[Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] Taxing Internet services
Richard Hill
rhill at hill-a.ch
Sun Nov 13 10:09:31 PST 2016
Many of the issues that have been mentioned in the posts on these lists are discussed in this study:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Regulatory-Market/Documents/Taxation%20Study-final-en.pdf
And were discussed in this workshop:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/finance/work-cost-tariffs/events/tariff-seminars/Geneva_Taxation/Agenda.htm
Best,
Richard
From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Marius Hole
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 19:00
To: cdel at firsthand.net
Cc: Zorro; ISOC Chapter Delegates; Cynthia Khoo; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [Internet Policy] Taxing Internet services
"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/20161113/10b687a2/attachment.htm>
More information about the Chapter-delegates
mailing list