California is wanting to tax text messages for budget shortfall.

Ad Above Message List
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Ad in Threadview Above Message Content
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.
 
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.
 
You'd think with the recent fires that have ripped through the state that this wouldn't even be an issue right now.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Surcharge amounts and what they pay for may change. Taxes and fees may also change from time to time without notice.

They don't change that drastically and if they did for some reason then everyone would be feeling it and that would probably be the result of some bill or something that causes the county and state telecom and E911 taxes (the main two drivers behind this) to go up. I've only seen my bill go up and down a cent or two each month although maybe I'm fortunate enough to live where I am. Even as a "suburb" of NYC (50 mile radius is the general definition) we;re only getting hit with a $3-4 charge on the bill every month. I'm aware others have it worse but T-Mobile did a good gamble by taking something that is insignificant on bills and claiming they'll take care of it by slightly jacking up the all inclusive price and calling it a deal.
 
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.

Gerrymandering absolutely impacts taxation and policy.
The state voted 60/40, yet the legislature is split 60/20.
That doesn't happen in a vacuum.

"One person, one vote" only truly applies for statewide offices and measures, and the latter are corrupted by the ruling party who gets to write the ballot titles, while the former is now subject to the "top two" primary system, which has the potential to lock out the opposition party, as it did in the US Senate race.
 
Gerrymandering absolutely impacts taxation and policy.
The state voted 60/40, yet the legislature is split 60/20.
That doesn't happen in a vacuum.

"One person, one vote" only truly applies for statewide offices and measures, and the latter are corrupted by the ruling party who gets to write the ballot titles, while the former is now subject to the "top two" primary system, which has the potential to lock out the opposition party, as it did in the US Senate race.

One person one vote applies to all offices, even with "gerrymandering". No, nothing happens in a vacuum: it all happens from how people choose to vote. But we do have sore losers who openly want to game the system because the voters rejected them (i.e. the US senate races). They aren't happy enough that they gamed the system in the House races by relying on election fraud (fake votes). They are afraid to the death of fraud prevention ideas such as voter ID because it would wipe out the fake votes. Votes from states like California and New York should be thrown out of national consideration as long as they encourage fake votes.

See the Snopes article about how California actually encourages non-qualified foreign criminals to register to vote. While California does not actively encourage these criminals to cast fake votes after registration, it does nothing to weed them out after it registers them into the voting system. But isn't getting these criminals registered an indication of bad intent? Of course, corrupting the voter rolls with fake voters is a deeply partisan issue, with one party openly encouraging such fraud. If that one party had any decency, they would be in favor of deporting the foreign criminals who try to register for drivers licenses, instead of welcoming them to cast fraudulent votes.

Another way a certain party wants to destroy democracy other than election fraud is the census system: there has been a push from this party the have the US Census make up imaginary citizens for Congressional districts instead of actually counting them:

And the "top two" primary system does not lock out anyone, except those that the voters do not like: all they have to do is present convincing arguments to the voters. No one is "locked out" other than those rejected by voters. The strategy of one of the parties hinges mainly on election fraud and creating Congressional districts out of consideration to imaginary people.
 
Jackssson454, little late to the party on a thread started and last commented in December 2018.

Thread now closed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top