these days is going to be Anti-Crisis Plan launched by the Council of Ministers and one of these points is making particular sensation: it is the increase in VAT from 10% to 20% for Pay TV.
Most interested in the budget package, partly because the most affected, Sky is the most important provider of the service sat on payment, relying on more than 4.6 million viewers nationwide. With the approval of this maneuver, the Government will increase its revenue to 210 million euro.
But now we try to focus on the situation you are creating two points of view and not taking unnecessary positions.
On the one hand we have the largest undertakings in the field of satellite tv only the last year has employed five hundred Italians and that in a period of economic decline is seen doubling the value added tax. Certainly can not remain inert to the government's proposal when he came to a blow on their projects.
the other we have the government do not "double" rate, but simply withdraws the privilege granted to satellite tv in 1995, and confirmed in 1997 when Sky (2003) still had to take its first steps. The privilege of having a rate of 10% had never granted any country in Europe, and Italy all had been motivated by an incentive to the development of Pay TV, which just in 2009, the government feels the right to withdraw .
This puts us at a crossroads, situated natuaralmente in the human mind, and can be esplificato through two simple words: the conflict of interest.
Yes, the family soo Knight is the owner of Mediaset, which would not be afflicted by this proprosta law because it is not a Pay TV itself, I will try to be clearer. The proceeds of the digital channel Mediaset stem mainly from prepaid cards for watching sports channels, which are unaffected by minimante government decision, but certainly it will be affected only marginally since the rate will tax only a few pay channels and, as stated Berlusconi, then This will include a satellite channel that Mediaset has decided to enter the market. The state coffers will be increased mainly by Sky, which offers only satelittari pay per view channels.
Objectively I would say it is not entirely wrong to withdraw a privilege that was provided to Sky and other companies in the country do not have. Seeing the other point of view, a double taxation for channels sataellitari is not a ploy so wrong because we will try to tax a "luxury good" for a more fair and equitable redistribution of income. But I think everyone is a doubt with a bit of malice to think only minimante that this maneuver has been boosted by the Premier solamente per indebolire il colosso Sky come diretto concorrente di Mediaset, anche se da Berlusconi non viene definito come tale.
Credo che in un periodo di crisi lo scopo del Presidente del Consiglio non sia quello di aumentare la propria ricchezza ma quello di far confluire il paese in una condizione migliore e di stabilità.
La buona fede mi fa ben sperare.
Most interested in the budget package, partly because the most affected, Sky is the most important provider of the service sat on payment, relying on more than 4.6 million viewers nationwide. With the approval of this maneuver, the Government will increase its revenue to 210 million euro.
But now we try to focus on the situation you are creating two points of view and not taking unnecessary positions.
On the one hand we have the largest undertakings in the field of satellite tv only the last year has employed five hundred Italians and that in a period of economic decline is seen doubling the value added tax. Certainly can not remain inert to the government's proposal when he came to a blow on their projects.
the other we have the government do not "double" rate, but simply withdraws the privilege granted to satellite tv in 1995, and confirmed in 1997 when Sky (2003) still had to take its first steps. The privilege of having a rate of 10% had never granted any country in Europe, and Italy all had been motivated by an incentive to the development of Pay TV, which just in 2009, the government feels the right to withdraw .
This puts us at a crossroads, situated natuaralmente in the human mind, and can be esplificato through two simple words: the conflict of interest.
Yes, the family soo Knight is the owner of Mediaset, which would not be afflicted by this proprosta law because it is not a Pay TV itself, I will try to be clearer. The proceeds of the digital channel Mediaset stem mainly from prepaid cards for watching sports channels, which are unaffected by minimante government decision, but certainly it will be affected only marginally since the rate will tax only a few pay channels and, as stated Berlusconi, then This will include a satellite channel that Mediaset has decided to enter the market. The state coffers will be increased mainly by Sky, which offers only satelittari pay per view channels.
Objectively I would say it is not entirely wrong to withdraw a privilege that was provided to Sky and other companies in the country do not have. Seeing the other point of view, a double taxation for channels sataellitari is not a ploy so wrong because we will try to tax a "luxury good" for a more fair and equitable redistribution of income. But I think everyone is a doubt with a bit of malice to think only minimante that this maneuver has been boosted by the Premier solamente per indebolire il colosso Sky come diretto concorrente di Mediaset, anche se da Berlusconi non viene definito come tale.
Credo che in un periodo di crisi lo scopo del Presidente del Consiglio non sia quello di aumentare la propria ricchezza ma quello di far confluire il paese in una condizione migliore e di stabilità.
La buona fede mi fa ben sperare.
0 comments:
Post a Comment