European Commission To Raise Camera Costs in Europe

An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent CNET article, digital camera costs could increase in Europe as result of trade inequalities. 'At the moment, all digital cameras are manufactured outside Europe. They're all imported. All of them. Currently, there's a European Commission-imposed 4.9 per cent import tariff on camcorders, but not on cameras, whatever their video-recording abilities. The EC's Nomenclature Committee has cottoned on to this and wants to slap a tax on cameras that can record at least 30 minutes of video in one go, with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at 23 frames per second or higher. The Nomenclature Committee has recommended the proposal but has not, as yet, garnered the required majority vote.'" Update: 07/23 02:18 GMT by Z : Took out a bit of hyperbole.

Phones?

So does this affect phones? Slapping arbitrary technical specs on something might later on bleed over into emerging technologies. Hell, I think my phone is almost capable of that... It's not, but it can't be long before your average phone is... So, what's the plans for that?

TLF

Re:Phones?

Same issue when boarding an airplane.
My video camera is subject to inspection, but my camera is not, even though it can record every bit as well as the "video" camera, which incidentally can record stills too.
-nB

Re:Phones?

And to blur the line a little more, how about importing 10000 units of a camera that can only do stills but has a 10MP sensor, a killer image processor, and plenty of extra buffers to do "more" with? Just get the manufacturer to agree to help you with a custom firmware before you place the order, import the suckers, and flash them. Hey, they weren't capable of video when they were imported, now were they?

Re:

I was thinking the exact same thing. From the description of the tax they're trying to tax the hardware capabilites of the camera when much of it is actually determined by software. Expect downloadable flash files with legal disclaimers or even "secret" un

Re:

They think my iPod is a bomb half the time. If I have it in my carry-on when I fly I get pulled aside for the explosives residue test every single time. Take the iPod out and they let me pass without issue. Add to the fact that I look nothing like your

Re:

It's probably because they've got all that extra space in them (where the cassette goes) that a digital camera just doesn't have. It doesn't take a large explosive to do a whole lot of damage on an airplane.

I feel really bad because I worry a little about

trade

In the case of tariffs, the EU is attempting to encourage local manufacturing and reduce trade imbalances

If the EU rally wanted to correct for a trade imbalance then what they need to do is get rid of the 100s of billions of euros in subsidies given to European farmers. Because of these subsidies food grown in Europe can be exported to third world nations and sold there retail for less than farmers there can grow food. That's a big reason the WTO meeting in Geneva fell apart in the summer of 2006. India walked out because first world nations, the EU, Japan, and the US wouldn't cut farm subsidies. India has literally thousands of farmers committing suicide because they can't compeat with farmers who collect hugh subsidies. Slashing US farm subsidies [indiatimes.com] to $13 billion a year is "unacceptable," a Bush administration official said on Wednesday. All these tariffs are is protectionism.

whereas airline "security" is not about making flying safer, but about social engineering, making people more accepting of micro-management from a nanny state, and introducing the perception of safety even though everyone knows that it won't do a lick of good.

Yeap, our overseer lords want us all to believe the only way to keep safe is by having a nanny state. What they're really doing is a power grab, they want to tell people how to live, and if the people won't then force them to live the way they say.

Falcon

Re:trade

Not saying that it isn't true, but the (predecessor of the) EU was founded on a "never war and never hunger again" idea. So this means we need to keep our food production locally. Dependence for food on other nations is a big no-no. That said, I don't agree that they export the heavily subsidized stuff. They should just produce less, and that's often what happens: farmers are paid not to plant stuff. Overproduction is just as bad as underproduction...

Alas, many people have forgotten the original idea of the EU.

Re:

. Slashing US farm subsidies to $13 billion a year is "unacceptable," a Bush administration official said on Wednesday. All these tariffs are is protectionism.

The reasons we have the subsidies in the first place is to ensure a diverse enough food supp

Go the protectionism

Cause if there are people in China who are willing to work for cheaper than people in your country then you best make sure business and consumers can't benefit from that.

Re:

I'm confused, are we only against protecting local markets when it's in the software/IT industry? It's bad that Europe is trying to place a duty on camera's made outside of Europe. It's good when the government takes action to prevent outsourcing softwar

Re:

What side of this issue am I supposed to be on?

The one that directly benefits you. Duh!

Re:Go the protectionism

Personally, I'm for outsourcing of software development too.. probably because I'm in Australia and that's one of the places that US companies outsource to :)

Re:

I'm confused, are we only against protecting local markets when it's in the software/IT industry? It's bad that Europe is trying to place a duty on camera's made outside of Europe. It's good when the government takes action to prevent outsourcing software

Re:

A rich man buys a ten dollar camera, while a man out of work does not vs. A rich man and a working man buying 15 dollar cameras, one each. I think I know which scenario I want to be in.

Re:Go the protectionism

With protectionism, Europe still doesn't build cameras, the rich man pays $15 plus higher taxes for the unemployed working man who can't afford the camera. Without protectionism, Germany sells the precision instruments to produce the optics, Japan designs the semiconductors, Taiwan fabs the chips and the Chinese assemble them with equipment bought from the West. Everyone benefits, is employed and makes enough money to buy a $10 camera. That's reality. Anything else is fiction and ignores how the global economy works.

Re:Go the protectionism

> That's reality. Anything else is fiction and ignores how the global economy works.

No. That is the world according the 18th century theory of Adam Smith, which is partly true, but hardly the whole of the story.

Selective protectionism and its reduction after the build-up of a competitive industry with high value products was/is key to the success of large parts of Taiwan, ROK and China.

That, of course, doesn't mean that I support the tariff, because who, but nationalists, cares, that the EU doesn't produce digital cameras, when the EU already is a region with high grade products and has a stable trade surplus.

willing, huh?

Try, "with no choice but" instead of "willing" in your statement and you're closer to the truth.

If a country had actual slave labour, would you argue against tariffs on products from that country too?

Things are cheap in China for a lot of reasons:
- no labo

Re:

"BTW there is nothing in what I said that says Chinese people are bad - those who want to come to the West and participate in Western values, come on over."

Over where now? Certainly not to the EU. They aren't letting them in. Not to the US. We aren't letti

Their living conditions are a choice

America's wealth and living standards did not come from selling their wares as cheap as possible to other countries. Instead, they stem from America being a natural resource rich country and efficiently turning those resources into products that people lik

Re:

>I can show documentation that shows that you could change Nazi Germany for China and Jews for women, and find China to be far worse in every possible way.

Go on.

Re:

We'll end protectionism when China has the same labour laws and environmental standards as the West. Why should Chinese companies get to produce things for lower prices because they just dump all their chemicals in the local river that the peasants have to

It hurts the Chinese, not us.

Here is an interesting point. Who is this kind of market manipulation unfair to? People in Europe and the US buy goods from China at "below market" prices. That means that the Chinese are getting shafted because they are exchanging goods of greater value for goods of lesser value. Sure, they are building up treasury bills that they can exchange with us for goods and services later, but those will be worth even less when they do get around to spending them than they would be if they spent them today (and today they are worth less than the goods they originally exchanged for them).

What is going on here? The Chinese government is selling labour at below market cost to increase its global influence and finance a rapid build up of industrial infrastructure. In the mean time, Chinese citizens are getting shafted by being forced to work more to gain less personal benefit than other people in the industrialized world. In other words, the government is accumulating power on the backs of Chinese citizens.

Of course, it is impossible for us to reform this situation, since only the Chinese may put a stop to it by telling their government they won't stand for it any longer. Refusing to trade with China will only slow their industrial progress and make the Chinese less willing and able to stand up to these blatant governmental abuses.

Re:

But then who are we to intervene? Afterall, it's not our fault these poor saps over in China flunked out of interdimensional soul-school and got themselves born into the world as dirt poor factory laborers in a communist regime, right? Sucks to be them, amirite?! Damn right you should be smug! I mean, you wouldn't have been born in the good old US of A if you didn't deserve it.

In regards to this... as much as I understand the point you're trying to make.. where I was born and who I am wasn't a lottery. My parents and their parents and their parents worked to make the world I was born into. I think it kind of sucks that you ig

tax = bad

The less tax the better, because at it's core government is horribly inefficent, so the less money going to them the better. Sure, they are required to pay for things we couldn't be trusted to pay for ourselfs like police and the military, but taxation to protect local manufacturers who can't compete is crappy economics.

your logic = bad

Let's look at what you said more closely:

Claim: "The less tax the better"
Evidence: "because at it's core government is horribly inefficent"
Conclusion: "so the less money going to them the better."

Even if, "at its core", government is horribly inefficient,

Hypothetical anecdote != analysis or data

1. i never contradict myself at all

I'm afraid you do, though I think it's a matter of not expressing yourself clearly.

2. . . .the fact the protectionism is BAD economics is pretty basic to understand

Sometimes protectionism can benefit a country. Witness the success of MITI [wikipedia.org] in Japan. Beyond that, however, you must ask the question "bad for whom"? What is it that your economics is trying to maximize? Equality? National wealth? Global wealth? Well being? Sustainability? That's a moral choice, whose answer depends on your ethical framework.

Finally, you provide a hypothetical illustration of one form of bureaucratic inefficiency. This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence... except it's not even anecdotal. It's about on the level of, "Take an American worker who watches some TV. If he's watching TV, he's not working. But the poor Chinese peasant seldom watches TV - he's always working. The Chinese also has to focus on the bottom line, because if he is inefficient he'll starve - the American will just end up on welfare."

If you want to show that goverment is "horribly inefficient" - or, more importantly, that it is less efficient than the market - then you need to compare more than just one possible form of government behavior. There are many ways of organizing economic activity, corporations, and governments. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, which vary depending on the government, th esociety in which it operates, the specific activity in question, etc. - and which must be judged relative to what ever standard you choose for efficiency (which is again an ethical question). If you want to show that government is "horribly inefficient" - or that it is more or less efficient than the market for a particular activity - you need to explain what you mean by "inefficient" and then you need to actually make a comparsion - not just cherry-pick an example, then smack your hands together with glee exclaiming: "see! they're horribly inefficient!"

It may be attractive to look for cute "laws" like "the less tax the better". But they don't exist. What you're stating there is not an objective characterization of the worth of goverment: it's a subjective ethical claim. If you really care about this kind of thing, you would be well advised to read some thoughtful arguments by people with varying perspectives, not run around calling people "dolts".

As it happens, I'm with you in this particular case: I susspect it's pernicious corporate welfare. Though frankly, it's small beans compared to many other goverment activities (software patents, copyright extension, barriers to third world agricultural products, etc.).

Well that's clearly a winning plan

I foresee special "EU edition" cameras with the video recording function switched off in firmware so it won't qualify for the tariff. Of course manufacturers will "forget" certain cheat codes in the firmware that will permanently enable said functionality. These codes will of course be mysteriously "leaked" to the internet.

So why camcorders...

So why camcorders... and not all the other millions of goods that come from china/elsewhere in general.

follow the money

Someone is losing money somewhere and goes crying to the govt because of poor business decisions.

The world's going to end over a 4.9% tax?

To put this in perspective for anyone who's not doing the math, this means the cost of a $500 camera has now increased by *gasp* 25 dollars. You pay far more tax than that when you buy a new car.

Re:

so what, $25 is $25. Why should anyone pay this to keep someone else in business?

Re:

The summary said "digital camera costs could go crazy in Europe".

4.9 percent is not crazy, it is a small bump in price. Even if it is for a bullshit reason.

Re:

I guess you forgot the Sarcasm tags, because in most of Europe, you pay significantly more than just an extra 5% on a car.

In Spain, for example, you get a 13% tax to get plates. If your car is a gas guzzler, you pay more than that. Add VAT, and 30% of a ca

Tax overhaul time?

It seems to me that with the constant growth & change of the high-tech marketplace the stuffed shirts responsible for levying taxes are going to have to significantly overhaul how taxes are levied in the not-too-distant future. The way this tax appears to be defined it could apply to devices that are not primarily cameras. Mobile phones are close to fitting into this definition. You can also buy binoculars capable of recording to digital media. A similar problem thats already rearing its ugly head is the recent decision by Canada to levy an "ipod tax" on mp3 players. They're already collecting taxes on the sale of music, so this in effect is taxing the end user twice. I'd be willing to bet that somebody in Canada will sue over that soon. Imagine if Canada implemented this digital camera tax and then in a few years ipods started showing up with built-in cameras... You'll end up with devices that are heavily taxed under a slew of "digital rights" taxes.

Re:

at least 30 minutes of video in one go, with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at 23 frames per second or higher.

I thought most consumer grade digital cameras did at best VGA (640×480) quality video.

Do digital SLRs even shoot video?

eBay

How would eBay and other online stores fit into this little plan? I know that most online purchases here in the US aren't taxed, but how about the good old EU?

tax for online sales

I know that most online purchases here in the US aren't taxed, but how about the good old EU?

Actually taxes are supposed to be paid for online purchases, it's the buyer's responsibility to report the purchase to the state and pay the tax. These taxes g

Why have a tariff if...

..there is no domestic European camera industry to protect? As they say in the article, all the cameras are manufactured outside Europe. The purpose of tariff barriers is to protect domestic industry (or so I thought).

Re:

I would guess that this is intended to provide the incentive for someone to start producing such cameras within the EU. A tax intended to slant the playing field in such a manner that any potential EU camera producer has an immediate advantage when sellin

There used to be a domestic industry.

EU policy is to use tarrifs to induce industries to locate facilities within the Single European Market. That's what the EU is all about. They're trying not to make the mistake the US did, of losing manufacturing to low-wage countries.

Hmmmm...

at least 30 minutes of video in one go, with a resolution of 800x600 pixels or higher at 23 frames per second or higherReally h/blockquote>

How many digital cameras will this effect if this is the baseline requirements to get hit by the tax? I know digit

Simple solution

It will take the manufacturers all of a blink of an eye to create Euro only models by changing the firmware to limit video capabilities.

Then buyers can change the firmware after they get the cameras.

So limit your cameras to 22 fps

Problem solved. God, politicians are some dumb fuckers. That, or businesses are paying them off to write really dumb laws...hmm... :(

Re:

Corollary: There should be a law that punished with death penalty any attempts to raise prices.

Re:

It's because of people like you that the US has no universal health care and most students spend half their lives paying of their loans.
Taxation in general is an inefficient allocation of resources with significant deadweight losses.

Re:

So that's why we kept the free market during WWII.

Re:

That's a load of Republican propaganda (i.e. bullshit). Taxes build the infrastructure (roads, schools, firehouses) that allow the markets to exist.

Actually the market has been around a lot longer than socialist schools and firehouses.

Roads, well, you got

Re:just another way the EU is screwing their citiz

The street, your seat, the heat, your feet. Oh, and the pennies on your eyes, if you should die.

Re:

Slapping extra tax on devices that can create creative content is plain fakin stupid.

Any device in the hands of a creative person can be classified as a "creative device" ...even timber