Sections

Report – UK government set to reintroduce games tax breaks

Monday, 21st February 2011 10:39 GMT By Johnny Cullen

The UK government is set to reintroduce games tax breaks of up to £30 million, according to a Sunday Times report.

The story claims that tax relief will be introduced next month during chancellor George Osborne’s Budget speech, adding Osborne is “considering the introduction of tax breaks for the computer game industry as an eye-catching measure to put in his budget for growth.”

Tax breaks were confirmed by the previous Labour government last year before Osborne and the coalition government cancelled them in his emergency budget last June.

Last week, it was reported that Osborne backed the UK games industry.

Thanks, Edge.

Breaking news

26 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. LePlatypus

    This is going to sound nooby but, what would this mean for us, the gamers?

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Blerk

    Potentially more UK-developed stuff. Aside from that, pretty much bugger all.

    #2 3 years ago
  3. Grimrita

    Although its great news, if true but after the recent wave of closers, comes too late for those already lost. Such a shame that Labour didnt pull their finger out of their arse when they had the chance to save a key industry, instead of paying themselves OTT expenses.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Psychotext

    Bit late now isn’t it? Half of our bigger studios have disappeared in the last couple of years.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Psychotext

    “instead of paying themselves OTT expenses”

    That was pretty much everyone wasn’t it? Especially the guy with the moat…

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Grimrita

    Yeah but Labour MPs have been the ones getting sent to prison for fraud. So I added that for drama lol

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Yoshi

    But Labour would have done this country a lot better than conservatives are now.

    #7 3 years ago
  8. cloud_ix

    @1 It means there will be a lot more jobs available to you if you want to get involved in the games industry

    #8 3 years ago
  9. xino

    they better hurry up man and approve that sh*.

    companies are closing down!

    #9 3 years ago
  10. Tamo123

    @7

    Then I think you fail economics pretty epically, as the course Labour was on would of brought the UK to financial ruin. It may not of happened until 2015 or whatever, but it would of happened. The longer, the worse it would of been.

    TL;DR: Learn to economy before making stupid comments.

    Anyway, on topic. I think they caved to pressure, however, hopefully this will do some good in the long term. I just hope other things will not get cut in order to fund this.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. xino

    @10
    seriously stfu!
    Stop trying to act like a f**ing smart ass!

    he was just saying! It’s his opinion! And it seems you have a nag for his opinion and you were offended by it. No point trying to be a goddamn teacher and telling him to go learn economies.

    Seriously…wtf is wrong with all these f*king people in this site?
    You can’t even voice yourself without being attacked.
    Everyone is complaining about users trolling this place…what about you? wtf are you all doing? you keep getting into argument, attacking other members and trying to be better than someone else over the internet. It doesn’t make you different to the ones who troll this site.

    Regardless if Conservatives or any other parties took over, we would still be in deep sh* in recession! And it’s best we are in recession now!
    because if we all waited by 2015, TONS of people would have closed down as soon as the recession starts 2015. I wonder if the Northern Rock staffs even got their money for the excellent deadline hard working they did.

    To my knowledge I think other countries have fallen out of the recession, it’s only US and UK that are hit pretty badly.
    It’s a good thing recession started now because companies and stores at least got a few months before closing down. If we were to wait 2015, everyone would be selling their products from £50rrp to £2.50! Eventually that would not save them! They would still need to close down by the end of the week because of the amount they borrowed and can’t pay back.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. Tamo123

    @ 11

    No offense, but I seriously hate reading peoples opinions who clearly have no clue about what they are talking about. That is my opinion. Deal with it.

    Agreed, the country would of been fucked either way, however this government is doing something Labour would of never of considered because they are afraid to change. This country will transform and I personally think in the long run for the better.

    As I said: Deal with it bro. Also u mad?

    #12 3 years ago
  13. DSB

    Too little, too late.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. freedoms_stain

    @10/12, I think before you run your mouth belittling people for having different political or economical ideologies to yourself you should be aware that there is in fact more than ONE ideology.

    In fact the Labour and Conservative approaches to cuts are very similar: cut back public services (and thus jobs) in exchange for Private sector services and positions.

    The difference lies in the time scale. Labours preference was a slower rate of cuts in line with Private sector growth, The Conservative approach was to cut hard fast and deep immediately without paying any heed to whether or not there would actually be any positions available in the Private sector for the people whose jobs they were axing.

    So right now the UK exists in a position where there is at best slow growth (if any) in the Private sector, with many sectors in fact still on the decrease while the public sector also faces the threat of mass job loses in the immediate future, which begs the question, where will we work?

    You can look at this in terms of human cost. Under the Conservative plans millions of people might be left unemployed with little chance of re-employment while the Private sector undergoes its painfully slow recovery. The Conservatives care little about this because it means they can cut the taxes of their rich buddies much quicker (it was recently revealed that a massive 50% of Tory funding comes from wealthy bankers. Wonder who they’ve got the best interests at heart for?) while patting each other on the back for cutting public spending so fast.

    Under Labour the cuts in public spending would have come much slower, but with the benefits of keeping more grass roots workers in employment for longer by shedding jobs and services at a rate at which the Private sector was better able to pick up the slack. Oh, and the super rich bankers would probably have faced higher taxes for longer. Boo Hoo.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Ruruja

    @10

    “would of” = would have
    “would of” = would have
    “would of” = would have

    TL;DR: Learn to grammar before making stupid comments.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Tamo123

    @14

    That is your opinion, that’s fine. I do not completely agree with some of your points, but fair enough.

    @15
    Deal with it bro.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. G1GAHURTZ

    I agree with DSB.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Yoshi

    @12 I know exactly what I’m talking about. Do you seriously not keep up to date with this stuff? Conservatives are raising the student fees etc and that means more people in debt which results in us being in the recession for longer. Labour were going to make cuts slowly and efficiently so it wouldn’t effect people as drastically as Conservatives have/will. Conservatives only think of the rich and spit on the poor. (Yes this is my opinion)

    #18 3 years ago
  19. Yoshi

    @14 +1 for you. You pretty much summed it up perfectly

    #19 3 years ago
  20. Callum

    Gone are the days when an election meant anything would change. All parties have converged to the point of being in-discriminable from one another. ‘Left’ wing and ‘Right’ wing doesn’t mean anything in a country where our leaders are chosen via a popularity contest broadcast on the television.

    Anyway. Better late than never…if this DOES happen. One thing I have learned is to judge a politician by his actions and not by what he says…the two are often completely different.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. NightCrawler1970

    Uhm, wanna know how much tax are we talking about??
    2% more 5% more??? basically how much will cost a UK-game(brand new) in the shelf + the extra “game-tax”???

    I bet Australia is on the same site, more money for the Government…

    #21 3 years ago
  22. Tamo123

    @19

    He did partly, deal with it son.

    #22 3 years ago
  23. gdfgdf

    Click on our website

    (===== http://www.fullmalls.com/ ====)

    Will bring you different surprise

    ===== http://www.fullmalls.com/ ====

    jordan air max oakland raiders $34–39;

    Ed Hardy AF JUICY POLO Bikini $25;

    Christan Audigier BIKINI JACKET $25;

    gstar coogi evisu true jeans $35;

    coach chanel gucci LV handbags $36;

    coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $18;

    ===== http://www.fullmalls.com/ ====

    ===== http://www.fullmalls.com/ ====

    #23 3 years ago
  24. revolting

    @21 “Tax breaks for the gaming industry” does not refer to the VAT added to the cost of you, the customer, purchasing the game. The tax you pay will remain unchanged (short of another VAT shift), and the only difference you will see in price is the same as it currently is; based on each individual store’s pricing conventions.

    The tax (and the breaks) refereed to here are those imposed on the production of games by developers (and their publishers) in this country, such as Lionhead, Media Molecule, Rare, Rockstar North, etc.

    i.e. these tax breaks are for the games making industry, not the games selling industry.

    #24 3 years ago
  25. revolting

    “refereed” /facepalm.

    +1 vote for an edit button.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. Crab of Thunder

    A political debate is a change from the usual lol.

    #26 3 years ago