View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17065
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iPhone for life |
|
Back to top |
|
|
governator Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006 Posts: 25138
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
retroactive tax? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Conker Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Jun 2010 Posts: 13056 Location: MDC
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why not impose a poll tax while they're at it. _________________ (❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ༎ຶ༽ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Surfitall Star Player
Joined: 12 Feb 2002 Posts: 3829 Location: South Orange County
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.
Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.
Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surfitall wrote: | It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.
Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.
Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal. |
Creating opposition to even more taxes particularly on things like this is good, IMO. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Raijin Star Player
Joined: 08 Feb 2009 Posts: 6576
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
splashmtn wrote: | Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
They could always try to reduce spending _________________ "It was tough," Kobe Bryant said. "But when it got really tough for me, I just checked myself in." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80 Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 Posts: 38862
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Taxes for Text Messages |
|
|
Slippery slope. Could they start taxing you for posting on internet message boards? I mean the resources for both are no different. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lakersken80 Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009 Posts: 38862
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surfitall wrote: | It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.
Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.
Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal. |
I believe the FCC already came out and ruled against it. It will probably end up as a surcharge to make up for the decline of revenue from phone calls. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
splashmtn Star Player
Joined: 30 Aug 2016 Posts: 3961
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Raijin wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
They could always try to reduce spending | who says they are not trying to reduce unnecessary spending? See never says SPENDING. thats foolish. there are some things you need to spend money on. you can't do it and have a nice state to live in. But there are some things that are completely unnecessary. So you should only say No UNNECESSARY Spending. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ExPatLkrFan Star Player
Joined: 29 Jul 2004 Posts: 3989 Location: Mukdahan, Thailand
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
splashmtn wrote: | Raijin wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
They could always try to reduce spending | who says they are not trying to reduce unnecessary spending? See never says SPENDING. thats foolish. there are some things you need to spend money on. you can't do it and have a nice state to live in. But there are some things that are completely unnecessary. So you should only say No UNNECESSARY Spending. |
As long as the LA-SF bullet train project exists the state cannot truthfully claim to be attempting to reduce unnecessary spending. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90310 Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Raijin wrote: | splashmtn wrote: | Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
They could always try to reduce spending |
I live in a state where we are divided between the pro and anti tax people. And the anti tax people always scream the loudest at the cost cuts that affect them (after they block tax increases to pay for those things) and they are already heavily subsidized. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012 Posts: 16190
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
splashmtn wrote: | Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.
So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it. |
The taxes on the land lines were to subsidize low income land line users. But, now that people are not using land lines anymore, they still need a way to subsidize low income land line users, so.....
Let's just tax something different. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|