Possible Taxes For Broadband Users 262
Morganis101 writes "CNET News reports that some broadband users might have to endure new universal service taxes. From the article: 'The suggestions came as lawmakers started debating changes to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which created the framework for the Universal Service Fund. The USF should continue to be industry funded, but the base of contributors should be expanded to all providers of two-way communications, regardless of technology used, to ensure competitive neutrality, a bipartisan coalition of rural legislators said in a June 28 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be drafting the rewrites. That means companies providing broadband services such as VoIP over telephone wires would also have to pay into the fund.'"
Re:Taxes are a cost of doing business (Score:3, Informative)
You think they don't? The only difference between your phone/internet bill is that they let you know exactly how much the taxes are costing you. Like you said, taxes are a cost of doing business. Like any other cost of business you need to balance your prices to take them into account. If McDonalds suddenly had to start paying a 50 cent "junk food tax" on each burger sold, you know the price of Happy Meals would go up at least 50 cents (because there's also the administrative overhead of dealing with the new tax).
It leads to very deceptive advertising which can't be good for the consumer. Comcast and T-Mobile need to pay those taxes themselves and put sticker prices up to compensate.
Yes, the governments would love that. Hidden taxes are the best kind, bceause no one ever really notices how much they're paying. A tax increase rolled into your monthly rate would just be blamed on "those damn greedy cable companies raising rates again", while a brand new $5 "information services tax" on your bill would let you know exactly who's sucking more money from your pocket. They hate what the tel/cable compaines do, because you can see just how badly your local jurisdiction is screwing you.
Re:I just want them to be included (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't? When does the advertised price ever include tax? Have you ever walked into a store and paid exactly what the price tag said? While some things like clothes and food aren't taxed in many jurisidctions, in most cases you're paying a sales and/or service tax to at least one jurisdiction (and sometimes two or three are taking a cut) every time you step up to a cash register. The company is only charging you X dollars. The government happens to be charging you more, which is entirely out of their control.
I had a similar conversation with a comcast rep that called me. Their service is very slightly cheaper (at face value) than my current ISP, but my ISP charge me the EXACT amount that they advertise, when i know that my comcast bill is bound to be higher.
Your current (dialup, I assume) ISP is only required to collect from you, at most, sales tax. Comcast is under a lot of regulatory and taxation umbrellas. They're required to collect all those taxes from you, despite their pricing being the same as your dialup ISPs. How is that their fault? You're blaming the wrong guy here. Despite you paying X dollars, Comcast is only getting Y dollars from you, just as your ISP would only be getting Y dollars. Even though you know Comcast is only seeing the same amount of money as your ISP in the end, it's still hard for you to come to terms with the fact that they're not gouging you in some way because more money is coming from your pocket when you get Comcast service. Imagine how difficult it would be to explain this concept if Comcast wasn't even allowed to disclose what effect taxation had on your bill. You'd really think they were screwing you. And that's exactly how taxing authorities like it.
Including taxes in the price won't actually increase the cost - it'll only bring the actual cost inline wiht the advertised price.
Yes, it would. Taxes would creep up faster, as it would be easier to hide small increases over time. Look at Europe and the VAT. They're required to price items with the VAT already included and retail taxation is absolutely out of control, with VAT ranging from 15-25% across the EU.
Re:Taxation Without Reputation (Score:4, Informative)
But if you insist on an income tax, it must be a progressive one. And no, a flat tax is not progressive. By definition [reference.com] a tax is only progressive if the rate increases as your income increases. A flat tax is not progressive.
Now the reason why a progressive income tax is essential to "fairness" is the very obvious fact that 25% of the income of a person barely making ends meat is much more significant -- read financially damaging -- than 25% of the income of a person who's biggest financial worry is whether they will be able to send all of their kids to Ivy League schools if they don't get scholarships. It is not "fair" at all to expect someone who can't afford medical care for their children to support society with the same contribution as a wealthy person.
Flat tax sounds good on paper, so long as that paper has no figures representing reality and the difficulties faced by the poor. But the fact is that a flat tax necessarily means that the burden of supporting society is placed more heavily on the poor. A progressive tax attempts to alleviate this by taking more from those who can afford more. I pay a greater percentage in taxes than a lot of people, yet I consider this to be imminently fair. That's just my opinion. It isn't my opinion that flat taxes place a greater burden on lower income families though.
Rid us of the Spanish American War Tax First! (Score:3, Informative)
Dammit -- we do not need more taxes! ESPECIALLY on communication services and ESPECIALLY when every U.S. citizen with a telephone is still paying the Spanish-American war temporary tax from 1898 [lp.org]
We do not need more taxes. We need a more efficient government.