Bob Crowe proves he is a twunt
Discussion
1p tax on each email to help pay off the deficit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8350348/Bob-...
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he said: "If you put a 1p tax on every text message that's sent in Britain, that would nearly wipe out half the deficit".
It was pointed out, however, that with 96.8 billion text messages sent last year in the United Kingdom, such a tax would raise only £968 million – a drop in the ocean of the £150 billion budget deficit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8350348/Bob-...
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he said: "If you put a 1p tax on every text message that's sent in Britain, that would nearly wipe out half the deficit".
It was pointed out, however, that with 96.8 billion text messages sent last year in the United Kingdom, such a tax would raise only £968 million – a drop in the ocean of the £150 billion budget deficit.
They guy is an idiot and doesn't understand technology.
As I understand it, most spam comes from abroad so wouldn't pay the tax
Many people would send less e-mails so potential revenue is down anyway ("something" would replace e-mail e.g. via social networking site etc.)
Then there's policing and implementing some form of tax collection scheme which would, not doubt, cost far more than the revenue brought in.
Anyway, as I say, the guy is an idiot. What's scary is there are loads more idiots who actually listen the crap he spouts. I wonder how much "revenue" would be brought in if they didn't go on strike (or if we taxed them £100m everytime
). The guy is also a pig in the farm of animals he lives in.....
As I understand it, most spam comes from abroad so wouldn't pay the tax
Many people would send less e-mails so potential revenue is down anyway ("something" would replace e-mail e.g. via social networking site etc.)
Then there's policing and implementing some form of tax collection scheme which would, not doubt, cost far more than the revenue brought in.
Anyway, as I say, the guy is an idiot. What's scary is there are loads more idiots who actually listen the crap he spouts. I wonder how much "revenue" would be brought in if they didn't go on strike (or if we taxed them £100m everytime
). The guy is also a pig in the farm of animals he lives in.....fido said:
Aside from the not-so-small issue of the sums not adding up, most people who text are well how can i put this .. now i could be wrong here, but it's likely to be those who can least afford to pay this extra 1p.
just say what you mean... they are the kind of people that would put Bob Crowe in a position of authority 
Puggit said:
1p tax on each email to help pay off the deficit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8350348/Bob-...
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he said: "If you put a 1p tax on every text message that's sent in Britain, that would nearly wipe out half the deficit".
It was pointed out, however, that with 96.8 billion text messages sent last year in the United Kingdom, such a tax would raise only £968 million – a drop in the ocean of the £150 billion budget deficit.
You may want to re-read the article, rather than selectively quoting from it.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/8350348/Bob-...
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he said: "If you put a 1p tax on every text message that's sent in Britain, that would nearly wipe out half the deficit".
It was pointed out, however, that with 96.8 billion text messages sent last year in the United Kingdom, such a tax would raise only £968 million – a drop in the ocean of the £150 billion budget deficit.
It's a crap idea, but he never claimed you could do it from text messages alone - he was talking about an email tax.
VeeFour said:
You may want to re-read the article, rather than selectively quoting from it.
It's a crap idea, but he never claimed you could do it from text messages alone - he was talking about an email tax.
ermm... yes he did, the year previous.It's a crap idea, but he never claimed you could do it from text messages alone - he was talking about an email tax.
quoted article said:
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper last year, he said: "If you put a 1p tax on every text message that's sent in Britain, that would nearly wipe out half the deficit".
besides of which, you really don't need to selectively quote the man to prove he's a twunt, he does the job so efficiently himself. About the only think him or his ilk ever do do efficiently of course.greygoose said:
If they taxed spam at 1p a go then I'd be quite content.
Hard to police/implement though.1stly you have to identify spam from normal e-mails.
2ndly you have to define what is spam. There's scams, marketing/virals, etc. Many spam e-mails are valid marketing e-mails that people don't mind. On persons spam is anothers "oh, they're selling that at half price, that's good to know". We can currently manage (to an extent) how many we receive via not signing up to stuff (i.e. CHECK what tickboxes you are or are not ticking), spam filters etc, have separate "junk" e-mail for when signing up to some stuff etc.
And, as I pointed out above, many spams are (and would certainly will be if a tax came along) from abroad where the tax doesn't exist.
Jasandjules said:
Is that Bob "I'm a socialist so send me a limo" Crowe? Who earns a lowly wage like all good workers, and lives in a small house like all the workers? That one?
Don't forget to point out his house is actually a council house... £140k a year, £10k expenses andsubsidised housing. Who knew the 'working man' was doing so well these days?Dracoro said:
Hard to police/implement though.
1stly you have to identify spam from normal e-mails.
2ndly you have to define what is spam. There's scams, marketing/virals, etc. Many spam e-mails are valid marketing e-mails that people don't mind. On persons spam is anothers "oh, they're selling that at half price, that's good to know". We can currently manage (to an extent) how many we receive via not signing up to stuff (i.e. CHECK what tickboxes you are or are not ticking), spam filters etc, have separate "junk" e-mail for when signing up to some stuff etc.
And, as I pointed out above, many spams are (and would certainly will be if a tax came along) from abroad where the tax doesn't exist.
STOP. Why are you even giving this monumentally stupid idea even one iota of consideration? Save your valuable synapses for something that may actually happen!1stly you have to identify spam from normal e-mails.
2ndly you have to define what is spam. There's scams, marketing/virals, etc. Many spam e-mails are valid marketing e-mails that people don't mind. On persons spam is anothers "oh, they're selling that at half price, that's good to know". We can currently manage (to an extent) how many we receive via not signing up to stuff (i.e. CHECK what tickboxes you are or are not ticking), spam filters etc, have separate "junk" e-mail for when signing up to some stuff etc.
And, as I pointed out above, many spams are (and would certainly will be if a tax came along) from abroad where the tax doesn't exist.
Bing o said:
Dracoro said:
Hard to police/implement though.
1stly you have to identify spam from normal e-mails.
2ndly you have to define what is spam. There's scams, marketing/virals, etc. Many spam e-mails are valid marketing e-mails that people don't mind. On persons spam is anothers "oh, they're selling that at half price, that's good to know". We can currently manage (to an extent) how many we receive via not signing up to stuff (i.e. CHECK what tickboxes you are or are not ticking), spam filters etc, have separate "junk" e-mail for when signing up to some stuff etc.
And, as I pointed out above, many spams are (and would certainly will be if a tax came along) from abroad where the tax doesn't exist.
STOP. Why are you even giving this monumentally stupid idea even one iota of consideration? Save your valuable synapses for something that may actually happen!1stly you have to identify spam from normal e-mails.
2ndly you have to define what is spam. There's scams, marketing/virals, etc. Many spam e-mails are valid marketing e-mails that people don't mind. On persons spam is anothers "oh, they're selling that at half price, that's good to know". We can currently manage (to an extent) how many we receive via not signing up to stuff (i.e. CHECK what tickboxes you are or are not ticking), spam filters etc, have separate "junk" e-mail for when signing up to some stuff etc.
And, as I pointed out above, many spams are (and would certainly will be if a tax came along) from abroad where the tax doesn't exist.
But there will be some people, even on here, who may think "hang on, it's not a bad idea", best to nip them in the bud It's interesting that the crux of his approach is that actually the country can shoulder another £140Bn in tax to close the deficit (Estimated 2010/2011 deficit). It probably matters little what scheme he proposes, that's just spin to make it seem better than increasing existing taxes. I'm not sure he understands quite how big a number £140Bn is;
91% of the highest income tax take ever (£153Bn 2008/2009)
174% of the highest VAT take ever (£81Bn 2007/2008)
302% of the highest Corporation Tax take ever (£46Bn 2007/2008)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4...
91% of the highest income tax take ever (£153Bn 2008/2009)
174% of the highest VAT take ever (£81Bn 2007/2008)
302% of the highest Corporation Tax take ever (£46Bn 2007/2008)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4...
grantone said:
It's interesting that the crux of his approach is that actually the country can shoulder another £140Bn in tax to close the deficit (Estimated 2010/2011 deficit). It probably matters little what scheme he proposes, that's just spin to make it seem better than increasing existing taxes. I'm not sure he understands quite how big a number £140Bn is;
91% of the highest income tax take ever (£153Bn 2008/2009)
174% of the highest VAT take ever (£81Bn 2007/2008)
302% of the highest Corporation Tax take ever (£46Bn 2007/2008)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4...
Its not £140bn, because some of the deficit is cyclical, but yes the implicit message of left wing criticism of the 'cuts' is that a structural deficit of some £120bn can be eliminated solely through taxation, usually on the 'rich'. 91% of the highest income tax take ever (£153Bn 2008/2009)
174% of the highest VAT take ever (£81Bn 2007/2008)
302% of the highest Corporation Tax take ever (£46Bn 2007/2008)
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff