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