FTC Suggests Tax on Consumer Electronics to "Reinvent Journalism"

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
This baffles me, why spend money to save a medium of writing that is not only obsolete but its disappearance would relieve a burden on the environment? However, it's only a point of discussion in a much larger topic the FTC is talking about so I can't fault them for simply analyzing all the options.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
Um no. I do not want to subsidize something i don't use or involves me in anyway. Explain to me why i have to pay to keep something that is fast becoming antiquated? if i dont get a good reason i would be oppose to this if it were to even be mentioned seriously.
 

KSarty

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2008
995
0
21
dogstile said:
drkchmst said:
Khell_Sennet said:
Fuck NO!

Taxing one product to support the failing product that it is replacing is absolutely ludicrous. Electronics users should not be punished or taxed for preferring the bountiful new mediums technology has given them. If newspapers and other such dated sources are in trouble, maybe it's just time to pull the plug and let them pass peacefully. After all, the consumer has no obligation to buy a newspaper. Why then should he supplement that industry when they lose business to a competitor? A tax for not buying a product is the most absurd thing I've heard all year.
Tax to not have health insurance? :p
Totally agree, what is our government thinking...check that what should our government be thinking
The difference is the newspaper is a not needed choice, but the health insurance tax is there to save lives.
No it isn't, before the Healthcare bill went through Massachusetts enforced income tax fines for anyone who did not have health care for the entire year. They would tax you as punishment for not having health insurance. They tax us because they can, they couldn't care less about saving lives.

This is typical government interference bullshit. If print media is dying, then it means that the majority of the general public is not interested in it. How the hell does that justify taxing the media that the general public is interested in? Whoever said 5% isn't that much, it will be in addition to any sales tax. In my case, living in Massachusetts, I would be paying 11.25% tax on any consumer electronics I buy.
 

Cryo84R

Gentleman Bastard.
Jun 27, 2009
732
0
0
Strategia said:
Actually, this looks like a really great idea to me. Five percent isn't all that much - sure, on a $1000 widescreen TV it is, but in my understanding most consumer electronics don't go for nearly as much, and if you've got that $1k the extra $50 wouldn't make that much of a difference - and with the projected revenues, that could go a long way towards supporting the cost of those subsidies.
And you see nothing bad about the government paying (off) reporters and news agencies?
 

Nuke_em_05

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
828
0
21
How about... industry learns to change with technology?

You know, instead of punishing the consumer for keeping up?
 

Good morning blues

New member
Sep 24, 2008
2,664
0
0
Jaredin said:
First they want us to pay to read online and now this? Things must be bad for them
Yeah, these businesses should just figure out a way to survive without revenue.

I hope to work in the dead tree media in the future, but I don't think this is the way to go about it. Journalism is a public good with few peers, but I really feel like the industry needs to find a solution on its own instead of relying on government subsidies to perform CPR on a dying industry.
 

Raithnor

New member
Jul 26, 2009
224
0
0
This isn't about journalism per se, it's about advertising. I think what's happening is that advertising segment of the economy is looking over a cliff. It's not just journalism, it's any kind of professionally produced content that require old media advertising to work. That means anything you watched on televison in addition to print media.

What's happening is the advertisers are seeing all of the money they can't make on the internet that they used to make with Newspaper and TV ads. It's similar to how the video game industry sees all of the lost sales due to piracy and the used gaming market.

I seriously doubt it will happen though. No Congressman in their right mind would risk the backlash that would result.

What's going to happen is the advertising market will collaspe and then you're going to see people scrambling to make whatever money they can.
 

Shru1kan

New member
Dec 10, 2009
813
0
0
I for one enjoy the paper, and am 18 years old. And yeah, the industry is hurting. But my local paper cut costs by a huge amount by MAILING the paper to people rather than deliver it themselves.

But I have no respect for a lot of the non-newspaper journalistic outlets. Television news, video news, frankly disgust me. Biased and shitty, doing anything for a story. I don't want to support that, and I never will.

THIS is why digital news is failing, there is no morals in it anymore. This is why I will support the newspaper until the last one comes off the press. Don't tax my stuff I worked for, to support something I couldn't possibly care less about. Government needs to take their hands out of my fucking wallet.
 

KSarty

Senior Member
Aug 5, 2008
995
0
21
Shru1kan said:
I for one enjoy the paper, and am 18 years old. And yeah, the industry is hurting. But my local paper cut costs by a huge amount by MAILING the paper to people rather than deliver it themselves.

But I have no respect for a lot of the non-newspaper journalistic outlets. Television news, video news, frankly disgust me. Biased and shitty, doing anything for a story. I don't want to support that, and I never will.

THIS is why digital news is failing, there is no morals in it anymore. This is why I will support the newspaper until the last one comes off the press. Don't tax my stuff I worked for, to support something I couldn't possibly care less about. Government needs to take their hands out of my fucking wallet.
But it's the other way around. They are taxing digital media in order to subsidize print media, which is dying.
 

Shru1kan

New member
Dec 10, 2009
813
0
0
KSarty said:
Shru1kan said:
I for one enjoy the paper, and am 18 years old. And yeah, the industry is hurting. But my local paper cut costs by a huge amount by MAILING the paper to people rather than deliver it themselves.

But I have no respect for a lot of the non-newspaper journalistic outlets. Television news, video news, frankly disgust me. Biased and shitty, doing anything for a story. I don't want to support that, and I never will.

THIS is why digital news is failing, there is no morals in it anymore. This is why I will support the newspaper until the last one comes off the press. Don't tax my stuff I worked for, to support something I couldn't possibly care less about. Government needs to take their hands out of my fucking wallet.
But it's the other way around. They are taxing digital media in order to subsidize print media, which is dying.

Cough... cough cough.


I don't know who posted that, but he sure looks like a jackass : D
 

poiuppx

New member
Nov 17, 2009
674
0
0
Print media had its time. Digital media is the same game step-up that we got from going from print to radio, or radio to TV. Media, news, how we get it and how fast, these all evolve and grow and speed up. Honestly, it's amazing print lasted this long, and I give those in charge credit for keeping it alive in this form all this time. But it's almost over. Let it go. Print media won't die, per say, but it will need to evolve and accept that it's shrinking because it's been strongly replaced. Some folks'll still want their newspapers and print magazines, but those people dwindle year after year. If these companies don't look to the future and what they can do to step up, then all the taxes in the world won't save them. Because unless the government is willing to basically take over readership numbers, they're just going to be producing product for a small clinetelle. When you're selling papers for a quarter and magazines for a couple bucks, that's not a strategy for profit.
 

BlindMessiah94

The 94th Blind Messiah
Nov 12, 2009
2,654
0
0
So if I am understanding things correctly, they are losing customers, so now they want to tax those customers that they lost in order to keep their industry alive??

Um...what?
 

Strategia

za Rodina, tovarishchii
Mar 21, 2008
732
0
0
Cryo84R said:
Strategia said:
Actually, this looks like a really great idea to me. Five percent isn't all that much - sure, on a $1000 widescreen TV it is, but in my understanding most consumer electronics don't go for nearly as much, and if you've got that $1k the extra $50 wouldn't make that much of a difference - and with the projected revenues, that could go a long way towards supporting the cost of those subsidies.
And you see nothing bad about the government paying (off) reporters and news agencies?
The BBC is entirely government-funded. Over here, we have three (mostly) government-funded public TV channels and (IIRC) four ditto radio stations - and they're the most reliable audiovisual news sources, better than the commercial stations. If you in the US distrust your own government to such an extent as to be wary of anything they pay for, then you might want to consider emigrating. Only problem is that, apart from Europe and several countries elsewhere in the world, the situation is a LOT worse. So stop overreacting and going "the guvmint paid for this, it sucks/can't be trusted/is evil!" and be happy with the fact you even HAVE free, open politics and the ability to choose your own leaders, as opposed to 80% of the rest of the world, where democracy is either a sham or completely non-existent.
 

Ligisttomten

New member
Sep 20, 2004
120
0
0
What's the point? Mainstream "news" are only interested in the latest celebrity scandals and what have you. Yuck.
 

TheBluesader

New member
Mar 9, 2008
1,003
0
0
Sounds about right. Old people who need to read newspapers because LED screens hurt their old people eyeballs want to steal money from their kids and grandkids to support something only they think has value. Kinda like...oh...pretty much everything else.

I don't think they'd ever get away with passing something like this, but only because Congresspersons really love their Blackberries.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all if the daily newspapers just started printing LOLcats and the Drudge Report. For the last time, old people: you need to understand what we understand, that there is no such thing as impartial journalism. Everyone works for ad revenue from somebody, or simply doesn't want to offend a wide range of interests so they can keep getting invitations to conventions and job offers from them.

Everyone except games journalists, of course. They'd NEVER sell out.

[THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS A JOKE. EVERY MEMBER OF THE ESCAPIST STAFF EXPLODES WITH INTEGRITY AND I WOULD TRUST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WITH MY CAT. I just really didn't like those horrible Six Flags ads, okay?]