, carers, plumbers, electricians etc etc etc going to come from in the future to look after teh childless???!!!

As another poster said, this is just another tax and it won't be used for its declared purpose.

Barbara wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

because, if people don't have children, where are the doctors, nurses, carers, plumbers, electricians etc etc etc going to come from in the future to look after teh childless???!!!

They won't be needed because if we don't have children the human race will die out  ;D

I think a lot of you forget that taxes do not pay for the things they appear to.  All taxation goes into one big central pot, from which the spending is allocated.


Barbara wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

As someone said, you don't pay road tax is you don't have a car

With regard to Road Taxes,and the NHS, from a post in another forum:  "According to Transport Statistics Great Britain, central government in the UK collects £30 billion in motoring taxes, of which £25 billion is fuel tax while £5 billion is VED, and of this amount about £8 billion is spent on roads in England (add a further £2 billion to cover expenditures in Scotland, Wales, and NI). This means there is around £20 billion in motoring-related tax revenues available for other uses, including defraying the NHS."

So, yes, non-drivers don't pay road taxes - instead all of us drivers are already supporting other government activities, including the NHS, that are used by them..

Barbara wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

It would be far fairer to levy the tax on the broadband connection

So, if that happened, people could terminate  their B/B connection and take their lap top to the nearest Starbucks or local 'hot spot' and get free connection and not pay the tax  ;D

Like all taxes, I bet the 50p levy will be increased before the superfast boadband is completed ;)

Barbara wrote on Dec 13^th, 2009 at 10:36am:

Finally, the point about not paying tax towards education and child benefit if you don't have children - this arguments really bugs me (sorry guys!) because, if people don't have children, where are the doctors, nurses, carers, plumbers, electricians etc etc etc going to come from in the future to look after teh childless???!!!

If people had to pay for their children's education and not receive handouts for having children the human race would indeed die out. ;D

If the human race died out, there would be no need for broadband....................

Having delivered the answer to life the universe and everything (the human race only exists because of state funded education!), there are a number of separate questions to be addressed in considering this issue.

- Should the state spend money to ensure delivery of "NGA" to the portion of the population which the industry has said that it cannot afford to serve?

- Should additional taxation be introduced to provide revenue essentially equivalent to that spending?

- Should the longstanding refusal to engage in formal hypothecation of taxation revenue be reversed?

The government has said Yes, Yes and No. Posted comments have suggested No, No and Yes.


What nobody has addressed is the relevance of the broader themes of Carter. Delivery of public services is to be increasingly moved onto the internet as this is much more efficient and could therefore be a way of saving a lot of overhead cost, thereby helping the attack on the deficit. The government is set on this course and is therefore concerned about the fact that a significant proportion of the population, other than the wealthy, could be excluded from the best access to public services unless broadband is more widely available.

I share the concern that there will always be some who remain excluded, and something effective must be done to address this (other than euthanasia for a large part of the pre-computer generation). I also have other reasons for opposing this approach, however I cannot deny the fact that it will most likely help with cost efficiency and I acknowledge the priority that must be given to this issue at present.

One could foresee the situation where, with services being delivered over the internet, those who wish to use the far more costly means of accessing services by telephone could be made subject to a charge. Use of a premium rate telephone number could provide a most effective means of recovering the fee and encouraging use of the online service. Those who are be content for taxation to rise can feel free to oppose such a move, as may those who can identify sufficient spending cuts or are content for the deficit to remain.


All politicians are very keen to advance the principle behind hypothecation and governments are often happy to show the link between specific items of revenue and spending. In this case the connection is strongly promoted and would be very clear to see, so it is hard to imagine effective evasion of a challenge to show it in effect.

There are many arguments against hypothecation being applied formally through statue. Some of this is to do with issues of timing, as actual revenues may not be known until long after spending has to be committed. There is also the fact that it may tie the hands of Ministers and Departments in exercising discretion over specific detailed spending decisions, as their capacity to do so would be limited by statue and thereby subject to legal challenge. HM Treasury stands firmly opposed to the idea, so practical minded people know that it is therefore not worth bothering to think of trying to bring it in. Political pressure to show a connection can withstand the need to deal with revenues being less or greater than necessary and to be seen to have spent as wisely as possible. A purely statutory imperative could lead to highly undesirable consequence in the event of revenue falling short, or unnecessary waste in the event of excess, furthermore it would provide a bulwark against political criticism.

On balance, I am content for the status quo to remain, given that expectations are not set wrongly. The link between National Insurance contributions and the supposedly related benefits was knowingly broken not long after its introduction. All the other cases (e.g. VED) provide a good basis for political knockabout, but I hope that nobody is actually confused.


It is somewhat distressing to read how far Thatcherism is alive and well in this forum, as in most political discourse. If public education needs to be defended by reference to personal benefit for the individuals who pay for it, then there is no such thing as society and I feel that my attempts to campaign for the principles of the NHS have no place in this forum.

Perhaps someone would like to explain how the principle of using revenue sharing numbers for public services is incompatible with the idea that each of us pays for what we get. To remove the inevitable consumerist argument ("I have already paid my taxes") please consider the case of a school leaver who has been brought up in a local authority children's home, earning less than the individual personal allowance and NI threshold, who has therefore never paid a penny of tax, other than the VAT which we can disregard as being a subscription fee for the EU.

Re the last paragraph in the previous post (I found the rest somewhat obscure), I feel that taxation SHOULD fund public services, that those who can afford to pay more due to income should do so as public services should be funded for the good of all members of society (& yes, Thatcherism DID drive me out of the Tory Party as I have far more time for the benevolent paternalism which preceded it & which I wish to see return!).  I also feel that very many things are best provided by the state/public sector funded via taxation paid for by each according to his means (income) & used by each according to his needs, I believe that utilities are best provided by being publicly owned (can anyone tell me how we have benefitted from privatisation that couldn't have been achieved by greater efficiency?)   As for providing savings to reduce the deficit, try talking and listening to those in the public sector at front line service level, rather than politicians & top ranking public servants & remember that local authorities have virtually zero control over things on which they have to spend their money, if they don't spend it as the govt dictates, the govt takes it back again! - I think you'd be surprised at the multitude of savings which could be identified with no harm whatsoever to the public!!

But yes, we are off topic, something deplored by SCV, so I will end.

Here is one saving that could be made, from today's Daily Mail

Single mother receives more than £90,000 a year in housing allowance to meet the rent on the five-bedroom villa, plus other payouts of £15,000.

I wonder how much tax she has ever paid.

Anyway as Barbara rightly says we are going off topic, so like her I will end.

I will try to keep this brief and hope to avoid creating the impression that I am being obscure (whether fair or not).

All bar the final part of my previous posting was attempting to address the specific topic of this thread: public funding of the roll out of what is called "NGA" and the extent to which this should be paid for by a specific tax. I do not deplore departure from a topic, however I am inclined to pick up on wider issues myself and try to respect the proper requirement that we should not allow this to cause us to disregard the stated topic entirely.

In rejecting Thatcherite dogma (including privatisation and castration of local government), one has to be careful of the assumptions on which it was based and the core ideas that remain fully in place. The assumption that inevitable failures in the management of public services (as hinted at by the quoted Daily Mail article) can be easily and cheaply dealt with without undermining them totally, or that a particular case proves total breakdown, is a good example. As we have adopted the meritocratic ideology that came from the American wing of what we know as Thatchercherism and is a key element of the perversion of socialism within New Labour, we can present questions such as "how much tax has she ever paid?" without appearing to be ridiculous.

As we are discussing telecoms, it may be fair to point out that of all the privatised utilities BT is probably the most successful (in all terms). That is not however to deny the fully justified criticisms of it, and the way it is handled by Ofcom, which are found from myself and others in the forum.

As a campaigner, I make no apology for engaging with Jim Knight and some of his senior officials, as it is only they who can bring about the change that we seek in DWP policy. Likewise with other departments, members of the opposition front benches and officials with cross departmental responsibility. I also have had the benefit, in my professional life and also in some campaigning activities, of close engagement with those engaged in front line delivery of public services through central government agencies and local authorities. In relation to the NHS, this has extended to many GP practices. Whilst one must focus on the points where change can be effected, this must never be with disregard to ground level reality.

I would love to develop thoughts on my strong opposition to performance league tables, talk of "the postcode lottery" and alleged "devolution" to non-accountable local bodies such as PCTs and RDAs, not to mention opposition to the aims and objectives of the EU. These all represent the continuing expression of the Thatcherite desire to retain all justifiable exercise of power in Westminster. That would however be to go beyond the scope this forum, let alone this thread. I will simply end my OT comments by saying that if this is where the power is being exercised, this is where we should focus our campaigning efforts if we seek to instigate change, rather than simply moaning.


I would be interested to know how contributors to this thread feel about the idea of access to public services becoming focused on the internet, whilst broadband access remains limited or expensive in some parts of the country. Should public money be used to correct this imbalance? If so, how should it be raised? It is easy to attack any public spending that does not benefit us personally and any tax that we have to pay. For those who reject the Thachterite view of the world (whereby public spending should be limited to vital matters such as defence and perhaps the relief of extreme poverty for those who are "deserving") and wish to engage in serious discussion on issues of public policy, questions such as this need to be addressed.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 3:53pm:

I will try to keep this brief

Sadly you appear to have failed dismally. ::)

In trying to continue to keep this on-topic, I would like to ask that once all households can benefit from broadband by BT/Virgin or another ADSL provider due to the governments landline duty in however long it takes, will the gov then remove the tax or will it continue even though everyone will have access to broadband?

We all know that the tax will continue forever and once everyone has access to broadband then the money will not be used for broadband and diverted elsewhere and to be honest I cant see the government allocating ALL the money earned from the tax to help develop broadband before it's developed.  As mentioned earlier by another poster, we all know that the money goes into a big pot and then the gov issue a proportion to its intended cause and puts the rest elsewhere.

And before it's mentioned, yes I would like the government to cut the deficit but the deficit was made a lot worse by bank bail-outs for which, from what I understand, they dont appear to have to pay it back hence why it means more cuts/moneysaving to cut the deficit.

I didn't want to mention this but just how much money has the gov spent on MPs expenses for which it seems that for a long time they could practically claim for anything/everything without being questioned?  Yes, some expenses were justified but some where, in my opinion, not justified and was only claimed because they werent really questioned over it and thus mostly got away with it.  I specifically mention this because Barbara had a good point about cuts can be made in other areas and this is obviously one area which I realise they will now.

So basically who wins from this tax?

* Those that don't have access to broadband due to where they live (fair point, no argument from me here)
* BT, etc because once everyone has bb then BT, etc will have more customers and so higher profits and without having to invest as much in getting all homes connected to broadband.
* The gov because it will use the money it claims is for landline duty and divert it to help reduce, what presumably is the biggest single tax burden, and that is the banks bail-out

NGMsGhost wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:26pm:

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Dec 14th, 2009 at 3:53pm: I will try to keep this brief Sadly you appear to have failed dismally. ::)

Fair point, lets see if I can do better this time.


bbb_uk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:54pm:

will the gov then remove the tax?

No. My guess is that it will use it initially for some further investment in "Digital Britain", but in time hope that everyone will have forgotten how it was first justified.


bbb_uk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:54pm:

the deficit was made a lot worse by bank bail-outs for which, from what I understand, they dont appear to have to pay it back hence why it means more cuts/moneysaving to cut the deficit.

The "money" used in the bail out will be returned, however the question is when, and what value will the shares in the banks have when they are sold. For the time being the money loaned forms part of the national debt (along with the historic and continuing annual deficits), the level of which could threaten credit ratings. Furthermore the debt has to be financed by selling bonds on which interest has to be paid, thereby adding to the deficit.


bbb_uk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:54pm:

MPs ... could practically claim for anything/everything without being questioned?

The high court of parliament cannot answer to any higher authority, other than through the ballot box. Its members are deemed "honourable" and therefore able to exercise judgement about many matters, the amount of money due to them in expenses being relatively trivial. When it was thought inexpedient for them to receive a salary rise they were encouraged to set aside their honour and grab whatever they thought they could get away with in expenses. Nobody in a position to do so took the trouble to correct this disgraceful mistake until it was exposed as a scandal. Like the banker's bonuses, the amounts of money involved are not actually significant, however the principle is of sufficient public concern to require action.


bbb_uk wrote on Dec 14^th, 2009 at 4:54pm:

who wins from this tax?

It is fair to make the point that those who will provide the NGA could well have exploited the government's desire to see it rolled out universally by perhaps falsely claiming to be unable to finish the job without financial support. I am not sure if the government has effectively got its own back by forcing them to risk losing business through increased cost by imposing the tax on their landline operations. I suggested previously that this could be a roundabout way of forcing companies to raise the money for investment themselves. This will probably be from their existing customers, although they are free to pay the tax in any way they wish.
Will enforced price increases damage landline providers?
Are those who will actually pay the tax (covered by increasing their prices) the same companies as will benefit from the funding?
Perhaps someone who understands the industry better than I could let us know.


I am not sure if anyone has pointed out that this tax will come into effect in November 2010, by which time we will have a new parliament from which a new government will have been formed. It is generally assumed that taxes will have been reviewed by that new government (of whatever composition) so there can be no assurance that this measure will remain in its present form up to implementation. Those with an expressed preference for lower levels of borrowing and less interference in business may well be inclined to double the rate and withdraw the offer of government funding for NGA roll out. Anything could happen!

With a General Election having being announced, and parliament will be finished this week, all legistation that is going through has to be rushed so that it can become law. One such is the recent budget and the Conservatives have agreed to let the budget become law providing that three taxes are removed from the legistation. The one that will interest members is the so called Broadband Tax (50 pence a month?), that Brown & co, wanted to introduce. That has now been binned, (along with the 10% hike in cider duty.)

sherbert wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 9:58am:

With a General Election having being announced, and parliament will be finished this week, all legistation that is going through has to be rushed so that it can become law. One such is the recent budget and the Conservatives have agreed to let the budget become law providing that three taxes are removed from the legistation. The one that will interest members is the so called Broadband Tax (50 pence a month?), that Brown & co, wanted to introduce. That has now been binned, (along with the 10% hike in cider duty.)

How do the Conservatives intend to finance faster broadband [which Labour decided would cost each telephone user 50 pence per month]?

Dave wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

How do the Conservatives intend to finance faster broadband [which Labour decided would cost each telephone user 50 pence per month]?

Not too sure, but their argument is, I think, why should those who have no wish to have Broadband, have to pay a tax on something that they don't want? I have to agree if that is their argument. In any case isn't it the providers that finance Broadband, I was unaware that the government did?

In today's budget it has been announced that the so called Broadband tax is not going to be implemented as promised in the Conservative's manifesto.