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:
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.

Dave wrote on Dec 12^th, 2009 at 12:10am:
Personally, i think you should.

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

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.

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

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

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:

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".

'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.

Quote:
but according to the report, they haven't confirmed it  
[/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.