Netherlands: Tax on internet use to save newspapers

[Jack Sparrow]

Read this article some days ago and im still confused about it, so i want to hear some opinions.

Because of the internets, newspaper memberships are slowly drying up. Why have a membership thats pretty expensive and all the trouble of delivering it to someone when you can just switchon the laptop (or by now, even the cellphone) to check all the news from allover the world for free.

Some dude in the dutch parlement wants every single person that has an internet connection to pay tax on it.

Why? Are they doing something to give poor people a better life?

No, to prevend the newspapers from slowly going bankrupt. They want to save them.

Even if i have to pay only 3-4 euros a month for it, which in turn makes the government earn billions, why the fuck would i want to save something i dont want to use, or is bound to die. Isnt that evolution?

Opinions please.

[Danny B]

Yeah I read that too. On the interwebses ;)
Ridiculous indeed.
But hey, it's the Netherlands and the government taxes the shit out of everything.
Next thing you know they'll be taxing green energy because they don't want the fossil energy sources to become obsolete.

[HomerSimpson]

Originally Posted by mrfrisky

why the fuck would i want to save something i dont want to use, or is bound to die. Isnt that evolution?

exactly...
and newspapers can now make $$$ by advertising on their sites,
and they are saving the forests by not using paper to print the news for just one reading.

only glossy mags will survive, and couple of daily newspapers.
their price should be increased because you're destroying forests by reading news on the paper, and all that just because you're lazy to go online... that should be taxed IMHO

[slapass]

The concern is that if there is no local news, politicians will get away with whatever they want. I assume we will develop a different system. Ideally local politicians would go away and we would have more uniform laws for bigger areas.

[James124]

Originally Posted by slapass

The concern is that if there is no local news, politicians will get away with whatever they want. I assume we will develop a different system.

im sorry but that's the most idiotic comment ever made. You actually believe that???

[the real magoo]

Originally Posted by mrfrisky

why the fuck would i want to save something i dont want to use, or is bound to die. Isnt that evolution?

No, thats Socialism.

[Hank_Heartland]

Originally Posted by the real magoo

No, thats Socialism.

No, it is just another excuse for a tax...that's it that's all

Let the damn things die if they can't adapt

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by mrfrisky

Some dude in the dutch parlement wants every single person that has an internet connection to pay tax on it.

Not a dude in the Dutch parliament, but instead a commission created to analyze the future of the newspaper industry.

And since the minister of education, culture and science has already stated that he considers it an extremely bad idea, it's not going to happen.

Of course, the concern about newspapers disappearing is actually a valid one. While websites also deliver news, they very often stick to stories from the big news agencies (AP, Reuters, ANP, etc.) and do very little investigative journalism themselves.

Since news agencies tend to provide only small stories with little depth and criticism, there is a very real danger that the disappearance of newspapers will stifle public debate and prevent politicians and such from getting called out on bad behavior. Because let's face it - when a politician abuses his power, a newspaper like NRC is rather more likely to expose his actions than a website like Nu.nl.

Of course, that doesn't mean this proposal is a good one. It's not. Government funding for the media makes the media less independent, which is the last thing we should want.

[pornguy]

Adapt or Die.

[the real magoo]

Originally Posted by pornguy

Adapt or Die.

Tubes are the future

[Mefo]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Not a dude in the Dutch parliament, but instead a commission created to analyze the future of the newspaper industry.

And since the minister of education, culture and science has already stated that he considers it an extremely bad idea, it's not going to happen.

Of course, the concern about newspapers disappearing is actually a valid one. While websites also deliver news, they very often stick to stories from the big news agencies (AP, Reuters, ANP, etc.) and do very little investigative journalism themselves.

Since news agencies tend to provide only small stories with little depth and criticism, there is a very real danger that the disappearance of newspapers will stifle public debate and prevent politicians and such from getting called out on bad behavior. Because let's face it - when a politician abuses his power, a newspaper like NRC is rather more likely to expose his actions than a website like Nu.nl.

Of course, that doesn't mean this proposal is a good one. It's not. Government funding for the media makes the media less independent, which is the last thing we should want.

Yup, this law won't get trough

[notime]

They need to tax the oil industry to save the porn business
That idea would be much better

[Scott McD]

That's fucking ridiculous. No doubt our government here will be right on it aswell...

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by slapass

The concern is that if there is no local news, politicians will get away with whatever they want. I assume we will develop a different system. Ideally local politicians would go away and we would have more uniform laws for bigger areas.

Originally Posted by James124

im sorry but that's the most idiotic comment ever made. You actually believe that???

Yes and so do I. And if you don't you're a fool.

The newspapers are the leaders at investigative journalism. Without them cases like Watergate would never of happened. And it's still happening today, go look at the work The Telegraph is doing in the UK.

Without them investigating the case of UK Members of Parliament expenses no one would of known about it. The MPs would still be ripping off UK citizens. And if you go look you will find many more cases similar.

The problem is simple, online advertising is not as good as generating money as print is and was. It's money that pays for journalists to sit down and grind these cases out. TV is the next best thing but how much of their investigations are limited to a 30 minute one off time frame?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Yes and so do I. And if you don't you're a fool.

The newspapers are the leaders at investigative journalism. Without them cases like Watergate would never of happened. And it's still happening today, go look at the work The Telegraph is doing in the UK.

Without them investigating the case of UK Members of Parliament expenses no one would of known about it. The MPs would still be ripping off UK citizens. And if you go look you will find many more cases similar.

The problem is simple, online advertising is not as good as generating money as print is and was. It's money that pays for journalists to sit down and grind these cases out. TV is the next best thing but how much of their investigations are limited to a 30 minute one off time frame?

I guess if this was 100 years ago you'd be all for a car tax to help keep blacksmiths in business.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by GatorB

I guess if this was 100 years ago you'd be all for a car tax to help keep blacksmiths in business.

You missed my point 100%, well done.

[grumpy]

its down the drain already( the idea )

[mynameisjim]

There is some truth to some of the replies.

Newspapers are the only organizations that do true investigations. All the big stories you read about on the news sites, or watch on CNN, or bloggers talk about, originated from newspapers actually digging up the dirt and following up with sources, etc. Many big stories that are on the front page of the New York Times were investigated for months. Editors and writers went back and forth, double checked sources. No other format can really do that.

A tax isn't the answer, but I hope the newspaper industry can find a way to stick around. The founders of America stated that a free and healthy press was one of the keys to a working democracy. I hate to tell you this, but Anderson Cooper standing in a hurricane doesn't qualify as good journalism.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

There is some truth to some of the replies.

Newspapers are the only organizations that do true investigations. All the big stories you read about on the news sites, or watch on CNN, or bloggers talk about, originated from newspapers actually digging up the dirt and following up with sources, etc. Many big stories that are on the front page of the New York Times were investigated for months. Editors and writers went back and forth, double checked sources. No other format can really do that.

A tax isn't the answer, but I hope the newspaper industry can find a way to stick around. The founders of America stated that a free and healthy press was one of the keys to a working democracy. I hate to tell you this, but Anderson Cooper standing in a hurricane doesn't qualify as good journalism.

It takes a few minutes to think back to the scandals revealed by the newspapers to see how some politicians or big business might not be in favor of any form of support for them.

[Abracadabra_nl]

It was just a suggestion buy some governmental commission. They won't actually put it into effect.
Taxing on internet use to save newspapers, that would simply have been too ridiculous to put into words

[TidalWave]

Why is it that these smaller newspapers can't drop the paper format and just digitize their works?
They can all still go and investigate all these things, and simply report it in a different format - the internet. If they don't have enough people visiting to cover their expenses, then people just don't care about what they're reporting and they should die out.

Reporting on the internet will actually yield them much lower costs then what they have and are doing now for offices, and printing, etc.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by TidalWave

Why is it that these smaller newspapers can't drop the paper format and just digitize their works?
They can all still go and investigate all these things, and simply report it in a different format - the internet. If they don't have enough people visiting to cover their expenses, then people just don't care about what they're reporting and they should die out.

Reporting on the internet will actually yield them much lower costs then what they have and are doing now for offices, and printing, etc.

And a lot less profit, that pays for journalists to delve into stories and root out the scandals. Internet advertising will never replace the spending on print advertising. And its that money that mallows you to know those scandals.

Too many think the Internet should be free for it to work. Nothing in life is free and you always get what you pay for.

[iseeyou]

It costs big money to hire investigative journalists and print newspapers. Who will pay for it?

Nothing in life is free except porn.

[Dirty Dane]

Taxfree internet = less newspapers = less tree cutting = less environmental taxes = more tax on internet
They are not doing it to save newspapers, but to save their own asses

[Rochard]

My brother works in advertising in the newspaper industry in NYC. He tells me it's dieing and he's looking to get out.

Originally Posted by Danny B

Yeah I read that too. On the interwebses ;)
Ridiculous indeed.
But hey, it's the Netherlands and the government taxes the shit out of everything.
Next thing you know they'll be taxing green energy because they don't want the fossil energy sources to become obsolete.

Just wait.... Here in the US some of our gasoline taxes go towards maintaining our roads. As the MPG improves and people move over to electric cars, this revenue will go way down. Local governments are talking about taxing us by how many miles we drive a year.