Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: California is wanting to tax text messages for budget shortfall.

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,509
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    The old expression that "there are no guarantees in life except death and taxes" comes to mind. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but they are a fact of life and complaining about it won't change anything anytime soon.
    Don't make me turn this car around.....

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    724
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T
    Feedback Score
    0
    So, California's tax revenues from a specific source are falling because people are using it less. Now they want to start taxing the thing people are using instead. Actually seems kind of reasonable on the surface, especially given what the money is used for. I am curious what detractors would have them do instead. Raise the tax on the source in decline to make up the losses or cancel the program for low-income folks or something else?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,230
    Device(s)
    iPhone X, iPhone 7+
    Carrier(s)
    ATT Prepaid, RP
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by techfranz View Post
    So when I read the title I thought, “How would one tax text messages when these are basically unlimited?”
    Will carriers be required to calculate a tax amount for each text message sent and received or will it just be another $2.00 on everyone’s bill?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Probably fixed charge.
    iPhone X is my current primary phone. I have older model iPhones and Moto phones available on other lines. Currently prepaid, though would consider postpaid on right plan.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Greater Los Angeles
    Posts
    10,058
    Device(s)
    iPhone 11 Pro Max Series 4 Apple Watch
    Carrier(s)
    T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by DRC72 View Post
    See that’s the dirty little secret, it really isn’t 7.82% There are many other hidden fees that the state tacks on to my bill. The Telecom tax is just one part of it. My parents Consumer Cellular plan is $15. Their bill after taxes is a little over $18, effectively making it a 20% tax if you do the math. Not the 7.82% that you listed. So CT is not one of the lowest as you stated.
    I'm only talking about fed/state and local "taxes," in the context of which states charge the most regardless of state legislative political preference.

    You are right. Focusing ones opinion solely on state taxes doesn't tell the whole story. Quality of living, return on real estate, higher wages and statistically greater economic opportunity may also play a part on what someone may perceive as fair.

    Carriers like Verizon/AT&T claim that they are required to bill "Government taxes and fees," which you see on your monthly statement. T-Mobile ONE postpaid customers, on the other hand, are not billed, "separately," for this as everything is included in the price advertised. Whether they are required to or choose to (to me) are somewhat up for debate but in the end someone must pay for them.

    US postpaid carriers also "electively," decide to pass on surcharges like Federal Universal Service, Regulatory, Administrative and other charges related to governmental costs like the War of 1812 and the like.

    Surcharge amounts and what they pay for may change. Taxes and fees may also change from time to time without notice.
    “The Internet wasn’t meant to be metered in bits and bytes, so it’s insane that wireless companies are still making you buy it this way. The rate plan is dead — it’s a fossil from a time when wireless was metered by every call or text.” John Legere 1/5/2017

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,509
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Doesn't matter what the carriers "CLAIM" as you said, bottom line is that the consumer is stuck with the bill and that is non-negotiable in the Terms and Conditions of Service.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's all about greed; the ruling elites have plenty of money already to pay for the necessary functions of government. There is no need for them to steal even more from the people.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by veriztd View Post
    The old expression that "there are no guarantees in life except death and taxes" comes to mind. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but they are a fact of life and complaining about it won't change anything anytime soon.
    Instead, one can always vote for the less avaricious politicians, who will refuse to increase tax rates, or better yet reduce them.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,509
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    Instead, one can always vote for the less avaricious politicians, who will refuse to increase tax rates, or better yet reduce them.
    You can vote for whoever you want who promises they won't raise taxes.

    With all due respect, I recall a recent President promise "No new Taxes !!". We all know how that turned out.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Almont, Michigan
    Posts
    4,115
    Device(s)
    Galaxy S10
    Carrier(s)
    LTE-A
    Feedback Score
    0
    You'd think with the recent fires that have ripped through the state that this wouldn't even be an issue right now.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    110
    Device(s)
    Nokia Lumia 635
    Carrier(s)
    Cricket
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NCTed View Post
    So, California's tax revenues from a specific source are falling because people are using it less. Now they want to start taxing the thing people are using instead. Actually seems kind of reasonable on the surface, especially given what the money is used for. I am curious what detractors would have them do instead. Raise the tax on the source in decline to make up the losses or cancel the program for low-income folks or something else?
    Not a detractor per se. I do support the concept of a safety-net, welfare/poverty class of phone service.
    Cell-phone service is very cheap to provide.

    But this is welfare. It should be funded out of the general budget, approved by legislators who are theoretically accountable to the electorate for their actions, gerrymandering not withstanding. It should not be shuffled off to a nameless, faceless commission that is unanswerable to the public, such that elected officials don't get their hands dirty.

    What would I do?
    Remove the CPUC's alleged authority to tax, and transfer that responsibility to the state legislature.

    Audit.

    We would probably find that the program is overfunded for its stated mission, that there is still rampant fraud.

    We might also conclude that there is a need to expand requirements of telcos, cellcos and MVPDs to offer some form of dirt-cheap limited/slow/prepaid internet access that doesn't require a credit check or compliance with a laundry list of byzantine government programs.

    California is flush with tax revenue, so much so that there is much debate over how to spend it.
    Missing from the discussion is "give it back."

    Meanwhile, we pay a whopping 20% prepaid cell phone tax, our fuel taxes have seen two massive hikes, along with vehicle registration fees, among a half-dozen other new and higher taxes.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Greater Hartford, CT
    Posts
    12,379
    Device(s)
    iPhone XS Max 256Gb
    Carrier(s)
    AT&T Mobility
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by @TheRealDanny View Post
    I'm only talking about fed/state and local "taxes," in the context of which states charge the most regardless of state legislative political preference.

    You are right. Focusing ones opinion solely on state taxes doesn't tell the whole story. Quality of living, return on real estate, higher wages and statistically greater economic opportunity may also play a part on what someone may perceive as fair.

    Carriers like Verizon/AT&T claim that they are required to bill "Government taxes and fees," which you see on your monthly statement. T-Mobile ONE postpaid customers, on the other hand, are not billed, "separately," for this as everything is included in the price advertised. Whether they are required to or choose to (to me) are somewhat up for debate but in the end someone must pay for them.

    US postpaid carriers also "electively," decide to pass on surcharges like Federal Universal Service, Regulatory, Administrative and other charges related to governmental costs like the War of 1812 and the like.

    Surcharge amounts and what they pay for may change. Taxes and fees may also change from time to time without notice.
    Yeah the T-Mobile one plan doesn’t break down taxes and fees like AT&T and Verizon do, but rest assured those taxes ands fees are built into the plan. The T-Mobile one plan is quite expensive, and not that great of a deal to begin with.


    Sent from my iPhone XS Max using Tapatalk
    Hartford, CT Area

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by veriztd View Post
    You can vote for whoever you want who promises they won't raise taxes.

    With all due respect, I recall a recent President promise "No new Taxes !!". We all know how that turned out.
    I remember. He carelessly broke his promise for no good reason, and it helped trigger a recession.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mm View Post
    You'd think with the recent fires that have ripped through the state that this wouldn't even be an issue right now.
    I would think that a state as big as California could handle two problems at one time, such as the fires and overtaxation.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    3,109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by molists View Post
    It should be funded out of the general budget, approved by legislators who are theoretically accountable to the electorate for their actions, gerrymandering not withstanding.
    So-called gerrymandering doesn't really matter anyway. Regardless of how the district lines are done, it's always one person one vote. And people change parties from election to election all the time.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    18,509
    Device(s)
    Samsung Galaxy S9+
    Carrier(s)
    Sprint
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NotABiot View Post
    I would think that a state as big as California could handle two problems at one time, such as the fires and overtaxation.
    Yes, you would think so, but I think not.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does is cost to send text message to promotion/voting?
    By deeppolverizing in forum SERO/Discounts & Deals
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-01-2008, 05:48 AM
  2. Is Telus to Telus text messaging free?
    By phillr in forum TELUS/Koodo/Public Mobile
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 10:47 PM
  3. App to Track text messages for 8125??
    By freeyayo150 in forum HTC
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-08-2007, 01:42 PM
  4. PC to phone text messaging for UK -> T-Mobile
    By sam21983 in forum T-Mobile
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-29-2004, 03:14 AM
  5. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-17-2004, 07:19 PM

Bookmarks