Reply to: Is this Karma for Amazon

[BoredBloke]

Tax isnt fair. I pay tax on toilet roll which to me seems more of a necessity than being able to hear someone read a story. There's also a great resource of free audio material, its called the radio.

What a stupid comment. I never said it was fair, I was pointing out something that seems particularly unfair. If you want to read/hear a story you have a choice of formats. One of these formats does not incurr VAT. My son has a choice of 1 and it is taxed.

The blind also pay tax on their bog role and tulip as much as you do!

Radio is not a great source of audio. It is A source of audio but somewhat limited in its output.

[escapeUK]

If your only choice is to have an audio book it seems unfair to be taxed for it.

Tax isnt fair. I pay tax on toilet roll which to me seems more of a necessity than being able to hear someone read a story. There's also a great resource of free audio material, its called the radio.

[BoredBloke]

Audio books are not more expensive than paper books because of VAT. They're significantly more expensive even before the VAT.

And I never said they were!! I said that Audio books attract VAT, normal books do not. If your only choice is to have an audio book it seems unfair to be taxed for it. Perhaps once you have learned to read and follow a thread you might to respond

[d000hg]

You're absolutely insistent on missing the point today aren't you?



Apparently not

It is terrible of me to insist on responding to the things he actually said. How dare I.

[potentialcontractor]

Companies like Big Finish are producing audio readings and plays, so there is a market (albeit quite niche) for spoken-word recordings. I find them to be much more entertaining than some celebrity reading a book out loud. But I'm with you on the VAT argument. And I'm sure you can get audio books from the library?

[NickFitz]

Audio books are not more expensive than paper books because of VAT. They're significantly more expensive even before the VAT.

You're absolutely insistent on missing the point today aren't you?

Do you actually know how to follow a thread?

Apparently not

[eek]

Audio books are not more expensive than paper books because of VAT. They're significantly more expensive even before the VAT.

and there is a reason for that. paying an appropriate actor a reasonable amount of money to read a book is expensive.

Heck a week of studio time is expensive even without an actor.

And most of the time the market for audio books is not that large.

[d000hg]

These days we use Audible, who are owned by Amazon and he downloads them from there. They are cheaper than having to buy them in CD format, but still more expensive than their paperback version.

Audio books are not more expensive than paper books because of VAT. They're significantly more expensive even before the VAT.

[BoredBloke]

Um, an e-book is just a download. An a-book requires paying someone to read it. I'm comparing those and explaining why the latter costs more, not discussing paper books and VAT. An a-book costs more than either.

And a braille book may be printed but surely doing all the extra typesetting for a very limited print run adds costs. In fact it definitely does because I know a bit about printing and there is a big overhead getting a print-run set up.

Do you actually know how to follow a thread? The second point made on this one was about VAT on ebooks and not on normal books. I was mearly pointing out that if you had no choice but to use audio books, then its somewhat unfair to pay vat on those also. I also pointed out that downloaded audio books were more expensive than PAPER books. I fully appreciate that there are expensive production costs associated with making the audio format, but then there are significant costs associated with making, storing, transporting and selling paper books. I didn't mention ebooks. Please feel free to point out where I did make any comparison between audiobooks and ebooks. You might want to use your common sense to help you out on that one!

As for Braille books - they 'may' be printed...No they are printed. No other format would suffice! There is no other typesetting. If you had ever seen a Braille book then perhaps you might have an idea about what you are talking about. A braille embosser simply takes text and punches braille out. The software in the embosser will sort out the typesetting in exactly the same way any other printer driver does. Therefore it does not require any expensive typesetting. Also the books tend not to be bound in the normal way due to their size and thickness of the paper used and usually have a spiral ring binder. But again you have chosen to introduce another point here. I never mentioned cost in terms of Braille books. I fully appreciate the economies of scale. My initial point weas that most books do not ever make it into that format.

[d000hg]

Um, an e-book is just a download. An a-book requires paying someone to read it. I'm comparing those and explaining why the latter costs more, not discussing paper books and VAT. An a-book costs more than either.

And a braille book may be printed but surely doing all the extra typesetting for a very limited print run adds costs. In fact it definitely does because I know a bit about printing and there is a big overhead getting a print-run set up.

[BoredBloke]

An audio book requires a lot of hours spent by the reader (often the author) as well as people doing the recording, mastering, editing, etc. And then they sell very few audiobooks.

So it's extra work (money) spent on a much smaller audience.

I imagine the same goes for braille - they must cost a bomb?

First off, what has any of the above got to do with the VAT applied to it. Secondly, Braille embossers work in exactly the same way as a normal printer. text in, braile sheets out. There is not a team of people with a Perkins Brailler doing this by hand. Thridly, I apprciate that an audio book has to be recorded, but its done once. If downloaded its a single MP3. Compare that with the costs of printing and binding a book, the costs associated with delivering and storing them. The costs associated with the point of sale - waterstones do pay their staff I think. All of these are zero for audible - just a whacking great server dishing out MP3s

Now consider that you have no other choice as the book is only available in paper format and you cannot see. Somewhat limits your reading material doesn't it and what is available is at a higher cost, partially because of tax.

Kind of obvious if you use a little common sense!

[d000hg]

Explain??

An audio book requires a lot of hours spent by the reader (often the author) as well as people doing the recording, mastering, editing, etc. And then they sell very few audiobooks.

So it's extra work (money) spent on a much smaller audience.

I imagine the same goes for braille - they must cost a bomb?

[BoredBloke]

Not if you use a little common sense.

Explain??

[d000hg]

That's shocking

Not if you use a little common sense.

[The Spartan]

They are cheaper than having to buy them in CD format, but still more expensive than their paperback version.

That's shocking