Slashdot Mirror
Cable Modem Tax Proposed by FCC
TheSync writes "News.Com has an article by Declan McCullagh that says the FCC is considering a new tax of up to 9.1% on the revenue of cable modem providers. This is an expansion of the existing universal service fund, which currently does not apply to cable services. The USF could even be expanded to wireless IP and VOIP providers as well, expanding the fund to over $13 billion."
Well, I can't really say that this surprises me and as much as it may suck that my cable bill would go up, at least the money is going to some somewhat good causes:
About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers. The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care.
I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
-Xenocrates
deserve's got nothing to do with it...
These assholes already have forced my DSL provider to bill me for this, never mind that there's no phone service going over my data line (right now). To force this for cable as well is insane.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
God, I wish I could get a cable modem that cheap! Gotta love legal monopolies, dontcha?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
Who's with me? I can see the pile in the middle of bay now =)
Stranded.org
Before the rants get too intense about this being a corrupt violation of your rights (read: making you pay for something) you should read the following from the article:
About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers. The remaining 15 percent goes toward discounts to low-income subscribers and funds rural health care.
Yes, that's right. 55% of this tax will go to school internet connections, library internet access, and low-income subscribers and health care. 45% goes to the somewhat less worthy but still valid rural subscribers to keep costs equitable. Now, what was that you were about to say?
I switched to cable internet for cost purposes, and now taxes on top of everything else. Of course if this requires that Cable providers start sharing their wires better, and get some competition in, then I guess it will be worth it. Mayhap we will see a net drop in costs.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Another good reason to get DSL instead of a Cable modem if you can, not that the phone companies are much better about their part of DSL!
Perhaps someone can explain to them in no uncertain terms that people are tired of being assessed new taxes for government enforced monopolies instead of letting these services live and die on their own.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
What, so the government collected over 2 TRILLION in revenues last year (source: IRS about page), and they need a little more?
Anyone wonder where all this American obesity comes from, just look towards your elected spenders, I mean officials.
Exactly the initiative that the government needs to take for breadband to become widespread. Noting like an extra 10% added on to the cost of something to get people to buy it.
About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent)
How is this a bad thing?
with DSL you need phone and thus you already have the universal service tax added on.
-
As if I don't pay enough for my cable modem already ($40)
In my Area, $40 is just about the cost it would be for me to get another phone line and an internet account. So it is very much worth it to me to pay the $40 for a cable modem.
As for the FEE proposed, it would almost certainly be lower than the 9.1% listed, but I don't think it will go through in it's current state.
The FCC would have to reclassify cable access or the measure would give a broad scope of who pays the new fee, all the way down to people who use an ATM machine.
Do you Gentoo!?
I know if you contact your cell phone provider monthly and tell them you arent paying the FCC excise tax, they will take it off your bill, I dont see why it wouldnt work here. Its a tax on the provider, you dont HAVE to let them shift that burden on you, and since most of the plebs out there dont know to do this, they wont up their prices to compensate.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Just like the phone companies, these taxes can be used to bilk the customers. As you get more and more line items on your bill-- taxes, fees, etc... the provider has more room to inflate the bills with hidden charges. More than one phone provider and companies with access to bill phone providers have been accused of including obsolete, illegal, and fraudulent fees on phone bills. Are we seriously supposed to beleive that cables companies won't do the same thing?
g .h tm
Phone bill fraud by third parties:
http://www.fraud.org/tips/telemarketing/crammin
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
That's why you have neighbors. Sell them a part of your bandwith. I pay nothing for my cable (would be $50 something).
Best things in life are free, no?
Is it about connecting phones with phones? Or people with people?
When I get my bill from speakeasy, there's a USF charge on it. Somewhere around four bucks a month.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
I canceled my service
$59 for the service
$5 'rental'
Yuck
I signed up when it was $39.99 and FAST and the modem was free.
Its gets slower and slower and more expensive.
hey buddy. I would like to tell you that pres. Bushs tax cuts help me very much. And I am very far from rich. Maybe you should stop believing everything those dumbass democrats say and read the stuff for yourself
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
Which, if you think about it, means a greater usage of broadband and an incentive to unroll ever greater bandwidth.
I know that after starting to use broadband I'd never think about going back. It's almost required on the Internet nowadays. Anything that brings it to more people is a good thing.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
They take X dollars earmarked by this Fee/Tax and apply it to Y, while giving the X dollars which used to fund the program back to the general fund to spend elsewhere. It's a bait and switch that leaves the "needy program" funded at the same or marginally higher levels than before the Fee/Tax.
For a great example of this, look at how the states "fund" education from their lotteries. It's a scam.
I was just sitting around the other day thinking, "Damn, I'm not spending enough on my cable modem access to the internet!", but what can I do about it. Then out of the blue comes my salvation. Thank you FCC, Thank you.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
the idea behind the universal service fee was originally to provide basic telephone service to those areas at a similar cost to those who live in cities. highspeed internet is quickly becoming a almost-necessary service. Certainly by the time this tax actually starts getting levied it will be.
-
DSL, like most everything else that travels over telco copper, is already subject to the Universal Service Fund charge, and has been for some time.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
This could force state level corporation comissions to treat broadband service the same way they do telephone service and electricity, as a regulated service. This could go toward requiring service availability if others in the same geographical area can get service, instead of hiding behind "bad cable" or "pair-gain" (for DSL folks). It would also possibly allow for more grounds for suits against poor providers, legitmizing the entire industry yet slapping it around a bit.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
From the article, "If they want cable modem services to pay, they have to decide how to avoid sweeping in all other information services as well," Boothby says. "That's really the point. How do you say an information service like a cable modem has to pay, without saying that all other information services have to pay? And (how do you) do that in a way that survives court review?"
As much as it pains me to say this, I think its time that internet access be classified as telecommunications. The medium is an active system whereby users exchange significant amounts of information in the form of e-mail, instant messengers, and other means, as well as purchase any number of items. The difference between an information service and telecommunications is in the exchange of information. An information service takes a small amount of information and gives you lots, but a telecommunications medium is primarily about the exchange of information and ideas.
Unfortunately, I don't know what obligations this puts on the access providers, but I think its time the issue was reconsidered.
Besides, this would eliminate the need for taxing telecom providers and a specific category of information service.
This news comes at a time when DSL prices are beginning to be slashed. Verizon has lowered their service costs by upwards of 30%, while SBC offers promotional offers.
I switched to SBC/Yahoo DSL last December, and I pay $39.99/month with the promotional offer. The same service is now being offered at $29.99.
If cable providers are forced to increase rates, I'm sure DSL companies will be willing to lower costs (at least for an extended period of time), in order to drive potential customers away from cable.
Of course, Earthlink DSL has announced that they are actually increasing rates; but that doesn't affect much of the broadband-aware states that have signed the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Including my state of California.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
While you guys gripe about cable internet costing you ~$40, I'm still paying around $70 for my DSL (I count the phone line I have to buy and never use here).
I like this part of the article:
"One important point to note: If the FCC goes ahead with its proposal and cable users end up paying more in taxes, DSL users will end up paying less. Because more people will be contributing to the same $6 billion fund, under FCC procedures, each person's contribution gets reduced. So, while DSL taxes currently are 9.1 percent, that rate could fall substantially."
Politician: Gentlemen, our MP saw the PM this AM and the PM wants more LSD from the PIB by tomorrow AM or PM at the latest. I told the PM's PPS that AM was NBG so tomorrow PM it is for the PM. Give us a fag or I'll go spare. Now, the fiscal deficit with regard to the monetary balance, the current financial year excluding invisible exports, but adjusted of course for seasonal variations and the incremental statistics of the fiscal and revenue arrangements for the forthcoming annual budgetary period terminating in April.
... thingy.
... (looks round him)... Oh!
First Official: I think he's talking about taxation.
Politician: Bravo, Madge. Well done. Taxation is indeed the very nub of my gist. Gentlemen, we have to find something new to tax.
Second Official: I understood that.
Third Official: If I might put my head on the chopping block so you can kick it around a bit, sir...
Politician: Yes?
Third Official: Well most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed, except one.
Politician: What do you mean?
Third Official: Well, er, smoking's been taxed, drinking's been taxed but not
Politician: Good Lord, you're not suggesting we should tax... thingy?
First Official: Poo poo's?
Third Official: No.
First Official: Thank God for that. Excuse me for a moment. (leaves)
Third Official: No, no, no - thingy.
Second Official: Number ones?
Third Official: No, thingy.
Politician: Thingy!
Second Official: Ah, thingy. Well it'll certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job.
(Cut to vox pops.)
Gumby: (standing in water) I would put a tax on all people who stand in water
Man In Bowler Hat: To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad.
Man In Suit: I would tax the nude in my bed. No - not tax. What is the word? Oh - 'welcome'.
It's Man: I would tax Racquel Welch. I've a feeling she'd tax me.
First Business Man: Bring back hanging and go into rope.
Second Business Man: I would cut off the more disreputable parts of the body and use the space for playing fields.
Man In Cap: I would tax holiday snaps.
How much are you getting? And how sure are you that there isn't someone else in the country who needs that money more?
Yup. Its easy to get in a tissy about "tax cuts for the rich." Bush's tax cuts will help me out a bunch too- and I am far from rich, although the Democrats in Washington DC disagree. Democrats label any tax cut that gives relief to lower middle class and up a "tax cut for the rich."
How do you cut taxes on people who don't pay them in the first place?
Anyway, with the the money (my own money) that I get to keep, I will be buying things and stimulating the economy.
[FromTheMorning]
Well, I can't really say that this surprises me and as much as it may suck that my cable bill would go up, at least the money is going to some somewhat good causes.
Actually not.
My company serves rural midwestern markets (largest town is 8,000) exclusively. We receive no federal subsidy (why? we're not a incumbant local telco, or rural utility service, which most of the rules are structured to and were designed to keep younger companies absent subsidy). We do serve 1/6th of one state and should cover 1/3 in the next year. We're privately funded, profitable, and provide a service that nobody else can match in our markets (for a good price).
While the incumbant aka lethargic independent telcos and Qwest ignore these markets, we're there providing this important service. Their product? 128 Kbps DSL, fed by a single T1 for an entire community resulting in un-broadband (sub-200 Kbps). Ours is SLA'ed, 256 to 6 Mbps customer links standard in the product line. Private backbone, and 100 Mbps upstream. As usual, this private business has had the incentive to provide a better product at a lower price than the "fat, dumb and happy" incumbants. And no, we don't have a $5 million vacation house in Vail or a Gulfstream as part of our expense structure.
So what does the FCC propose? Tax us and our customers to put money in the pockets of the RBOCs and ILECs. To buy more Gulfstreams and vacation homes for the FDH. Oh, and to ensure greater political contributions from the incumbants (the real story here).
Just like a chapter out of Atlas Shrugged...
*scoove*
From the FCC:
The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas.
So...if you choose to live in an area(rural or whatever) where the tellecommunications costs are higher, you can expect the government to subsidise your communications fees, by charging everyone a little more.
Great.
Now..If I choose to live in a high cost area, can I expect the government to subsidise my mortgage payment?
If I choose to drive an expensive car, can I expect the government to help me pay for it?
Why subsidise only one segment, and not the others? Not that there is any great hatred for spreading costs around...but why this segment of industry and not others?
Further:
In addition, the 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner;
Nowhere in there does it say you and I must contribute. But of course that is what happens. The telcos contribute little if any, and instead simply pass the charges down to thee and me.
Buddy this is not a communist state. So I want to discredit the fact that the tax cut only helps the rich. Heck you proablly want to give ILLEGAL aliens healthcare and free school. Love them Democrats. What part of ILLEGAL do they not get. except when it is campign contribs from the PROC.
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
...or at least, that's what my employers at the phone company have told me. At least insofar as we pass it on to the customers, it's a surcharge, because the govt doesn't charge the phone customers directly--it charges the telcos, and we have the right to decide to pass that on to our customers or not.
And incidentally, it could be higher than 9.1%. Until a few months ago, it was 10.5%. It's currently 9.1% for residential customers, 9.3% for businesses.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Anyway, with the the money (my own money) that I get to keep, I will be buying things and stimulating the economy.
Well it sure seems to be working so fa... no, wait, the American economy is in a massive slump the likes of which we haven't seen the the 70's.
I am sure there are people in this country who need MY money more than I do. The thing is- those people didn't earn MY money. I'll never understand you bleeding hearts.
You liberals are so quick to want to give away the hard earned money of others.
[FromTheMorning]
If you think these charges and taxes actually go somewhere, think again.
...they'll create another. Gee, and I thought that getting some conservatives in office would help lower the tax burden. Pussies. Flat out, wimpy-ass pussies. We do need a big third party, the "I got f'in ballz" party. Cowering, pussified republicans. Serves them right for letting themselves get walked all over. ::sigh:: Maybe I'll change my party affiliation to "independant".
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I wouldn't mind paying that. I can't get friggin broadband, and satelite SUCKS. (I even tried that, and was sadly disappointed when the upload was only 2kbps) Hell, I tried every kind of broadband service out there, and none of them work in my area. I even begged the cable company. They won't run me a cable, even if I do pay extra. If the government would add service for poor 'just out of reach' consumers like me, then we (the just out of reach) should have to pay a little extra. I don't think the general public should have to foot the bill though.
Speak for yourself.
The Universal Service Program is a sham. Just go look at how many billions people like IBM have shilled out of the public on over-bid projects funded by USAC. It was created to basically hand money to get schools and libraries on the internet. Now it's just a giant payola program for big companies and government agencies, and rife with corruption. I know it first-hand. But I can't imagine a corrupt government program...?
It's important to note, as the CNET article does, that DSL service is already subject to this tax, and the change will really only put DSL and cable on equal footing. Seems reasonable enough to me, especially considering that, at least in theory, the money collected goes toward things like providing internet access for libraries and whatnot.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
No it is in a slump the likes of which we haven't seen since 1992.
That would imply that schools need Internet access more than additional teachers. NOT!
So basically I'll have to pay a higher bill and children instead of getting a better education and learning the fundamentals will get a computer thrown in their face.
Sorry but kids don't need computers as much as they need traditional education.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Michael Powell is not part of the administration; he is (nominally, at least) independent, and was appointed by Clinton.
And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
When I signed up for AT&T broadband, the pricing was $34.95 for service, $10.00 for modem rental. I bought a modem, so my monthly bill was $34.95. After 6 months or so, ATTBI decided to restructure their pricing to $42.95 for service, $3 for rental. In essence, they were extorting an extra $7 per month from their most loyal customers (the ones who made the investment in hardware) while not affecting the renters who had no financial investment and could leave at any time.
Then along came the Comcast buyout of ATTBI. The very same week, I got a letter from Comcast alerting me that they had noticed that I was a cable internet customer, but not a cable television or long distance customer. As such, my broadband internet price would jump from $42.95 to $57.95. That is, of course, unless I opted to sign up for their cable television service, in which case I could keep the "bargain" price of $42.95. I don't want Cable TV (hell, I know I already get it due to the way the technology works).
So my cable bill has made two jumps since January, from $34.95 to $42.95 to $57.95. That's a total increase 65.8% since then! 66%! Why did my bill gone up 66% over four months? Did the cost of providing me that service really go up that much?
Add 9.1% to $57.95, and we're up to $63.22 - that's an 80.90% increase in the cost of my service since last December!
Imagine if the cost of everything else went up 81%. That $20,000 car would be $36,200. A gallon of milk would jump from $1.50 to $2.72. Gasoline would jump from $1.60 per gallon to $2.9 per gallon. And my sallary would increase by roughly 2%. Now, I'm not an accountant, but I think I can see that if my salary increased by 2% and the cost of living increased by 81%, I wouldn't be doing too well.
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Or maybe I'll just pay the MARKET PRICE!
What a novel concept. If it costs more to live in the sticks then the price of food goes up and I pay for it that way.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
The people who need the money the most are the people who are unemployed. When you are unemployed you have no income, and hence pay no taxes. The only way to help those people with a tax cut is to cut taxes of people who will either:
If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you.
Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China given our current trade deficit, so while such a tax cut might help those low income people, it won't help the economy or the unemployed.
All that said, I think this most recent tax cut is stupid. It's not the tax cut Bush asked for, and because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
The FCC just voted to allow futher consolidation of media companies. Aren't they getting enough kickbacks right now? I'm pretty pissed about that already.
But... I'll pay the tax if they force cable companys to let broadband users drop basic cable service and still maintain cable modem servic for @ 40/month. For me the cable modem is really about $60/month, because I don't watch much tv and what I do watch is network news anyway. (I'll glady let them take away cheesball Fox News.)
And then nobody grows food in the US anymore, all food is imported, and we rely on the middle east and communist china for all of our food. That is exactly what our country needs!
Visualize the world of wine
Makes sense, doesn't it? CD sales have dropped because those pesky kids with those pesky cable modems are downloading music. The nerve!
Kinda funny how my screen turned poopy-brown too. It's a sign...
ps...it's all sarcasm up there...no...really
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
The Universal Service Fund is extremely important because it will help make cable available in rural areas that are better serviced by wireless connections. The people in these rural areas that are better serviced by wireless deserve to have the option of DSL and cable. Isn't this the fundamental foundation of a free market? That is everyone in every market should have the same options regardless of the cost of serving that market? The alternative is the unthinkable option of people on farms just having cell phones, satellite dishes and wireless connections to the internet just because that is the most efficient way to provide service.
The harder trick, of course, is that people in the city should have equal access to wireless. However, since there are more people bidding to use the available bandwidth in the city it is cost prohibitive. So, what we need to do is add a Universal Service Fee to the wireless internet in rural areas and use that money to subsidize wireless connections in the city. It is only fair. This is another example of how taxation helps make the free market free!!!!!
You couldn't even afford the market price for your phone in the city if it wasn't subsidized, so deal. Some things are considered important enough to socialize and/or regulate, and universal communications are one of them.
Because they are indistinguishable from one another in terms of what they do; They provide a transport for streams of data broken up into packets. In fact generally speaking they both only carry IP traffic (though they CAN carry other types of data; It is my understanding that DSL is just a flavor of ATM, even... I'm not sure what DOCSIS is based on) so they are even more similar to the user. Either one can be used to carry all the same types of data, which is to say, basically anything.
As for what should and should not be taxed, the law definitely should say specifically what makes a service taxable. If you can't put it in simple objective terms then there's no justice in it, because that is the only way you can make the law apply to all equally.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Yes, I meant billion... Oops..
"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."
"the top 5 percent of households pay 56 percent"
"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"
Yes that's right, 36% of households pay NO income tax!!!
Would you like their tax rate to be below 0%? For many of them it is, in the form of the EITC.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
because it was renegotiated to go more to the lower end of the income scale it's essentially $350 million flushed down the giant hole that is our trade deficit.
Yeah, 'cuz giving the money to the massively rich will REALLY stimulate the economy. Really, where the heck do you get this from? The rich don't need more money. They're rich! A tax cut won't stimulate them to spend more money or hire more people! They'll pocket it is pure profit, since your average corporation is focused primarily on the bottom line, to produce the greatest wealth for their stock holders, NOT their employees! All a tax cut for the rich will do is widen the already massive wealth gap which exists in American society.
Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense. But shovelling more cash at the top 1% of American society is absolutely senseless.
Taxes are always bad.
.sig
In certain very rare circumstances they are better than the alternative.
In those cases, the best that can be said of them is they are the lessor of two evils.
I'm not convinced this is lessor evil.
How do you know that what the money is earmarked for will really go there?
What if they force schools or libraries to install censorware before than can have the money?
-- this is not
Okay, but first pay back all the subsidies on phone, electricity and natural gas that made the wiring possible, all the funds for highways and roads, the lowered cost of food because of the reduced transportation costs because of subsidized rail and highways, etc, etc. It's called living in a society. If you don't want to play, go buy your own island somewhere. And, actually, assuming that you are not dying of starvation, disease, exposure, infection, or injury, yes, there are people who need your money MUCH more than you do. Whether they deserve it or not is a philisophical discussion, and not one I'm interested in having because it's basically impossible to change someones beliefs once they form them.
Explain to me these two things:
1) Why should my phone bill help pay for someones heathcare(15% of the fees)?
2) Why should my gas taxes be spent on war memorials, and not the pot hole in my street?
BECAUSE:
1) Because people (voters) are stupid, and ALLOW these things to happen.
2) Everyone loves pork.
Maybe, just MAYBE cables modems shouldn't taxed so a few poor people can get heath care. Wouldn't it be a much better idea to tax them so poor people who can't afford CABLE get CABLE for free? Then we could dump the wasted VHF/UHF bands.
I'm a big fan of spending taxes on things related to the taxation. I have a real problem with tripling my california car registration fees social the social service programs don't have to cut their bloated administration.
free markets don't require "everyone in every market regardless of the cost of serving that market". Free markets are free of regulatory restriction and provide whatever service the market will buy, at whatever pricepoint the market will buy it at. If the pricepoint the market is willing to pay is less than the cost to provide that service (like wired rural broadband), then a free market would suggest that said service shouldn't exist.
That said, I support rural broadband, but think that wired rural broadband will not happen in a free market for a long long time.
~I just can't get over the stupidity of this administration. Bush gives a huge tax cut, most of which goes to very rich people, while Michael Powell wants to do a tax hike on one of the few technologies that might actually fix the economy?
You forget.... Bush doesn't like the internet. It was a particular article on the internet that made him say that famous quote "there ought to be limits to freedom".... Becides, he doesn't like the internet because Gore invented it, right?
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Since the 6+ billion people on earth generally agree that coming after people with guns and blades is morally unacceptable, the government comes after your wallet. "If we can't kill you, then you've gotta pay us more!"
But, then again, those of us who bother to read up on our history know that a government will tax any thing that moves on its own for anything that doesn't.
But, for the love of God or any other high (or low?) being, don't stop paying. If we stop greasing the wheels of government, it will be forced not only to fight even more wars that we don't agree with, but even to turn on those it is sworn to protect... (This, my friends, is why tax day feels sort of like a very uncomfortable physical examination. You hate to do it but you know it's best for everyone involved, especially the one collecting your money!)
Most interesting is that while AOL Time Warner would prefer not to undo decades of sound legal and policy conclusions, they never miss an opportunity to grow their media empire ...
Paul T. Cappacio, general counsel of AOL Time Warner, told the New York Times that the rules were "an anachronism" and were "not remotely necessary to protect competition."
strange times.
They can do whatever they want with money that's not theirs. Enough said.
STOP TAXING MY ASS... This is a robin hood mentality. If you decide to live in rural areas, expect to have some drawbacks to life. Life is a tradeoff.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Free markets are a way to provide to the consumer the most cost-efficient solution.
Cable modems are most certainly not the most cost-efficient solution for rural areas.
If cable companies were to service rural areas unsubsidized, then they would have to charge extremely high rates, in which case the rural areas would simply use satellite.
Satellite is the best solution for rural areas. Don't charge the rest of us unnecessary taxes to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
(check your local PUC tariffs) DSL is run over an "Unbundled Network Element" (UNE) which is telco speak for an unloaded ("dry") copper loop. There's no services on the line. (For IDSL, it's basically the same thing... an ISDN loop not attached to a switch. It's transported through the PSTN wiring just like any other ISDN loop. It can be a dry loop, but usually isn't...)
Had I ordered by ISDN line as "data only", I wouldn't be (or wouldn't have been -- they've changed the rules several times over the years) charged for universal service (or the 911 access fee.)
[I've worked with these things for several years. Actually, now that I think about, since the very beginning of DSL.]
For four dollars, I'm not willing to look up the number and spend half an hour finding someone who can answer that question.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
"Boothby says that the information services category that would be taxed includes credit card validation networks, airline reservation systems, Web hosting providers and e-mail service providers." So if I use my VISA card to buy an airline ticket on cheaptickets.com over my roadrunner connection, exactly how much additional tax am I going to wind up paying?
I will agree to pay this extra fee if, and only if, two things happen:
1. Prior to charging the public any extra fees (taxes), the telcos, and all associated parties, publish a plan to distribute $12,999,999,900 [a]. of the estimated $13b that will be collected
No extra admin costs, no profit taking, no fund redirection. Each and every $$ collected must go towards the stated goals of the Universal Service Fund
2. All of the associated telco CEO's, and the FCC Chairman, agree to prison terms [b] not less than 6 months, and not greater than 24 months if it can be shown that they do not follow their published plan.
Prison terms are collective, in that if one falls, they all fall. Make them accountable to, and responsible for, each other
[a] Each Telco may keep $1 profit each for administering the dispersal of our funds.
[b]Federal PMITA prison, not 'house arrest'.
While we're at it, it has come to my attention that geeks and hackers are woefully underrepresented when it comes to supermodels dating choices. I propose new legislation that mandates that at least 15% of the men any US supermodel dates be a computer geek, hacker, or at least some form of social misfit. After all, what is government for, if not to even out the horribly unfair hands that fate has dealt us?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I have always wondered how tax cuts for PERSONAL income help create jobs. Will there suddenly be a huge market for butlers? If the tax cuts reduced costs for EMPLOYERS (i.e. companies), then I could imagine a more direct effect on job creation.
Sure, some rich people might invest their tax savings in some companies (stock market does not count as it does not directly create new jobs), but that seems a very indirect (trickle down) strategy that suspiciously benefits the fat cat cronies of the Bush administration. If these tax cuts went directly to businesses, then I would believe that the Bush administration cared more about job creation than about lining their campaign contributors' pockets.
cpeterso
- http://www.glasgow-ky.com/lan/
. Residents Glasgow Kentucky pay a RIDICULOUSLY cheap sum monthly for broadband, and I didn't have to get taxed for it! I appreciate the desire for broadband, and I use it myself. But I pay for my own access at sixty dollars a month, and I'm not very keen on contributing to someone else's access.- http://telephonyonline.com/ar/telecom_why_best_
d eal/
is another link for more information. If the public and private sectors of our telcom industries would work together instead of maintaining their current service/client relationship then we could have broadband become pervasive without taxing those specific few who are already paying a high rate for access. If Glasgow Kentucky (as rural as you really can get) can do it anyone and more importantly anywhere can do it!"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."
Yes. Those people who earn $100,000,000 a year end up spending $36,000,000 one income tax.
Leaving them earning $64,000,000 a year. Oh, poor babies!
Whereas someone earning $60,000 a year give up $20,000 on income tax, leaving them with only $40,000.
Compare $40,000 with $64,000,000 and see who the tax affects *more*.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Exactly who is doing the subsidizing here?
Hmmm, let me see. Oh, ME! Yes me, the taxpayer. God I hate it when people act like the federal goverment is giving us something. We pay for our government, it doesn't pay us.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
About 85 percent of the fund's revenues are split between two causes: the "e-rate" program (40 percent), which subsidizes school and library Internet connections, and rural telephone companies (45 percent), which might otherwise end up paying more for telephone service than city dwellers.
75-100 years ago, when most of America was rural, subsidizing services for rural people was politically expedient and helped bridge a pretty large technology gap between rural and urban.
I don't see the need for it anymore. Basic technology infrastructure (dialtone, power) has already been built for rural America and has been for some time. Why should we urban dwellers continue to subsidize a built infrastructure? And it's not like it's helping get DSL or any other expensive last-mile technologies to farmers, anyway.
At some point, it's necessary to just tell people that *yes*, if you live in extremely low-density areas it is VERY EXPENSIVE to provide you with technology that has a measurable cost per FOOT, let alone mile. It seems that we're actually subsidizing a rural lifestyle that some people choose to lead (or choose to continue leading). If you want the technology at an affordable cost, you need to go somewhere it's affordable to deliver.
Or maybe we should start taxing off-road vehicles owned by rural people so we can build an affordable infrastructure in urban areas for urban people to use off-road vehicles. Urban people paying for rural people to have urban lifestyles is just as ludicrous.
democrats and republicans : they're what stand between you and your money.
STOP ELECTING THEM.
And I don't mean by NOT VOTING either. Vote third party. Preferably, vote Libertarian. If you don't like them, vote for just about anybody but the big two.
Send a message.
the FCC is nothing but a parasitic organization which seeks to profit off regulating something that is for all intents and purposes functionally infinite, that is, our ability to communicate.
While I'd like to believe this rate increase to be good and charitable, what it amounts to is pay increases for FCC chairman Powell and his cronies, and Rate increases for the consumer VASTLY EXCEEDING the proposed 9.11% tax. After all, Broadband compaines are in this for profit. Under the guise of combatting it, this type of non-democratic, closed door policy making will only serve to deepen the so called "digital divide" which is already dangerously wide.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
Yeah, like Harvey Keitel said in Pulp Friction, "Move out of the sticks, fellas."
And where is the Universal Service Fund for rent subsidies, eh? People who live in rural areas and can get a two-bedroom apartment for $450/month. Shouldn't they help subsidize the rent on my $1000/month one-bedroom place? Why does this not occur?
I'll tell you why: because this country (yes, I'm referring to USA) has always had a strange affinity for farmers. These days (especially) farmers are businesspeople like any other, yet they get price controls, buyouts, subsidies, and all kinds of crap. And in the minds of Congressmen, who are almost universally idiots (I'm sure that's a surprise to someone out there), rural=farmers=nice wholesome people who deserve a break. Therefore, we city dwellers, who pay universally higher prices for everything except possibly utilities, have the privilege of subsidizing utilities for people who get rent, food, and virtually everything else cheaper than we do. Just great.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Cato is a very conservative think tank but their numbers are basically correct.
Personal income is very skewed in the US, rightly or wrongly, and taxation is highly progressive (rich pay a higher %). That means that a very select number of people's taxes pay for everyone else's government services.
Bringing this post back on topic however the Cato institute fails to include use and service fees that do count as taxes like the one mentioned in the article. I'd have to check whether they are including social security, medicare, medicade and payroll taxes paid by both the employee and employer as well.
This tax on telecom service is basically a head tax on anyone with a phone and therefore hits everyone equally, regardless of income. That is very regressive (hits low earners more than the rich).
Historically the universal access policies are driven by the structure of our government. The mid-west has lots of senate seats and is often a swing vote in presidential elections. The universal access policy basically takes money from dense coastal states and gives it to mid-western states.
No federal income tax, perhaps. They do pay sales tax for example (which in the US is not a hugely big deal, but in EU countries can be as high as 19%, and each hike is "compensated" fiscally, i.e. with incometax cuts, which do not benefit the poor). Unemployed people with a phone (really, it's quite handy when you're looking for a job..) also pay ridiculous DTMF surcharges and universal service fees. And municipal and state taxes, fees and surcharges to things like rent. Anything non-income related and you're screwed basically.
There are programs to give some of that money back, but hey, the most screwed people typically have better things to do with their time than hunting down each and every subsidy and rebate they can get (like single parents taking care of their kids).
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
~What part of ILLEGAL do they not get. except when it is campign contribs from the PROC.
As opposed to our friend Kathleen Leung who was a major Repub contributer, FBI agent, Adulterer, and incidently a spy for the PRC.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
YOU, personally, don't pay nearly full value for any number of services. Everyone, as an aggregate, helps pay for it. Some people recieve greater value from a subsidy than otheres, thats how they work. It's pretty simple.
Cutting taxes for people with low income won't help the unemployed people because the money will be spent on retail items that will probably come from China
Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will. You made my point with your post. The tax cut for the rich wasn't enough so they had to hire chinese labor? We'll give them a bigger cut next time and maybe they can afford Indian labor instead huh?
Damn straight. Now shut up and burn your house to the ground for me. All you non-asbestos-coated freaks and your firefighters are draining my new laptop fund.
I could care less if someone can afford a phone or not.
Their house cost 1/5 what mine does living near Boston. I have no desire to pay a DIME of my money so their phone bill is the same as mine. If you want a cheap phone bill, move. Period.
Phones are a luxury, cable is a luxury... and I have a real problem paying taxes for welfare, more taxes for social security, and yet more taxes for damn phone service, medicare and all the other crap I have to pay. Why the hell should I donate two days a week of work so people in these rural areas, whose cost of living is a tiny fraction of mine, can afford these luxuries?
In regards to schools, etc, how about instead the federal government requires the telcos or cable companies to provide access to schools and libraries? We the people give them the right to run their lines on *public* land. Make them pay for it out of their grossly overinflated profits.
And I've never quite figured out how "not taking as much as we used to" and "giving away money" are the same thing, no matter how many times the Democrats have tried to explain it to me.
If you tell a friend that you are going to buy him a $50,000 car, and then later you only buy him a $30,000 car, haven't you just stolen $20,000 from your friend?
That twisted logic is similar to explaining why "tax cuts are gifts to the rich." Wow, the government letting you keep more of your own money is now a "gift." It's amazing how warped some peoples' thinking is.
When an evil republican wants to reduce the rate of increase in spending on a particular program, it's referred to as a "draconian cut." Or "slashed" or "gutted" or pick-an-adjective. Spending still goes up, just not by as much, and it's referred to as a "cut." The mind boggles.
Of course, these are probably the same democrats that referred to the Clinton tax increase as "contributions."
And just how would the Libertarian party (or any other third party) do any better? They'd slash taxes, but to do so they'd also have to slash spending. Yeah, there are plenty of things in government that need to be cut, but getting a bunch of people to agree on a list of which things those are is outright impossible. (Just try to talk about eliminating NASA around here...)
Running a government isn't as easy as it looks...
Personally, I think rural areas should be wireless, and that the market should create independent rural cooperatives to provide the wireless connections for phone and internet. Rural areas can also make use of back up services through satellite.
Stringing wires to every remote farm is an inefficient use of capital. If wire is not the best way to provide service, then the free market is correct to skip that option.
Think for a moment how much better off a farm would be to have a fuel cell generating electricity, wireless phones and internet? You could get rid of all the wires that you have to maintain, and avoid costly mistakes when you accidentally drive the tractor over the cable.
The universal access fee is based on a false assumption that you need all options in all markets. The most efficient means to access rural markets is with independently owned rural communication cooperatives that provide local service to its members. The Universal Service Fee tax is taking money from the city market, and using it to subsidize the efforts of Baby Bells to take over these markets and service them with a lower quality inefficient technologies.
Yes give money to the unemployed, well lets think about it for a minute, what do you think the unemployed are going to do with the tax money they recieve, their going to save it, they're not going to invest and they're not going to buy a new T.V. or build a new kitchen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. First you should fix the unemployment, that inturn will fix the economy. Secondly, the goverment isn't suppose to fix the economy, all their really suppose to do is stop fraudulent companies like Enron and WorldCom, and break up monopolies like Microsoft which they didn't do, and I hope the under the next administration Microsoft will be broken apart like they should have been in the first place.
~"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"
And how many households that earned MORE than $40,000 had Income tax liabilities of zero?
How many Large Businesses has zero or even negative tax liabilities? Enron anyone? in 2001, the government owed Enron money.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
Very true.
In my tax bracket I'm pretty sure I'm paying for more than I'm getting though. This is probably true for most of the Engineers/Programmers on here. We aren't the most underpaid bunch.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
They'll pocket it is pure profit snip Now, providing relief for the people who are actually spending money and driving the economy, THAT makes some sort of sense.
What do you think rich people do with their money, put it under the mattress in small non-sequencial bills? Of course not, they invest it. They're also more likely to invest it in US interests than your average wallmart shopper is to spend it on goods produced in the US. Think about it this way: When you cut taxes by $350 billion you can either give everybody and extra $5 a week, give people that make less than the median income level an extra $10 a week, or you can try and give some unemployed people a steady paycheck. Since we have a MASSIVE trade deficit, consumer spending is *not* driving our economy as you say it is. It's driving the economy of Asia and Mexico. Even at minimum wage ~$5-10 a week is statistical noise compared to the cost of living. It's not going to improve anybodies confidence. Worst of all, it's going to put $0 in the pockets of the people who need it the most: the people without jobs who aren't paying any taxes that can be cut.
I would agree with you completely if a tax cut for the lower income groups were combined with some way of getting people in the US to spend the money on things from the US, but a big "Buy American" campaign right now would just piss the rest of the world off towards us more than they already are. If we're not going to keep the money in the US (the only place it'll stimulate the US economy from) than we shouldn't cut taxes at all.
It's not the tax cut Bush asked for...
Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration. Or, now that Bush "didn't get everything he wanted", is this political-speak for "the job market's failure to recover isn't my fault"?
I hadn't heard this argument before, but it makes a little bit of sense. Not ALL the money is going overseas, but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class, which theoretically should result in more investment in capital equipment, workers, etc.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
I don't think there's much more that can be done with either fiscal or monetary policy to move the U.S. economy along. In fact, the last year and a half has seen a LOT of stimulus. I think Bush and Greenspan just need to sit tight for a while and give the medicine they dispensed earlier a chance to work.
This sounds similar to the dial-up modem tax rumor of the early 1990s. Is there any truth to this, or are we going to panic for no reason again?
Remember the old "modem tax" myth that was curculating on the BBSs for year? Ah, here we are. No? Ah well...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That means my already too high monthly rate of $75 is gonna increase by 9.1% more? I already pay too much as it is.
Hell.. I might as well spend a few more bucks and get a real T-1.
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO
if you want to kill consumer level broadband. The government shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything that they don't understand....
Yeah, cut taxes for the rich and they will spend it on American jobs and improvements. Sure they will.
Do you live in the US? If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon? The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country. My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor. Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...
If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want. Otherwise, if you want to give government money to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs. Being wishy-washy won't get us anywhere though. It'll just give people on both sides of the issue ammo for the debate about who's economic policy sucks more.
As long as we're offtopic anyway, it might help the unemployed to cut payroll taxes and make it more affordable to hire people. Right now it costs about nine dollars per hour to pay someone $8 per hour. That's before workmen's comp and unemployment insurance.
If you think employers don't notice the difference between eight and nine, you've never met a payroll.
Will not, and does not work. Local paper had an Op Ed piece written by a local CEO. He indicated that the tax cut he would be getting vs that of his secretary. She made a pittance and he made millions. His tax cut was a whopping $800k+, her's a mere $400+/-. He indicated that this extra money to him would not do any good, that it was tossing more money his way, money he simply didn't need, and it would in no way boost the economy or benefit anyone like his secretary.
It's nice to see that some people who are rich actually accept that they do not need more, that there comes a point when more money becomes pointless and wont improve their lives (nor anyone else's) and that there are better ways to shape taxes so as to directly benefit those who will actually spend/need the money vs those who already have anything/everything they want. Hell, even at a 50% tax, they would STILL be rich and STILL be able to afford pretty much any unnecessary luxury (which doesn't help the economy) that they could before. Greed is a failing. Greed is an evil. Greed is a character failing. Greed is ugly. No exceptions.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
with any luck, they'll learn that when you got 2 kids and can barely afford a cable odem, you GET RID OF THE CABLE MODEM.
Dumb-ass
So, what do you think of the higher income families that want to kill you?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Senrik. Good point :). Atleast someone reads the news and is up on things. But either way you go must people in poltics are rich and will get richer but the democrats try to make is sound like they are poor and only want to help the poor. Give me a break they want to help the poor they should give more their money to the poor not take it from us.
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
$40????? You're very lucky. As a result of the ATTBI/COMCAST merger, my bill is now $57!!! That was without my consent, they just one day started charging me more. With this tax, that would raise my bill to $63/month!
That's a good way to kill technological inovation. Just keep taxing new technology till no one can afford it.
Why is this important? Bush was elected president, not king. The difference seems to be lost on this administration.
It was important because he proposed a plan to stimulate the economy, and I think his plan had at least a chance of working. The latest tax bill doesn't implement his plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.
but you're right that a bunch of it is. American business owners (small and large alike) WILL MAKE MORE MONEY from increased spending from the working class
Unfortuantly given the tax cut that passed I don't think they're going to benefit enough to justify the cost.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
Exactly. You're practically making my argument for me. If you want to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes, you have to put the money where it will work best under the current conditions. These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut. Judging by the recent statistics, they're at least more likely to keep that money in the US than the average US consumer these days. It almost doesn't matter who has the money, as long as it stays here. If we're going to take a $350 billion risk, I think we should be betting on the horse that's most likely to win.
The only other practical options I see are a tax cut for the least wealthy and a huge "Buy American" advertising campaing, or just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own...
I don't remember voting for anyone in the FCC. I thought it was the job of Congress to levy new taxes. Oh, that's right, it's not a tax, it's a tariff. *sigh*
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
and where can I get some?
Seriously, Congress is busy passing bullshit laws that supposedly "promote" bandwidth while mandating DRM tech. Meanwhile the FCC is trumpeting broadband over powerlines which is the WORST FUCKING IDEA EVER!!! GOODBYE HF BANDS, BEEN NICE KNOWING YOU! And NOW they're considering taxing the SHIT out of cable modems?????? OMG WTF?! HELLO, MCFLY!
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
When I first read the headline, I was thinking, not that old urban legend again! Well it appears it's coming true -- sort of. Unless this is another go-round of the same.
Unfortunately, these are not textbook conditions -- we have some serious risk aversion among the entrepreneural class. A large segment of business owners are afraid to invest in their own businesses. They need more than a little more money to overcome that fear. In fact, money is cheap right now for those with the guts to use it. There just aren't enough people with the guts.
He couldn't be more short sighted. His $800k will probably be given to an institutional investor who will put his money in a company (comapnies more accuratly) who will spend it on paychecks. His secretary will probably go to the store and buy things that were made in another country. Her $400 tax cut will have helped her, but not the economy. His $800k tax cut will not have helped him, but will definatly help the economy at least a little.
I still think the tax cut that passed was stupid; just for different reasons than you apparently.
How about a massive tax hike for corporations, bundled with a massive tax credit for hiring people?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Any some CEO's are simply closet socialists who are for whatever reason guilty they make so much. Writing fluffy op-ed pieces makes them feel better about themselves and enables them to sleep at night. Instead of writing essays, why doesn't he pay his secretary some of that money he feels is being wasted on him. While its not the governments job to redistribute wealthy, there is certainly nothing wrong with an individual helping others out.
Given the choice between giving money to the rich or the poor, you suggest giving it to the rich will help the economy more?
No, I think in today's environment giving it to the rich will help the economy more. If you asked me in a different economic climate I may give a different answer.
Your logic being that the poor would just spend the money on foreign goods while the rich will invest it.
However, what makes you think that the rich won't just invest it in foreign companies too? As fewer people in the lower income brackets have money to spend, less money is spent.
Given the current statistics (too many to quote here. Go read any financial publication) it is more likely today that a dollar will remain in the US when given to an investor than when given to a consumer. To stimulate the US economy the dollar has to stay in the US economy. It almost doesn't matter who has it.
..who have $300 million dollar arenas that are partly paid for by the state. Most rural people will never even see your damn arenas/stadiums/fields and they have to fork out money to pay for your entertainment.
This also applies to all the tax that has to pay for government workers that demand higher salieries to live in your city because of the cost of living.
And don't even get me started on trash. Do you realize how much trash a large city produces. Do you know where it winds up going?? Rural areas.
So don't be so conceited as to think that this is a one way street. We have to smell your shit and give you money for entertainment at the same time.
Is this where I get to blame King George, seeing as how the FCC is ruled by a Republican Majority. Republicans are for smaller government, yeah riiiggghht.
Pubs steal from everyone and give to the corporations (which we've pointed out is where most of this will go, corporate welfare for the incumbant telcos in rural areas).
Dems steal from everyone and give to the poor.
These are only the extremes, and the real reality lies somewhere in between for both parties.
So, if you are a corporation or own a large company, being a pub is good. If you are a real person, being a dem is good. (even if I'm not poor?) yeah, because poor people who get benefits are less likely to screw you, the middle class working guy, where as companies who get benefits are MORE likely to screw you, meanwhile, the poor getting even poorer are also more likely to screw you.
Just one way of looking at the economics of politics. Trust me, if I owned a large corrupt company, I could consider being a pub, but I don't. Poor and middle class republicans never cease to amaze me? "Why should I give money to support some poor kid's education?" umm, ok, but "Why should I give money so that halliburton can clean up Iraq and World fucking Com can supply them with 8,000 dollar cell phones?" At least if my money gives some poor kid an education, there's one less crack smoking fuckup in the city and one more educated enterprising American.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
HAH! Good luck getting that passed.
Besides, there's an equal chance that would get companies to leave the country instead of staying and hiring people. It also unfairly punishes sectors of the economy that have remained strong dispite the downturn.
The latest tax bill doesn't implement [Bush's] plan, and it's practically doomed to failure.
I kinda doubt the tax cut we got will have the intended effect, but I'm not so sure that Bush's cut would have done much better. The only prayer it had of working was the abolition of taxes on dividends, but we didn't get that.
I suspect the only thing that will really kick-start the economy is a boom in some class of assets. Real estate kept the recession from getting REALLY bad, and the little run-up in stocks over the last few months is making a world of difference in the psychology of the average investor.
Getting rid of dividend taxes makes some sense to put the cost for a business to raise equity on par with debt, but it seems to me that it was sold mainly as a way to boost the stock market. I think that reason makes for lousy public policy.
Absent that, it's a slow climb from here. That's not all that bad, unless you're out of work. Maybe the unemployed, with less to lose, will become the next class of entrepreneurs?
These business owners don't want to take on the risk of loans in the current climate, but they'll probably spend the money from a tax cut.
They certainly won't sit on the money -- my guess is most of it would go into debt repayment to further reduce their risks. This frees up more money for the bank to lend to someone else, but that someone else isn't asking for a loan. That's why this economy is really tricky.
The only other practical options I see... just sitting on the cash and hoping things work out on their own
Remember that we aren't exactly "sitting on the cash". Most of the tax cut is being financed by government borrowing. Maybe the economic boost is worth the cost of the borrowing, but remember that debt = risk. That money has to be repaid someday, with a non-zero chance of future taxes having to be set higher than they'd otherwise be.
There's a big economic benefit to stable government policies that's getting overlooked here too. Why make a big investment with your current and future tax cut dollars if the cut is phased out in a couple of years, and taxes might even increase in the future to repay the borrowing? For any sort of long-range planning, the devil we know might well be better than the new one just created.
~I bet there will be more people than ever subscribing to cable modem service now!!
Not yet, but maybe after the deflationary spiral that bush put us on hits.
"the difference between myself and a madman is that I am not mad" -Salvadore Dali
People who live in rural areas generally move there to get away from other people, enjoy a life not driven by technology, and own large tracts of land at rates next to nothing.
This means they have to pump their own water, dispose of their own trash, take care of the septic tank, drive on gravel, cut wood, fill the propane tank and sometimes even generate their own electricity. This is the price of living on land that only costs $2000 per acre instead of $200000 per acre. If their only internet connection is 256k via sattelite with a half second latency, then boo-hoo. If they want convience, they would live within 10 miles of a Walmart, not 100.
When I can pick up a quarter acre worth building a house on in the city for $5000, then I'll feel sorry for the people out in the boonies.
For now, I pay the extra to live in the city (and thus alot more property taxes too). I like being near a 15 screen theater, amusement parks, hundreds of restaurants, multiple shopping malls with 100+ stores each and a gas station or grocery store on every corner. I like being able to meet people that care about more than hunting and tractor pulls. But I think I pay quite enough as it is.
A USF for people in the ghetto, maybe. Country life is quite cheap enough as it is.
According to conservatives:
This will increase revenues for cable companies and allow them to expand, creating more jobs. Smaller companies in rural areas will now also be able to grow as well.
Yes, both sides are stupid.
Hammer of Truth
I've had this idea in the back of my head for several weeks and it started after I really looked at my electrical bill here in Calgary, Alberta. There are consent fees and transmission costs, and storage riders, etc. A thought occured to me: why not require that these costs be included in the per unit charge or fixed monthly charge? That is, my per unit cost for electricity or natural gas or my fixed monthly cost for telephone or cable included all taxes, fees, etc. except perhaps State, Provincal, or Federal Sales Taxes that are calculated on the bill as a fixed percentage.
The advantage of this is I can compare prices between the various electrical utilities, gas providers, telephone services, etc. with the full knowledge that I am comparing apples to apples (or as close as you're going to get). In addition, I can be sure that the itemized "taxes", which are nothing more than an excuse to raise prices, will remain hidden in the cost of the product. Face it, all those fees and taxes just add to numberification of the consumer and very few people ever sit down to analyse just what the hell these fees are really covering and the utility companies love it, for a fee or a tax can increase incrementally, but the unit charge will remain the same.
Just an idea I had floating around in my head since I received very little help from the electrical company trying to explain all those nitpicky little fees that never existed before the great mantra that is "competition" came into being.
Now I've moved: Goodbye cable, hello DSL + DirectTV
I see no reason for a tax. If the government is truly interested in getting everyone connected, all they have to do is mandate it. Broadband providers can raise their rates as they see fit. Why waste time and energy arguing over this, spending more money creating a bureaucracy to oversee collection of the tax, and introduce even more inefficiency in the process of doling it out? If cable/phone companies want the right to dig up our streets and make money off of us, we have the right to demand something in return. So let's just demand it, and let them figure out the rest.
If i brewed my own beer, then I would have to spend ALL my time keeping inventory up. I might even have to hire a few people to keep up with demand.
I wonder if he has tried using his cellular phone across the US. All 50 states of it. Let's see. He must be a real world traveler to be such an authority on the state of the cellular network.
Or not. I wonder if he has ever even left the East Coast? Verizon's commercials are cute and all, but they don't reflect reality. And I quote:
And not even the whole of the CONUS is shaded! Yeah. Cellular service is the perfect replacement for land lines. Idiot.
So, let me get this straight. You're saying that tax relief for lower income families is useless because they'll only spend the money on retail items that were probably made in China. Contrary to this, tax relief for the rich will help because they will invest it in U.S. companies who will then create more jobs for Americans.
/.!
That makes no sense.
If the retailer's products are all coming from China, where do you think the investor's dollars (and the jobs this supposedly creates) are going to go? What stops them from simply investing in foreign markets anyway? At least when you buy retail, you're paying a company with a physical presence in the U.S. and necessitating the need for workers in the retail store, the warehouses, the distribution network, the ship yards, not to mention IT departments which need staff (more jobs) and equipment (more money for the makers, meaning more jobs).
As opposed to a rich guy buying a bunch of low-priced stock, which will create jobs how? My company didn't lay off thousands of people because their stock price was too low. They did it because not enough people were buying their product!
Saying that giving people a tax break so that they can buy products that they wouldn't otherwise buy won't help the economy and create jobs is the most foolish thing I've heard today, and I've been reading
The enemies of Democracy are
You are right that the lower income brackets in this country will probably spend it. They don't have enough money to exist much less put some away for tomorrow. The middle class (say 40K single, 60-75K for families) will however put it in the bank. Saving money in a Bank DOES actually simulate growth tho, because banks take the money you deposit and then turn around and invest it in the market...Thats why you make interest.. ..And as we all know, interest makes the world go 'round... ;-)..
That is incorrect. Those figures include withholding. An income tax liability means how much income tax is required based on your income, deductions, credits, etc. Withholding goes towards paying this liability. At the end of the year you may still owe more money or you may have paid too much (i.e. you get a refund). In addition to withholding you can make estimated tax payments every quarter to cover the difference.
Stuart Eichert
It makes me feel good to know that the government is going to give the average person a new tax. Unlike the neglected wealthy who are having their taxes taken away.
Getting something new makes me feel good. Don't you feel good about this? I doâ¦
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
April 15, 2003
10 Outrageous Facts About the Income Tax
by Chris Edwards
Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
As you struggle to prepare your taxes this year, you may take some comfort in knowing that your headache is being felt across the country. The following odd and outrageous facts show how widespread income tax problems are:
Income taxes are so complex that there are up to 1.2 million paid tax preparers in the country -- six times more than the number of troops in Iraq. The tax army includes legions of accountants, lawyers, and computer experts -- some of the best minds in the country. Unfortunately, their brainpower is adding little to the nation's standard of living.
A tax form for every special interest.
As the income tax grows more complex, the number of IRS tax forms has jumped from 402 in 1990 to 526 by 2002. Congress hands the accountants business on a silver platter when they create special interest tax forms such as "8845-Indian Employment Credit" and "8834-Qualified Electric Vehicle Credit." When Congress penalizes an activity, we get tax forms such as "6197-Gas Guzzler Tax." It's time to end the micromanaging and adopt a simple flat-rate tax. Until then, Congress needs to supplement "6478-Credit for Alcohol Used as Fuel" with form "XXX-Credit for Alcohol Used for Drinking."
Double-tax on dividends: 60 years and still not fixed.
Sixty years ago, a Treasury report noted that "double taxation of corporate profits is the principal problem raised in connection with the corporation income tax." In the 1930s, a Treasury report argued that the tax disincentive to pay dividends caused corporate management problems. Recent scandals proved them right. Congress should bite the bullet and reform dividend taxes now -- before the next round of corporate scandals begins.
Congress promotes discrimination through the tax code.
The front of the Supreme Court building boldly declares "equal justice under law," yet the income tax has hundreds of discriminatory provisions. For example, homeowners are treated more favorably than renters since they can deduct mortgage interest and other itemized deductions. Consider that a higher-income homeowner can effectively deduct car loan interest by shifting around his finances but a lower-income apartment dweller cannot. Americans would not stand for such discrimination on other taxes -- imagine if each shopper at Wal-Mart was assigned a different sales tax rate!
Congress on tax complexity: Who us?
Congress frequently holds hearings on tax simplification so members can denounce the tax code's complexity. Each time, congressional experts and outside think tanks provide useful simplification ideas. Then when the TV cameras are turned off, Congress promptly ignores them and votes for more special interest breaks. The result: The number of pages in the tax code and regulations doubled from 26,300 in 1984 to 54,846 by 2003, according to tax publisher CCH.
AMT designed to catch 155 taxpayers will soon catch 37 million.
The alternative minimum tax is an unneeded parallel tax system alongside the ordinary income tax. It began life in 1969 after Congress was shocked (shocked!) to learn that 155 wealthy individuals were not paying tax because they used too many of the deductions that Congress had provided them. The AMT has been a complex nuisance ever since. But this dumb idea aimed at the rich is set to explode on the middle-class as the number of AMT taxpayers skyrockets from 3 million today to 36 mi
Stuart Eichert
I don't know what has been done in other regions, but in St. Louis, Charter Communications has tiered service. That means, if you want more than a few hundred kilobit per second downstream transfers, you'll have to pay both arms and both legs for it. I can only imagine how expensive bronze service will get if the FCC approves this tax. People living in rural areas may be complaining about the cost of broadband, but it's already expensive enough in the cities! This, farm subsidies, and other abuses are the result of rural inhabitants getting undue representation in government. The federal government needs to be democraticized, starting by eliminating the Electoral College and by allowing nationwide referendums coinciding with presidential elections. ---
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
I'd like to see the actual records of expenditure before making an assessment like this. The money in government "trust funds" presents an attractive target for money-hungry politicians in search of a funding source for pet projects. The national highway trust fund has many billions on paper, but a big chunk of it has been "borrowed", and will be repaid about the time they're serving snowcones in hell. It's also useful to see how the money that IS spent actually gets used. The universal internet funds have gone to remodeling classrooms (ostensibly because carpet had to be ripped up and walls knocked down to "run the wires" - yeah right). These things have a way of becoming just another slush pile that people will lie their asses off to get. And why not? Nobody really audits how this money is spent.
...
No, I'm not cynical
Network effects my ass. The only reason politics, ,the rural special interest has used every trick in the book.
Yes there is some benefit into adding a few farmers to the network, but is it worth billions of dollars? It's doubtful.
In B.C., the cost is about $35 Can. for Telus ADSL, regardless of where you are in the province. The local cable company charges about $40 with modem rental. Sounds like your problem is with your telco monopoly, and this "redistribution" tax is just another way of gouging you.
The company I work for uses subsidies to provide better service to rural areas where it would not otherwise make financial sense.
What does this mean? It means that people that do live in the middle of nowhere can get DSL, and other high speed services (such as T1's, etc) -- It means we can provide DSL out of "remote" boxes, that the larger RBOC's ignore... we dont just serve from the CO, we serve from the tiny little boxes on your street corners, etc.
What else does this mean? It also means that the cable companies no longer have a 9.1% price advantage over their phone competitors.... All phone services must charge this. DSL, Phone, etc... so the cable companies have been enjoying 'being out of the taxified circle' and now things are starting to even up.
This is obviously good for our company, but since the tax does go to a good cause, its good for everyone.
Another portion goes to help pay for phone lines for low income housings. The program is called LITAP (Low Income Telephone Assistance Program) -- and it helps poverished families... I can think of a few older women who are handicapped and homebound that this fund helps in our serving areas.
For those of you that suggest "People in the Rural area dont need hardwired phones, they should just use cell phones" are way out of the know. You deserve a swift hit with the clue bat.
1. Cell providers have no interest in serving rural areas... cell coverage in truly rural areas is horrible.
2. Two Words: Lifeline POTS -- The cell phone companies are not regulated in the sense that if they have an outage affecting customers, they pay a fine. Almost all telephone companies must submit performance figures to the PUC of that State -- If they have even a single customer outage of more then 24 hours, you can bet they are going to take some heat for it. This does not include "Designed" services, but regular POTS service is covered by this.
This means the telephone company better get your service working or pay the price. This is done so that everyone has the potential to call 911 in the event of an emergency.
Cell phones have no such obligation, and as such.. you are basicly screwed until they feel like getting to it.
These are just a few of the reasons... I could go on, but these are sufficient to show that the fund does work, and will benefit many people.
I wont even touch on the fact that Public Schools and Libraries that have a hard enough time putting books in the shelves can also help pay for high speed internet, computers, etc. to level the playing field with "rich" schools.
Forum Foundry, Inc.
2. A telco monopoly is not a free market situation.
It is very mis-leading to just site the Federal Income tax to make the argument that rich are paying to much taxes. Of course, rich pays more taxes (in amount) - THEY MAKE MORE MONEY. Top 10 percent own 90% of the wealth, asking them to pay their share is not so draconian. And YES POOR PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO!!! Unlike the Federal Income Tax, state and local taxes are regressive taxes that takes greater bite from poor people. Go and check this out http://www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm#overview. It tallys up ALL taxes paid at the federal, state, and local levels. You will find that when you factor ALL taxes, every major tax categories (from top fifth to bottom fifth) all pay about same percentage of income in taxes. It is simply a misleading to say that 36% of household pay no income tax - they still pay a whole lotta of other taxes.
This effectively saps the incentive out of people to become wealthy and establish businesses (and provide jobs, pay salaries). Why work hard yourself when you can let someone else do the heavy lifting to generate wealth and have the government confiscate it and deliver it to your doorstep? At some point, the government will have to force people to work so that there will be a pool of wealth to redistribute, and moreover, to keep the country going.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson
The thinking is: I need what *I* have. People who have more than I have don't need it, so it is okay to pilfer it. The Rule of Fairness that flows from this is: It's okay to confiscate someone's assets up to the point that their economic standard of living is below mine [yours].
No. That's not what the thinking is. The thinking is that "the top 5% of people put in x% of the tax". That's just hooey. In terms of the effect it has on their quality of life, they are much *less* affected than someone earning a much lower amount.
Look at the amount of money it costs to have a reasonable standard of living in (say) the Seattle area. $45,000 a year is a reasonable minimum for comfort - ie. not having to struggle, being able to go out and enjoy yourself a few nights a week... you know... comfy.
Compare someone's earnings after tax to that base figure. As long as it's higher than that base, you're doing well.
Now compare the discrepancy between those figures.
If someone is earning only $1000 after tax above the 'comfort' line, then they're much worse off - for the same tax percentage - than someone who earns $64,000,000 after tax above the comfort line.
Is it unfair to tax those people earning huge amounts more? Yes. Is it an awful burden that makes it impossible for them survive? Well, once you're being limited from buying 300 airplanes that year to only 200, who gives a flying...?
Seriously, I'm a capitalist. But at the same time, I also believe that figures like "X% are paying X% of the tax" are completely ludicrous statements. Compare it to how much one needs to live on, and you see that the people in the lower end of the scale are much *worse off*.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The cost of having my cable account has steadily been increasing. Its just too much money for too little value. I just can't afford it. Time to go back 56K modems.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Actually, food subsidies are given to farmers to keep food prices UP. The government pays farmers not to grow things to keep the bottom from falling out of the food market and bankrupting farmers. So there's another example - we pay higher food prices than we should to sustain an inflated market.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
They are not 100% effective. ;-) My parrents did use them.
The truth shall set you free!
A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
A lot of rich people give away (or plan to) their entire fortunes. Or they spend it on goods that contribute to jobs. Like Bill Gates' huge house. He paid a few people to build it. Or the rich invest the money in businesses, maybe giving someone like you capital to start a business. Either way it is a wash. If the government gets it they spend it or "invest" it. If a rich guy gets they spend it or invest it. One way or another it gets back into the economy. The question is who spends or invests more wisely?
I don't take issue at that -- what I take issue with is the idea of using the "5% of people pay 95% of the taxes" statistic to justify lower taxation for people with large amounts of money. Those 5% of people also have 95% of the money.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The only reason I vote Republican is because they generally are for lesser taxes and smaller government and less regulation.
Thanks, George!
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
"If you're one of the 8% or so of people out there in the US with no job, that's the only kind of federal tax cut you should be looking for, because it's the only kind that's likely to have any chance of helping you."
While I generally agree with you, I'd like to play devil's advocate here and say two words: Herbert Hoover.
So essentially, you seem to agree with me.
...such mechanisms as price guarantees...
The city subsides the farmers.
The small farmer gets screwed over in this, in favor of large corporate farms which is SOP.
Which means prices are fixed higher than the laws of supply and demand would have them.
So people in the city pay artificially higher prices for food rather than artificially lower as you stated.
Why are you taking dollars out of poor farmers pockets just so you can eat cheap? I see no reason rural folk should be expected to subsidize you cityslickers' meals.
The agriculture industry *is* heavily subsidized, but the effect you describe is exactly backwards.
The U.S. government often pays the agriculture industry to either destroy their yield, give it away to 3rd world countries, or to warehouse it and not bring it to market in order to keep the supply lower and maintain a "healthy" price in the marketplace.
So us city-slickers are getting it from both ends. Farmers overproduce themselves into oblivion (supply greatly exceeds demand, driving prices to the floor). To "fix" this, our tax dollars are being *given* to farmers who overproduce, and at the same time, this gift results in higher prices for us at Safeway, Albertsons, QFC, etc etc.
U.S. agriculture benefits from subsidies at a cost to urban centers, not the other way around.
Man! Where do you get off telling anyone about who needs their money more than them? You had no part in earning their money! If they want to be charitable with their money, wonderful; and if not, that is their choice. Who made you judge of the amount of money someone needs and doesn't? From whence came your almighty omiscience and omnipotence? Don't misunderstand me, the government obviously has roles it must fulfill as you point out. Yes, roads and highways are appropriate. A strong military is very important. But come on! We're discovering new rights and entitlements in this country everyday and the cost of such is driving us further and further into a debt we don't need to be in. Enough! If you want to be charitable with your funds, more power to you! If I desire to be charitable with my money, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Have a great day! Akhiro
I used to be the Technology person for a rural school district covering 3 counties serviced by 4 phone companies. About 1995. We still had PULSE dialing until recently. We couldn't get a trunk hunt for our modems unless we could find a block of physically adjacent unused switches at the local Telco for our modems.
It was supposed to be an internship but the real Technology Directory died shortly after I hired on so it became a paying position for a year or two during college until someone else finally got hired so I could get back to my classes.
The USF was used to help us pay for upgrades to our community and schools system. The amount of money put into our programs was based on the number of students on the Federal Free Lunch program. About 60% of the kids back then. I don't know if that's how it's done now, but there is no way we could have had any service for schools, libraries or anything back then without it.
Whats next from the FCC, a VoIP tax? This is ridicilous, but I'll end up paying for it anyone because the only person in my neighborhood that has an open wifi AP and shares bandwidth freely is me. Shucks.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
Do you live in the US?
Yes, I sell retail items that come from China.
If you do, and you're employed, take a look at who writes your paycheck. It's probably some rich American guy. Which would you prefer, a few extra dollars a week, or no fear of being laid off soon?
My boss getting a tax cut and my job security are anything but interdependent.
The types of jobs that can be farmed out of the country are a small percentage of the overall job market here, and tax cuts can be made to favor those types of businesses. How about a payroll tax cut for manufacuring companies? Sure, it would be considered a tax cut for "the rich", but you'll never convince me that the extra money wouldn't be used to hire more workers in this country.
Then I have some waterfront property in Arizona to sell you. Manufacturing jobs are some of the most likely to be outsourced to other countries. When was the last time you bought a shirt that was made in the USA? Shoes? How about a car? The most 'American made' car you can buy doesn't even come from the big 3 (or is that the big 2 since Diamler Chrysler).
My family owns a manufacturing business, and I know for a fact that if their payroll taxes were cut every penny would be spent on additional local labor.
Well that's great, I'm sure you and yours are top notch folks. And I don't doubt what you say about your specific case. But in the 'big scheme of things' most of the money from a tax cut to the manufacturing industries would probably end up in Mexico and China.
Even if it wasn't all used for that, it's likely that a higher percentage of it would be spent here than if the same amount of money were given to cash strapped consumers who are vertually guaranteed to by inexpensive foriegn goods...
Sold by domestic retail employees of mostly domestic retailers. It's really difficult to outsource retail jobs. Also, if it cost's a store owner $5 to buy chinese retail goods that he turns around and sells for $25, who wins? A good deal of that money will go into the hands of the salesman and the store owner, both of which are probably Americans. Besides, right now consumer confidence isn't exactly at an all time high. My guess is a lot of a low income tax cut would go into paying off high interest credit card debt, second mortgages and keeping borderline people out of bankruptcy.
If you want to stimulate the economy with a tax cut for low income individuals, you have to give them some incentive to keep the money in the country. If you can find a way to do that then I'm all for whatever kind of tax cut you want.
Allow me to clairfy my position. I don't think anyone should be getting a tax cut given that the national debt is about $6,700,000,000,000 right now. I think we should cut spending drastically, keep taxes where they are or raise them, and use the money to pay down the debt. I realize that I'm young enough that I'm never going to see a dime of social security, but at least I'd rather not owe approximately $22,500 + 45 years of interest compounded with additional government spending when I reach retirement age. As a nation we are living well beyond our means.
Otherwise, if you want to give government money
Government money? Where do you think this government money comes from? Taxpayers. They aren't giving squat, they're just taking less. So don't goad me into a three page rant about taxation without representation.
to people who are unemployed you may as well start some "New Deal" style government work programs.
'Trickle down' economics doesn't work. Herbert Hoover started it, and we got Hoover flags in return. Unless my history teacher/books lied to me, the New Deal work programs helped pull this country out of the Great Depression.
It was immoral because you don't steal from the poor to give to the rich. EVER. It was stupid because a number of nobel prize winning economists declare it is bogus and wont do squat for the economy - it merely makes the rich richer (which increases the disparity between upper and middle and lower classes). This WILL ultimately lead to revolution. It was this sort of privaleged, super-rich disparity that helped drive the French Revolution and has caused violence and turmoil in virtually any and all societies in which it occurs. You CANNOT have a stable social structure with a super-rich privaledged class and a heavily burdened and exploited working class. It WILL blow up in your face.
The cut was stupid because what it WILL do is explosively balloon the national debt beyond anything in world history. It will screw each and every one of us. Some of you in the slashdot crowd will get to see it screw your parents. A stable society will provide for the common health (basic healthcare for all), a safety net (it is destabilizing to have starving people dying in the streets while trust-funders drive around in limos and say "let them eat cake."). You want to destroy everything in your society? Keep giving and giving to the wealthiest and keep screwing the lower classes. This IS class warfare, class warfare is NOT a dirty word, it simply is. It does not serve society to feed into the war by firing all your shots at the more numerous middle and lower classes while engendering a sense of superiority and grand entitlement in those who happen to inherit disparate and needless amounts of wealth through no good of their own. Most of what CEOs and the like do is NOT worth the money they give themselves.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
If you give money to rich people, they will spend it on cheap foreign labour.
What does this tell us? Both american goods and american labour are overvalued. We are too rich, we consume far more than our share of the worlds resources. It is only fair that the wealth flow down its concentration gradient and benefit the rest of the world for a change. Americans are not the only people that matter after all.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The "Universal Service Tax" is not a benevolence fund and is inappropriately applied to cable modem or other services.
1) The UST was created to increase profits for "rural" telecos -- few which still exists due to the mega mergers (I do not consider Verizon a rural telco). The UST was heavily lobbied for by legislators with telco ties in the name of the poor rural folks (I am one). However, what the tax actually does is underwrite business costs -- not provide access. It works like this: everyone is taxed for teleco services. The tax is then given to telcos to offset the alleged costs of providing services to rural areas. The telcos continue to collect the funds but stall and complain about the burgeoning costs and delay any roll-outs due to the lack of demand. In other words, this tax has little to do with providing services to rural consumers. It is designed to enhance profits for telcos.
2) In many cases, for rural consumers, cable modem access is the only choice due to the strict technical limitations of DSL. That is, the promised competitivness where telcos will benevolently deliver DSL, and cable companies cable modem options is simply a fraud. Rarely is DSL available in rural areas by a telco (some rural governments are installing their own services). So where is all this money going? Really? I live in a rural area and only have cable as a choice. (I am thankful for it.) If the UST is truly designed to provide broadband to rural communities, I have seen no evidence of it. In the past two places that I have lived, one had cable modems as an option and one had no broadband access (the "local" telco would not even provide an estimate of access due to low demand).
3) In my example, I will actually be paying (as a rural consumer) under the new provisions an additional tax for rural access. I do not see the logic. Who then is defined as rural -- someone who does not have broadband access? The definition is absurd as is the whole UST. I selected cable because DSL is not an option in my rural area even though the FCC insists that it is an option or will be in the near future (oh, let's say by 2009 [no joke, this is the time estimate -- $6 billion per year for 12 years to make this happen--hopefully]).
4) I have not seen one published report that confirms that rural consumers have benefitted substantially from this fund. Not one. I am sure that their are anecdotal cases, but nothing to substantiate a $6 billion per year fund. where is the money going? (Nothign sinister. A simple question.)
5) The funds for schools are also questionable. Rather than a telco lowering costs or providing the connectivity for free to schools, the telcos continue to charge high rates because they know that the costs are underwritten by the UST. Again, money is directly funnelled to the telcos through this program and is guaranteed by the government -- who also legislated that all schools must have broadband. So this becomes a solid profit center for telcos -- government guaranteed money essentially.
My comments may sound sinister, but they are not intended to be so. A lot of legislation is written in this manner -- seemingly benevolent on the surface but in reality, the results are a simple corporate profit center.
It is time to abandon the UST entirely (and make the telcos refund the payments to consumers) unless solid progress is made by telcos in creating legitimate and real universal access in real rural areas.
Nevertheless, expanding the current program to cable franchises is simply absurd. Unless the telcos (who are really only concerned about collecting larger fees from the program -- cable companies are exempt from the funds) can show overwhelming proof that DSL and cable are competitive in a overwhelming majority of truly rural markets (Allentown and Hershey, PA are classified as rural for goodness sakes), the cable modem tax should not proceed. The additional tax will simply increase the profits of telcos but requires no increase in the roll-out of broadband to rural areas.
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
You know, just enter scoove in google and out come your details, you got a profile at yahoo. Your from Omaha, Nevada. email- w0jrs+arrl@net. Other email- scoove@area51+research+nv+us.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
I learned BASIC the summer after second grade from a school program. That year, because of the computers, I learned flowcharting, the order of operations, and the nice flavors of conditional logic that where available in BASIC. I was fortunate enough to have a teacher who gave me one of the sample programming workbooks (which the school didn't buy a set of), and let me work on a computer for the year when we didn't have anything else that was pressing.
I learned how to write animations the next summer.
All that was when my school had one computer in each classroom, and with teachers who knew nothing about them. Read up. Bill Gates had a similar start.
Unfortunately after that I moved into a school with your obtuseness and had to wait until seventh grade so that I could sit in on the eighth grade programming elective and learn LOGO.
My high school was even worse and required taking three useless electives before getting to the only programming class, and no one was allowed to use any of the schools computers outside of class time.
I could have learned so much during those early years, and I was SO eager to do so.
Computers offer pearls of knowledge when teachers are unable to illuminate, and the brightest minds can take them.
Also, why deny poor students the opportunity to learn from the wealth of knowledge on the internet?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Put a tax on a technology in a sluggish economy.
I'm in the wrong business. I wish I had the power to make dumb proposals such as this.
10% tax on Espresso and Bubble Tea!!!
Dolemite
____________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
Go! Go! Go!
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Well, guess what. Food is produced by farms. Farming is a RURAL activity, with no options. You can't feed millions with urban window gardens.
So yeah, let's make life so hard and expensive in rural areas that everyone moves to the city, and then either all you city folk starve, or you pay whatever some other country wants to charge for imported food. Plus shipping, handling, import duties, and local tax.
Farmers have to pass increased costs along just the same as any other business. Think about that the next time you whine about the rising cost of groceries.
Fact is, very few people live in a rural area because they have the *option* of living wherever they want. They live in rural areas because their work demands it. Just like city folk -- you need to live reasonably close to your work, and your work is largely determined by what you personally can do. And at bottom, the world doesn't run on urban-type work. It runs on its stomach.
And if you don't think farming is *work*, I defy any keyboard-bound geek to follow a farmer around for a week without dying of sheer exhaustion. PS -- you don't get weekends off, vacations, or overtime pay.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Wow, someone is completely blinded by the American Dream...
Can you explain when keep more of the money they earn is 'giving the money to the massively rich'? 'The rich don't need more money. They're rich!' That is great you feel entitled to make decision on their possessions. Give me your checkbook and I will make some for you. That is just about as 'fair'.
Okay, when some rich guy comes out and says "I don't need more money, I don't know what I'd do with it" that seems like a decent sign that the rich don't need a tax cut. At least not as much as the lower and middle class people do.
The only money that is being shovelled is to the lower class. Such as the people who will be getting the child credits that don't pay any taxes.
You do realize that one of the major cuts that DIDN'T make it was a child tax credit for single parent families, right? You know, the ones who probably need it the most.
Your ideas are what screws up the economy in the long run. Look how we have helped the African American communities in urban centers. With the handouts you seem so eager to dole out, over 75% of the children born are to single mothers. The male has lost his place as provider and with that his sense of purpose within a family structure. The results of this have been devastating.
This is silly and simplistic. I grew up in a single parent family and I turned out fine. The same goes for one of my best friends. The fact is, the problems in black communities in the US are far more complicated than you'd like to believe. The projects that you talk about were a massive failure, but that has more to do with lack of government will than anything else.
The fact is, your average black youth (or anyone who is destitute and trapped in a poor community) is caught in a nasty feedback loop. Basically, if you grow up in a bad neighbourhood with no decent role models, you'll end up staying in that bad neighbourhood and becoming the type of person who won't be a decent rolemodel. Lather, rinse, repeat. There are many other factors, but the fact is, it's far FAR more complicated than you appear willing to believe.
In effect, the social experiment that the democrats have engaged in has removed the ambition for upward mobility. Sure they want better, but not enough to earn it, to work for it.
Bullshit. Canada is what you'd call a "wellfare state", and we have far less poverty, unemployment, violent crime, and drug use than the US. The same goes for a large part of Europe. Sorry, things are not as simple as you'd like to believe.
We, as a society, should make sure they have enough to eat by providing food only. I want they to be dissatisified with their current lot in life. I want them so dissatisified they work their shitty job and either take night classes or learn a trade that pays better to improve themselves and earn what they want.
Yeah, take night classes which costs money they don't have. Or learn a trade which costs money they don't have. Sorry, education, especially in the United States is a luxury of the rich. Well, at least richer. The poor have very little access to it.
So, yeah, lets leave the poor wallow in their own misery. Then, they'll get depressed and convinced they have nowhere to turn, because they have no money and they have a shitty job, and thus no way to improve their lot in life. Try to get a different job? Lack of skills. Try to educate to get those skills? Lack of money. Ad nauseum.
Geez, man, have you ever actually BEEN poor?
If we cut off the welfare system, the message will sink in not to breed them if you can't feed them.
We are getting more dead weight than should be taken. What is not need is to kill the ambition so that people who are willing to strive don't achieve more than someone who isn't and is provided for.
Well, I suppose that says it all, doesn't it. See, I'd rather try to help my fellow man. You'd rather cut 'em loose. Cut out the dead weight, as it were. Well, I happen to think that's sick and wrong... we'll have to agree to disagree here.
This rant is fan-freakin-tanstic! I love this one line: Your cell phone provider has food, and you can download free "open source" food from the mirrors! thats great! rock on!
NE = Nebraska, genius.
NV = Nevada.
Not to mention Omaha is a pretty well known city. For anyone that's moved out of their mama's basement that is.
Hey.. It's bad enough that Comcast sucks, but add
a tax and I am going to drop their service!
That's where your thinking goes off course. The extent to which someone's comfort level is diminished should not be a consideration in tax policy. The issue is property rights.
If it's property rights at issue, then let's not use statistics like 5% of people pay 80% of the taxes. It's an emotional appeal to the fact that this is "unfair", as much as my idea of weighting it by how much money a person has above a certain baseline of "enough to live on".
At the same time, let's get rid of all of the tax-breaks and use a flat tax. Let's simplify the system so that it's obvious what money goes where. Then, after that, complaints can be made about whether it's fair or not. Let's also ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to get into that top tax bracket. I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult. It's the golden rule - those who have the gold make the rules.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You get less. 24K dial-up, if you're lucky. Not even 14.4K, if you're not. DSL? fuggetaboudit. Line noise. Frequent (and longer) outages. Overloaded exchanges (can't get a dial tone).
Does cellular makes rural land lines obsolete? Think again! Go off the well-beaten paths and the cellular coverage is gone.
You may see the universal access "fee" as a subsidy, but we rural residents know it for what it is. A tax . The money goes one way (to DC), and we get lip service in return. From all the major politcal parties.
You know I had the 2nd post in this thread and I am rated "redundant". You moderators need some serious meta-moderating.
//m
How many in the rural areas live there for reasons other than not having the money to live in the big city. How about clean air, lack of crime, laid-back lifestyle, uncrowded spaces? Many parents move to the sticks because they want to get their kids away from suck influences and the steaming cesspool of spam, crime and porn called the net is one of them.
The opinion that people who live in rural areas do so because they lack the means to join you in the city is, well, underinformed.
Amen!
I don't know if you've tried getting funding to start a project or an idea, but it's incredibly difficult.
Maybe you need to see this guy. :-)
Actually, Canada has a higher unemployment rate than the USA... as of 1999 (Stats Canada's latest statistic I could find) it was almost twice as much. Though, we [Canada] do have much less crime. Last time I checked it was a tenth as much of America's, proportionately.
Independent coops can give rural users good rates. We are using the Universal Service Fee so that the monolpolies can undercut the small coops; so it is likely that it will end up costing more to wire rural areas with the universal service fee than without it.
lol. Thanks for pointing that out. I've only lived in Mi before moving back to europe. Another thing-Im staying alone and there's no basement here..;)
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
This joke would complete if you were living in Mississippi before you moved back to Europe!! :)
These figures completely IGNORE the presence of other Federal taxes that affect paychecks, namely Social Security and Medicare. That household which you claim has no income tax almost certainly has a 7.65% federal payroll tax, which is reduced to zero for wages above $87,000.
Not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc., which are taxes on consumption which are proportionately higher for low-income households.