£6 broadband levy may be trebled for homes with multiple lines

[mattheman]

A controversial new £6 tax on telephone lines to fund the introduction of superfast broadband internet will leave nearly two million households paying up to three times the levy initially proposed by ministers, according to leaked government documents seen by The Times.

The plans, drawn up by Revenue & Customs, show that ministers will tax households with more than one phone line — of which there are more than 1.7 million — for each line they rent, and will also levy VAT on the charge. Families with one telephone connection, a separate line for broadband and another for a fax would end up paying £21.15 a year, instead of the originally announced £6. The Finance Bill, to be published early next year, will contain the plans for the 50p a month tax
ministers have decided to charge VAT on top of the new levy, essentially creating a tax upon a tax. They have also opted to widen the charge to also tax high-speed fibre-optic connections, and not only the standard copper lines.
,

its just a joke, tax on a tax great british tax.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6932537.ece

 

[mattheman]

Lol.

3 years and Im outa hereeee

bring on the wireless connections.

 

[mattheman]

Tax everyone to make the internet faster for everyone. It's quite a communist idea really.

As long students don't have to pay the tax i won't be overly fussed. Students need more leeway really. Make taxes and bills full price for students then what hope is there that the clever ones will stay. Anyway, that is another kettle of fish.

What happens when everyone is paying the tax then? Is that it, does Britain just stay at 20mb for everyone each for the rest of eternity or something?

well then the money gets diverted into other government project like mps expenses.

 

[mattheman]

This is bull**** - we privatised BT yet the taxpayer is still being forced to fund it with this tax.

I bet if naked DSL was available in this country then there would be a huge demand for it. BT say there is not enough demand, but how many people know about the concept?

It isn't because £6+VAT is a vast sum of money that people are ****ed off, it's the principle of yet another rip-off unfair tax.

if there was i'd alread yhave it.

 

[mattheman]

That would make the per-capita cost incredibly high, hence spreading it out across the whole population. It's the same thing we do with all services: you pay for the NHS regardless of whether you use it, you pay for the fire service regardless of whether you use it, you pay for the police force regardless of whether you use it. It's 2009, access to broadband internet is a pretty important right.

you dont need it like the others.

 

[mattheman]

except it's not about giving people free internet. But rolling out high speed internet to every house, a very different thing to your rant.

Thats why we have a free market if there is a demand then there will be a supply, when BT went private we were told that a private company would improve the infrastructure etc... and no tax money would be used.
if am going to pay for it then i dont expect companies to charge high prices for that product and i will expect prices to drop.

 

[mattheman]

Surely the £10 a month line rental is supposed to cover BT fixing their crappy copper?

even your some of the money you pay for broad band goes towareds the crapper copper.

 

[mattheman]

No. Tax everyone to bring some semblance of equality to the broadband market. I think it's fair, and I'm in a 50Mb Virgin area and getting 20Mbps on ADSL2.

Its not my fault people choose to live where they choose, infact renting or buying a home in teh sticks is a lot cheaper, if the cost of BB to those areas is more then so be it, let the people in the sticks pay a higher price.
If they dont like it they can always move.

 

[mattheman]

A rather one-sided view there, mattheman.

Not really why should i pay for people that live in the sticks to have good quality BB, they have much cheaper properties values rents etc..
So wheres property tax to help those to purchase a house in a city? dont see any of that do i.

 

[mattheman]

just because they don't own it doesn't mean they don't spend money on it.



There isn't with any tax. But they are setting money aside. This is something UK needs and the government knows his. he amount of business and education done on-line is massive and is growing. If we want to keep up with other countrys and not lose more industry his has to be done.

there job will be to give money and grants to BT to help speed up roll out. Cheap uncapped broadband can not continue. The cost in the infrastructure is huge. With services like I player if a lot of people started using it tomorrow the grid would crash, it is not designed for the modern world and needs updating. either you have a tax and heavy government supervision (like the railway) or we fall behind. imagine if BT suddenly added money on to pay for infrastructure everyone would move to a different provider. BT has to let other companys on he grid at a set price.

if theres a market demand the market will provide. how many times have we heard privatisation will benefit everyone. if privatisation is so good how come we need to subsidise it? always.

 

[mattheman]

Not at all, infastructure cost is massive and it's not just about demand it is about economy and keeping UK up there with the rest of he world.

Also BT has to sell line rental at a set price, due to monopoly laws. Just like Royal Mail had to sale final deliver post at a set price. Making RM lose money as other comapnys picked up business mail for dirt cheap and gave RM the letters to do final delivery.


So no it does not work like you say at all.

you cant privatise companies and still expect the tax payer to foot the bill.

 

[mattheman]

I imagine it'll be along the lines of tax breaks and grants for companies looking to invest in rural areas, I wouldn't be surprised if mobile broadband was a target - it as to be easier to install a 3G mast in Hicksville than upgrade umpteen local exchanges.

if people choose not to live in cities etc.. the get the benefit of one good yet lost the benefit of another, you cant have both.

 

[mattheman]

No they dont? I live in the "sticks" and you will not find a house around here which is very cheap at all. Do not assume that "sticks" means cheap. A huge number of very expensive properties are rural or semi rural.

you put the same house in the city the price would be 3 or more times the countries value.

 

[mattheman]

Very poor generalisation.

Most of Surrey is countryside, yet property prices are eye-watering.
Same goes for most the the South.

your telling me if you had a 4 bedroom property in surrey, and you got the same property and put it in london the values would be the same?

 

[mattheman]

BT say they need £5bn to do the work, how many billions in profit have they made, this is just another tax.

 

[mattheman]

they're a business, it's not economically viable for them to make these last mile provisions out of their own coffers, think about the cost of running reasonable cabling to one or two houses miles from nowhere compared to how much they're going to get back from line rental, wholesale broadband fees etc.

You can't just say that BT must do it, they're under no obligation to.

So why should i pay for it, do i get a discount later on no, they'll profit from it ill lose from it.

 

[mattheman]

you're in Manchester so you shouldn't see any benefit.

This is just making sure everyone has "superfast" 2mb speed.

2 mb is super fast, then years later theyll just upgrade again, why not go the whole hog and offer 1 gig BB end of.