Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)

In news:hplga2116cote3j20ea878krm9fumlb29u@xxxxxxx,
Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:27:52 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In news:2miga2peh9voitac46dgk6qcbokpmojj5o@xxxxxxx,
Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:37:40 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1508650,00.html


A very stupid headline, since that was only one of several options
that *might* be looked at by 2017.


My question is would a taxation on computers and/or Internet access
contravene article 10 of the European convention on Human rights?


No. Of course not.

Computers and internet access are already taxed (VAT).

There's VAT on Pens, Paper and Ink to. Howver one doesn't need a
special licence to own a pen and paper or to use such tools. One
already has an inalianable licence to use such tools, or at least
one should do in a democratic society. What makes Computers and
Internet access any different?


They are a lot more expensive, and they have many other uses.

Otherwise, nothing much.

But so what?

Who is saying they *are* any different?

You were not asking why *should* computers be taxed, you were asking
whether it would be legal to do so.

And the answer is that yes, it would.

Well I think it becomes problematic when it is called a "Licence" because
generally one already supposedly has a licence for free expression (within
certain limits). Some sort of blanket taxation on computers charged at point
of sale or a charge levied through ISPs on Internet access could I suppose
work, it's still a bit unethical IMO but it would be difficult to contest.
However I think if they did that they would need to abolish the TV Licence
as it stands. I don't really see how a licence system could work for
computers.


Article 10 - Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers.

Whilst I understand this act has not been used successfully in the
abolition of the Licence in regard to Television sets because
European law also allows member states to licence broadcasting,
television or cinema enterprises. Surely when it comes to computers
and Internet access, whilst both may be used to consume
entertainment and limited broadcast material are primarily used as
a means of interactive communication where the user may in fact
express and create more than he or she may actually consume.

Surely any taxation of such a medium would in effect constitute a
tax of free expression and would fundamentally contravene European
human rights legislation as well as being completely against the
Interests of democracy in the UK whether real or illusionary.

Nope.

There is nothing in Article 10 which states that "freedom of
expression" must be "free of charge".

No but charging is a limitation which disenfrancises the poor and
would in effect removes basic human rights, making such rights
comensurate to wealth.


Which they already are, to a much greater extent than is likely as a
result of such a measure.

If people can afford to buy a computer in the first place, they can
probably afford the licence. Most of them would have a TV set
(licensed) now anyhow.

Not necessarily one can buy a serviceable computer for £50 to £100 and basic
Broadband access is within the means of someone on the dole in fact it
generally costs little more than unmetered dial-up, and obviously if someone
were to do without a TV then the £12 per month saved on the licence would
pay a substantial part of basic Broadband access.

However if you add another £10 a month to the cost of Internet access then
it probably wouldn't be affordable for someone who was unemployed. Obviously
making it more difficult for the unemployed to maintain their IT skills and
access the jobs markets on line would be a bad thing and could have serious
and disproportionate effects on the whole economy.


Such imbalances exist in any case due to free market economics. In a
democracy part of a goverments role is to redress such imbalances.
Othewise why would one actuall need a Govenement at all?


Quite a few reasons.

Like War on terrorism. Of course there are people who contend that was an
invention designed to do away with human rights and impose a new World
Order. That's probably going a bit too far but certain rights have and are
being gradually eroded. Though this is probable more apparent to Americans.
Of course the main thing that oppresses Americans is they often have more
debt than they can ever pay off sometimes in the region of millions of
dollars if they get ill and haven't got sufficient medical insurance.
Generally the UK isn't all bad.


Nor that specific media for expressing opinion in must be free.

No but generally in a democracy part of the governments role is to
uphold democracy itself to ensure that no one is disenfranchised
from access to the means of expression, freedom of speech and
political discourse.

That is an argument.

It still isn't a good enough one for why tax on computers, or on
internet access, should be illegal.

No probably not, but I think it's at variance with the basic principles of
democracy.

Democracy is IMO far more important that the funding of the BBC,
which as a part of the establishment it could be agued is not
entirely independent and is an oracle of government propaganda and
social manipulation.

I completely agree.

But that has nothing significant to do with the question.

I see what you mean. A tax on computers and Internet access would be a bit
different than a licence system and since it would be difficult if not
impossible to evade no one would end up in court seeking to defend their
human rights. So the government could probably get away with it :(
--
Amanda


.

Relevant Pages