The new 'Phone tax'

nsabournemouth

Ok this country tax the hell out of us and the new one is a tax on a phone line.

It may only be £0.50p per month but add that to the other taxes we pay and it adds up so is there a way to have a landline number but on a mobile phone?

juliescot

I see it is allegedly called a broadband tax so why then tax phone lines?
Many people who have a fixed line phone do not have broadband.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8270772.stm

paperclip4201

High taxation is what we pay to live in a good state!
Where would you rather lose money? The NHS? Education? Maybe we should have an american style university system or force people to buy health insurance instead?

Ypaymore

nsabournemouth wrote: »

is there a way to have a landline number but on a mobile phone?

Yes O2 Mobile Landline. http://www.o2.co.uk/sme/businessservices/mobilelandline/pricing

moonrakerz

paperclip4201 wrote: »

High taxation is what we pay to live in a good state!

............if only .................................

paperclip4201

Better in relative terms for a highly developed nation, i take it you'd rather live in the states?

nsabournemouth

paperclip4201 wrote: »

High taxation is what we pay to live in a good state!
Where would you rather lose money? The NHS? Education? Maybe we should have an american style university system or force people to buy health insurance instead?

Yeah right? The tax is because the likes of Virgin can't be arsed to invest in this themselves.

paperclip4201

So you'd rather virgin invest it in themselves and have a monopoly, then have competition meaning it's gonna be cheaper?

I take it you think virgin trains should own the tracks, as opposed to network rail then?

nsabournemouth

paperclip4201 wrote: »

So you'd rather virgin invest it in themselves and have a monopoly, then have competition meaning it's gonna be cheaper?

I take it you think virgin trains should own the tracks, as opposed to network rail then?

No, that is silly. Of course it is down to all those who wish to provide broadband. BT,Sky, Virgin etc etc. I don't see why i should pay for it.

paperclip4201

nsabournemouth wrote: »

No, that is silly. Of course it is down to all those who wish to provide broadband. BT,Sky, Virgin etc etc. I don't see why i should pay for it.

Look at the train network:
The track was built by the taxpayer, and indeed the train system was subsidised by the taxpayer when it was nationalised. Then when it was derailed (great word to use in this context :P) the companies paid for the usage of the railway track, this allowed business to fight for our custom, and smaller business to come in and compete if the others started ripping us off.

If one company built the train track, then they can stop others using it meaning we're forced to use their service, and in turn we pay more.

If you don't have this tax then we lose out in the long run, we end up paying more because only very few companies can create the infrastructure for the service. The poor companies cannot do this, resulting in an oligopolistic situation where price collusion is easy (look at supermarkets).

I don't claim to understand economics deeply, but that's my inference from the situation, in which case it may be bad in the short run, but is great in the long run.

DVardysShadow

paperclip4201 wrote: »

Look at the train network:
The track was built by the taxpayer,

Really? It was mostly built by private companies. The amount of track built under public ownership is trivial

and indeed the train system was subsidised by the taxpayer when it was nationalised.

Largely true.

Then when it was derailed (great word to use in this context :P) the companies paid for the usage of the railway track, this allowed business to fight for our custom, and smaller business to come in and compete if the others started ripping us off.

This is one economic theory. Communism is another economic theory. Both are fine apart from greed