A democrat has really stepped in it now.

[Logical1]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

 

[haymarket]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

Smart phones are the tool of Satan and his Hellish Hordes from Hades and anything that causes them to be used less is to be praised and lauded. Our very civilization is at risk because of them.

 

[code1211]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

There is a logical disconnect between the real world and teenagers.

He should be okay. Mommy's paying the bills.

 

[PTF]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

Agreed.
Every week these liberal/Demos comes up with ways in putting their hands in our pockets via taxation. They come up with ideas that will hurt the American population.
Good post !

 

[DaveFagan]

Agreed.
Every week these liberal/Demos comes up with ways in putting their hands in our pockets via taxation. They come up with ideas that will hurt the American population.
Good post !

Right. Just like tariffs and billionaire tax breaks.
/

 

[sangha]

On the bright side, at least there will be a cellphone surcharge that I understand what its for.

 

[Lovebug]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

Last thread we have this topic included a link
https://www.debatepolitics.com/west...-regulators-want-surcharge-text-messages.html

 

[What if...?]

Agreed.
Every week these liberal/Demos comes up with ways in putting their hands in our pockets via taxation. They come up with ideas that will hurt the American population.
Good post !

And every day speculators come up with new ways to put their hands in our pockets. Ideas that hurt the American population.

 

[NeverTrump]

On the bright side, at least there will be a cellphone surcharge that I understand what its for.

You mean verizon's additional and activation fees are a little vague????

 

[ttwtt78640]

On the bright side, at least there will be a cellphone surcharge that I understand what its for.

Raising the cost of owning one in order to make them more accessible to the poor - brilliant.

 

[CriticalThought]

Raising the cost of owning one in order to make them more accessible to the poor - brilliant.

Let's move from Economics 101 to Economics 102. In the short term you are correct, but increasing accessibility in the long term will broaden the market. If invested wisely in increasing the infastructure, technology, and enterprise development then a tax like this could significantly reduce costs. It all comes down to implementation, enforcement, and patience.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Let's move from Economics 101 to Economics 102. In the short term you are correct, but increasing accessibility in the long term will broaden the market. If invested wisely in increasing the infastructure, technology, and enterprise development then a tax like this could significantly reduce costs. It all comes down to implementation, enforcement, and patience.

My point is that adding a flat rate (and therefore regressive?) tax is not the best way of accomplishing the stated mission. Surely there are more progressive CA taxation systems that could be adjusted (rates raised) to generate the desired additional revenue.

The federal Lifeline program now offers a $9.25/month subsidy for low income households to get cellphone service - that would effectively be reduced to $4.25/month with an additional $5/month CA 'user fee' added to the current monthly bill.

 

[independentusa]

We have always known that democrats have never met a tax they didnt like. They are always coming up with some new tax. But now a Calif legislator has really stepped in it with a new tax he wants. He wants to tax text messages on smart phones. Does he realize that he will have 50 million plus teenagers all over him. What a stupid idea.

His time would be better spent figuring a way to cut expenses.

Is this any worse than the plan to allow service providers to do the same as many GOPers want?

 

[sangha]

My point is that adding a flat rate (and therefore regressive?) tax is not the best way of accomplishing the stated mission. Surely there are more progressive CA taxation systems that could be adjusted (rates raised) to generate the desired additional revenue.

The federal Lifeline program now offers a $9.25/month subsidy for low income households to get cellphone service - that would effectively be reduced to $4.25/month with an additional $5/month CA 'user fee' added to the current monthly bill.

Since it wont apply to the poor it is not regressive. It will be progressive

 

[ttwtt78640]

Since it wont apply to the poor it is not regressive. It will be progressive

Citation required.

 

[sangha]

Citation required.

it is a tax on texting service

how does that make phone service more expensive?

 

[year2late]

Although I am against this tax...I am more against rampant assholiness that many cell phone users exihibit. If it will cut down texting by 25% ....I am in. :lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

it is a tax on texting service

how does that make phone service more expensive?

I have explained that in a prior post. The proposed tax applied to all cellphone service plans which include text capability.

WHAT DOES LIFE WIRELESS SERVICE INCLUDE?

Nationwide Calling
Unlimited Text Messaging*
Call Waiting
Three-way calling
Voicemail
Caller ID service
No roaming charges
No charge for domestic long distance calls
Free 911 Service
Affordable Recharge Plans

*Unlimited Text Messaging does not include MMS picture messaging. The amount of picture messaging varies by plan.

https://www.lifewireless.com/main/aboutus

Cellphone service is already overtaxed:

https://www.wirefly.com/guides/cell-phone-tax-by-state

 

[sangha]

I have explained that in a prior post. The proposed tax applied to all cellphone service plans which include text capability.



https://www.lifewireless.com/main/aboutus

And that raises the cost of plans that do not include texting.....how?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And that raises the cost of plans that do not include texting.....how?

It does not, nor did I ever claim otherwise. My objection was to your unsupported claim that "the poor" were exempt from current or proposed cellphone taxation.

 

[woodsman]

Let's move from Economics 101 to Economics 102. In the short term you are correct, but increasing accessibility in the long term will broaden the market. If invested wisely in increasing the infastructure, technology, and enterprise development then a tax like this could significantly reduce costs. It all comes down to implementation, enforcement, and patience.

I believe that you are overthinking this, after all, it’s Cali we are talking about. Odd tax schemes are petty much the norm in that state. To think any of those monies would end up in programs to make the infrastructure better and services less expensive is wishful thinking at best.

With almost all the odd tax schemes coming out of California it’s all about feeding the crazy train engine with coal/monies. This out of control train has been running the tracks locally and statewide with mismanagement for decades.

 

[sangha]

It does not, nor did I ever claim otherwise. My objection was to your unsupported claim that "the poor" were exempt from current or proposed cellphone taxation.

You are right. It was worded incorrectly.

About as incorrect as you were when you said it would increase the costs o owning a cell

On the bright side, at least there will be a cellphone surcharge that I understand what its for.

Raising the cost of owning one in order to make them more accessible to the poor - brilliant.

Bottom line is that it does not raise the cost of a cell phone or phone service; only texting service which the poor can avoid by buying a plan w/o texts

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are right. It was worded incorrectly.

About as incorrect as you were when you said it would increase the costs o owning a cell





Bottom line is that it does not raise the cost of a cell phone or phone service; only texting service which the poor can avoid by buying a plan w/o texts

OK, so you finally admit that it hurts the poor unless, of course, they elect to do without texting capability. Considering that such plans are hard to find (try if you must) and that the stated purpose of the law was to help the poor then it was nonsense.

 

[woodsman]

And that raises the cost of plans that do not include texting.....how?

Your basic (GMS) phone cannot distinguish between talk and text within the current system. There would need to be new tech to separate. Meaning the outgoing signal with talk/ text decoded with the other handheld device and text separated to then be taxed.

For me, It’s a moot point, you can go into any distressed area, rural or urban and the folks have better smart phones than the average working persons reach without subsides.

 

[sangha]

OK, so you finally admit that it hurts the poor unless, of course, they elect to do without texting capability. Considering that such plans are hard to find (try if you must) and that the stated purpose of the law was to help the poor then it was nonsense.

Yes, my dream of having a cell phone fee that I can understand has gone down in flames