Hungarian Internet Tax Disaster

[Tibe]

That is what I have been trying to say. It could all be worse, Christo. It could all be much worse.

Thats not helping at all you know. Especially considering that this shit is completely avoidable and on top of that totally pointless in the first place.

[Daunt_Flockula]

Avoidable depends on how big and stubborn of a tick the prime minister is. And also on how far he is willing to go. I remember tons of shit being avoidable and funny to even think about. Needless to say they all ended up happening.

[Christo]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29846285?ocid=socialflow_twitter

It's not over yet, he only said that it won't be implemented in this current form.

Don't trust this motherfucker.

[Butan]

The plateau itself is a huge problem. at 0.6 euros per Gb, everybody even remotely connected is going to reach that 2.9 euro limit, on each of their connection plans (which means like 10 per family if you think about it). This is a large, fixed per-month amount of money that basically everybody will have to pay. In other words this is the most socially indiscriminate tax ever. There is zero reason for this tax to exist other than money, and there are much, much better ways to acquire money.

Yes, since internet is very fast and a Gb is more and more considered as the Mb of yore, the plateau will be reached by anyone who is playing videos/downloading games/softwares and to an extent, using torrents and the like. Which is why a plateau is extremely important, and the lower the better.
On the individual connexion tax, how would they differentiate several people using the same connexion, and tax them each, making it 10€ monthly for a family as you said?


And on the general matter of taxes, there is always a better way to acquire money, as long as it doesnt come out from our own pockets 

[LordBerenger]

Hungry áryans

Huehuehuehuehue

[Kafein]

Yes, since internet is very fast and a Gb is more and more considered as the Mb of yore, the plateau will be reached by anyone who is playing videos/downloading games/softwares and to an extent, using torrents and the like. Which is why a plateau is extremely important, and the lower the better.

The lower the limit, the more this tax hurts the poor and not the rich. The actual amount of tax per Gb is astronomical and I assume would actually represent more money per month than your internet subscription if there was no limit. This tax is effectively blind to everything.

And on the general matter of taxes, there is always a better way to acquire money, as long as it doesnt come out from our own pockets 

Do you honestly think this is an argument?

This tax serves no incentive purpose, unlike a tax on unhealthy food or a tax on carbon. This tax is unfair, due to the extremely low limit. This tax isn't there to pay for infrastructure because as far as I know the internet infrastructure isn't maintained by the government. By extension this tax doesn't support investment in the infrastructure. This tax doesn't encourage a decrease in internet use due to the limit but at the same time there is no reason to discourage internet use. In other words it's just a funny way to call the "let's steal 3 euros per month from everyone" tax.

I'm not advocating for a tax-free utopia here, I'm just saying this is the worst way to tax. Do you know what worst means?

[Butan]

The lower the limit, the more this tax hurts the poor and not the rich.

The lower the limit, the better it is for the poor, the rich included. If they dont include average salary in the equation, it will not discriminate the poor from the rich, but saying a lower plateau hurts the poor is not true.

I'm not advocating for a tax-free utopia here, I'm just saying this is the worst way to tax. Do you know what worst means?

I know whats avoiding the only question in my post  why you quote anything but that? At least develop on your own previous thought.

everybody even remotely connected is going to reach that 2.9 euro limit, on each of their connection plans (which means like 10 per family if you think about it).

On the individual connexion tax, how would they differentiate several people using the same connexion, and tax them each, making it 10€ monthly for a family as you said?

[Kafein]

The lower the limit, the better it is for the poor, the rich included. If they dont include average salary in the equation, it will not discriminate the poor from the rich, but saying a lower plateau hurts the poor is not true.

The problem is that the tax doesn't actually follow the amount of usage. It would make sense to have a low cost per Gb with a higher limit, so that large consumers pay more, and small consumers pay less. Suppose the tax brings X amount of cash in the bank, it would be better if it took more from people who can support it easily and less from the others. You argument is basically "the tax could be higher so it's not hurting the poor" well yes it is, because comparing things that don't bring the same amount of money to the government doesn't make sense in this context.

I know whats avoiding the only question in my post  why you quote anything but that? At least develop on your own previous thought.
On the individual connexion tax, how would they differentiate several people using the same connexion, and tax them each, making it 10€ monthly for a family as you said?

They don't need to differentiate between people using the same connection. A family can very easily reach 1 mobile connection per person, plus one for the house.

[Umbra]

So, Christo, is the tax rekt?

[BlindGuy]

So, Christo, is the tax rekt?

Nice signature Umbra... Oh man the more I think about that the more I laugh, he fucking rekt me with his cunning.

EDIT: SRY to temp. derail thread but I feel I should tell you Umbra: He called me, ran into the ruins, stood next to the entrance with a swing where I couldnt see him, and hit me in head with studded warclub as I came thru doorway, so I fell down, and he then ended me as I lay there wondering if anyone got the number of that donkey cart that just ran me down.

[Butan]

The problem is that the tax doesn't actually follow the amount of usage. It would make sense to have a low cost per Gb with a higher limit, so that large consumers pay more, and small consumers pay less.

But since they arent stupid they know that poor as well as rich people can transfer high quantity of data... so I dont see your counter-argument to the fact that in an internet tax case, a very low plateau is the most sensible approach if its not indexed on a person revenue, if you want to raise money AND not hurt the poor more than necessary. If they applied a tax of 0.01€ per GB of data, noone would reach the plateau except those that feeds the internet the most, and they could be poor as shit free torrent seeders or rich as hell premium accounts.
The only difference would be, they would raise way less money. If you want to make a "just" tax you change the index parameter, not the plateau, especially in that case.

They don't need to differentiate between people using the same connection. A family can very easily reach 1 mobile connection per person, plus one for the house.

Case in point: they cant differentiate people using the same internet connexion...
Even if you add mobile into the mix (notwithstanding the fact that if 2€ hurts you more than ideologically, you dont own 1 internet connected subscription mobile per person in a family...), an average person doesnt download as much data on them than on a computer.

[Christo]

So, Christo, is the tax rekt?

No.

They will make some 'national consultation' about the internet tax. Pretty much bullshit card pulled so people can't protest. It's not like they will take it seriously anyway. I think the fact that the overseer and leader of this 'national consultation' called the internet tax protesters "stink bugs" alone is enough.

How can a so called consultation like this be any legitimate?

And on top of all that even worse taxes will come.

Roughly 3 million hungarians can't eat meat or a warm meal every day, which is three times worse than the EU average statistic.
But there will be an increase in food prices by 6%, stuff needed for hygenie, alcohol, and many, many other things.

This whole thing is about trying to lobby against supermarket chains like Tesco and Auchan, limiting their profits and days they can be open. Meanwhile their own "national" shop chain will be untouched by these taxes. Not like I really care about Tesco but increasing an inspection tax from 0,1% of their income, to 6% while their own chain will be unaffected.

Same goes for some christian democrat (KDNP, part of FIDESZ, pretty much christian democrat tards) plan to keep them closed on sundays. Of course this won't effect their own chain again. And they are playing with an estimated 35.000 people's jobs with this nonsense. The reason is that "people need to rest and be with their families (and go to church ofc) on a sunday"

This all on top of shit salaries, and remember, a 27% VAT.

I'm sick of this backwards, narrow-minded country, sigh.

[Kafein]

Heh, we also have largely closed Sundays here and the strongest advocate of that lunacy are the unions.

Be happy of your great public transport in Budapest. It's like in Moscow or Pyongyang.

But since they arent stupid they know that poor as well as rich people can transfer high quantity of data... so I dont see your counter-argument to the fact that in an internet tax case, a very low plateau is the most sensible approach if its not indexed on a person revenue, if you want to raise money AND not hurt the poor more than necessary. If they applied a tax of 0.01€ per GB of data, noone would reach the plateau except those that feeds the internet the most, and they could be poor as shit free torrent seeders or rich as hell premium accounts.
The only difference would be, they would raise way less money. If you want to make a "just" tax you change the index parameter, not the plateau, especially in that case.

That's fair, however it doesn't really change my main point, because there's no index. One of the advantages of this tax I can see is that it's easy to organize, much like VAT. But it would be simpler to just take 2 euros from everybody and be done with it, but that's probably less appealing to the Hungarian public than something called "internet tax".

Even if you add mobile into the mix (notwithstanding the fact that if 2€ hurts you more than ideologically, you dont own 1 internet connected subscription mobile per person in a family...), an average person doesnt download as much data on them than on a computer.

Well I don't think most families prioritize spending as rationally as you seem to believe. Primarily because families include children.

[Christo]

Heh, we also have largely closed Sundays here and the strongest advocate of that lunacy are the unions.

I know but Hungary is not in an economical situation to handle such things without serious consequences.

Even the Fidesz vice-president agreed with this, while the christian democrats want to push it through. Idiocy.

[Christo]

Bump, I have got some fun pictures for you guys, from the fidesz serving propaganda media about economical growth rates 

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

This one looks like some bloody parody but it isn't 

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

it says: hungarian economy gets stronger than eurozone, according to next year eu forecast

We are much stronk eurozone, be very, very afraid!

These are from real TV news, I'm not kidding you.