[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] Taxing Internet services

[Marius Hole]

>
> "because this is a highly concentrated sector so it is simple to collect,
> and because this sector has not been subject to specific taxes for a long
> time."

This, in itself, is not an valid argument IMNSHO

The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) has announced recently that it will
> install a system to monitor earnings from all telecommunications products
> and services including airtime on local calls. The (TRA) is working with
> the Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA) and the Bank of
> Tanzania (BoT) to implement the new system—the Telecommunications Revenue
> Assurance System (TRAS)—which will assist it to monitor the revenues
> generated by telecommunications companies including airtime sales earnings
> for local calls. It will also assist the TRA to collect revenue from the
> telecommunications sector efficiently and effectively.

This is very good, this is something that would be good to see more of
around the world within many different fields.

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net>
wrote:

> Whilst it is true that the licence fee has in recent years
> included slightly more than just BBC production (outsourced or not) the
> general point I made is I believe good that the BBC licence fee is
> not equivalent to a content tax for the UK nor the levy on cassettes etc.
>
We have the same in Norway. NRK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRK), the
channel is state-owned but we (subscribers?) pay annual license fee. As far
back as I can remember there is yearly discussions about the licence fee
because you really have to work hard for it to be exempt from paying the
license fee. The reason there is license, instead of tax-payed, they want
to control themselves the amount they need to run the whole organization as
far as I know. This is to make sure that new government with new treasury
don't cut down and right into the heart of Norwegian broadcasting. Without
advertising they produce a vast variety of TV-shows, movies, radio programs
and not the least online content. Everything open and free for everybody.
The alternative would be very sad, in my opinion (thus; advertising
financed national broadcasting, downsized because of budget cut, or worse;
pay per view services). I strongly disbelieve that people that oppose the
license fee understand how much NRK is providing and they are probably both
using and gaining from the content and production. And to be said, I watch
BBC World News and listen to BBC Radio 1, and I really enjoy the English
counterpart of quality content without advertising.

In 2008 Australia's government started a project to improve the digital
infrastructure in the geographically vast country (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network). I have not dug
deep into the background here, I don't have knowledge of how the initiative
came to life, who fronted it, how much the public was involved, etc. But to
my best knowledge it is public funded.

is there any reason "the Internet" would need taxes of its own?

My thought... Yes and no. Internet is so much. When I'm traveling I'm
usually connected with my 4G (integrated), I also have 4G in my phone and
my tablet. And yes, not to forget... I have the "free" (and restricted) 3G
in my Amazon Kindle... I feel the questions should be:

1. Where should the tax be applied (restricted to xyz) ?, and
2. What is the purpose of the tax (where will the money go) ?

If the case is like Australia, the whole country needs a serious refresh of
it's infrastructure, I think it's smart to go for tax. The same would be if
there should be established a state enterprise which focuses on the digital
infrastructure (and security around it), in the same way we have for roads
(DMV/SHA).

I would conclude this with saying that I believe taxing Internet services
in itself would not be that bad, but I believe the purpose of the tax must
be clear and used directly for Internet services and Internet
infrastructure in the country. The tax income has to be earmarked with the
purpose, and there must be budget transparency.



-- 
Marius Hole
+47 93847880
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20161113/b27737a5/attachment.htm>