Slashdot Mirror


Refund of Long-Distance Telephone Taxes

pertelote writes "Over 108 years after financing the Spanish American War, the tax on long-distance phone calls is finally being repealed. The IRS is supposed to refund our last three years worth of taxes for both landlines and cell phones on our returns next year. The phone companies sued because they did not want the hassle of collecting the tax. The tax is no longer in effect on 31 July, 2006." Don't get too excited about a big windfall. From the article: "Consumers, who pay about 40 percent of the taxes collected, typically pay about $18 a year in excise taxes if they have a long-distance service and a cellphone. They will be able to file for a refund on their 2006 federal income tax returns."

62 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Photo Op? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is the president going to play dress-up, get into an air force uniform, land on an air craft carrier near the Straight of Gibraltar and declare the Spanish American War finally over?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Photo Op? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neah... Forget it...

      After all his clone on this side of the pond did not bother getting on board of the HMS Illustrious to declare the end of the Great War with Germany finally over on the 24th November 2005.

      For the humour and history defficient out there:

      1. Britain introduced drinking establishment licensing laws to improve the quality of ammunition shipped to the German front in WWI and minimise the number of workers showing up to work incapacitated. Hurray for the war effort against the great enemy, hurray, hurray
      2. These laws stayed in force till 24th November 2005
      3. When the changes of the laws were discussed and introduced every single idiot neocon in the country was prophessing that the world will end on 24th November 2005 or soon thereafter. It is still there and still as boring as it was.

      And do not even get me started on income tax and napoleonic wars...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Photo Op? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Is the president going to play dress-up, get into an air force uniform, land on an air craft carrier near the Straight of Gibraltar and declare the Spanish American War finally over?

      ... with a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner floating overhead!

    3. Re:Photo Op? by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is the president going to play dress-up, get into an air force uniform, land on an air craft carrier near the Straight of Gibraltar and declare the Spanish American War finally over?

      I wouldn't call it "over" just yet.

    4. Re:Photo Op? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      After all his clone on this side of the pond did not bother getting on board of the HMS Illustrious to declare the end of the Great War with Germany finally over on the 24th November 2005.

      Well, not for us Germans. In 1902, Kaiser Wilhelm introduced a champagne tax (which actually affects everything above a certain alcohol level) to finance the German navy. It was abolished 1933 but reintroduced 1939 (again, to pay for the fleet and the war in general). It still exists... :)

    5. Re:Photo Op? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I realize that the 'reconquistadores' are a small minority, there really are those who believe that the American Southwest was stolen from Mexico and that it should and must be returned to Mexico. There's an even smaller minority within that group that believes that Aztlan -- comprised in their view of the American Southwest and roughly half of Mexico -- should be combined into its own nation separate from the USA and Mexico.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Photo Op? by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Funny

      1) You're a fucking retard for reading way too much into my snarky joke.

      2) I'm sure the "Latin Americans" picked up the "Spanish" language all by themselves without being "settled" by "Spanish" "conquistadors."

      3) The "English - Native American War" will end when the tribes have "earned" enough from "Casino revenue" to buy back the country.

      4) Die.

    7. Re:Photo Op? by esper · · Score: 2, Funny

      "and minimise with an 's'. Learn to type English!"

      You were saying?

    8. Re:Photo Op? by TheGreek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunatley, there were people there before the Spanish arrived

      I think you misspelled "savages."

      And yes, before some other retard replies to me, I'm kidding.

  2. If you have VoIP, double check your bill. by XorNand · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Federal Excise Tax is typically the only tax that US-based VoIP carriers charge their subscribers (if they charge any). Having help start a VoIP company myself, I never understood why other providers charged this tax. We were advised by council that VoIP is not classfied as a "telecommunications service" but rather an "information service" by the FCC, hence was not subject to the tax. Therefore we've never collected a dime in taxes (other than sales tax on equipment sales, of course). I wouldn't expect Vonage to be pocketing that extra 3%, but I wouldn't put it past some of the other companies out there.

    FYI: The "Regulatory Recovery Fee" isn't a tax, it's a surcharge that carriers levy to offset the cost of having to comply with federal regulations. However, IMHO, it's a bit disingenuous for VoIP companies to charge this fee since they aren't actually regulated.

    --
    Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    1. Re:If you have VoIP, double check your bill. by faedle · · Score: 2, Informative

      While we might not be "regulated", many VoIP companies use the "Regulatory fees" to recover their costs when those same fees are passed on to us on the circuits we buy. Facilities-based providers (especially small ones that are buying DIDs "PBX-style" on T1s) are often paying fees and taxes on those lines the same way a medium-size business would.

      But, on the other hand, if you think the "regulatory compliance fees" you pay on your landline bill don't just go into the pocket of the phone company, you need to actually read the laws. A lot of the money from these things (including the "Interstate access fee") simply goes into funds that the phone companies draw upon to pay taxes and business expenses that any other business (like, say, the corner grocery store) would just simply add into their profit and loss calculations..

  3. If it were private industry by Tweekster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This would be a clear cut case of fraud. Since the tax was imposed for a specific reason and obviously has not been used for that in the last 100 years or so, someone should go after the Federal Govt for fraud. Now that would be interesting.

    It isnt that far fetched either, say your local community imposed an extra $20 on property taxes to be used for technology in schools and in reality it was used to buy a new Benz as a "govt vehicle" for the mayor, there would be significant problems.

    --
    The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    1. Re:If it were private industry by Elvis+Parsley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless the original legislation specifically states that the tax was enacted to defeat those damn'd Spaniards, "fraud" strikes me as overreaching. It'd be more like a company raised its prices because its suppliers were charging them more, then decided to keep them at that level when it discovered that the market would bear that price even after its suppliers' prices dropped again. Bad administration? Sure. Greedy? No argument with that. But criminal? Doubt it.

    2. Re:If it were private industry by ahodgson · · Score: 2

      I'm really hoping World War I ends soon, so we in Canada can be relieved of the burden of the Temporary War Measures Income Tax Act.

    3. Re:If it were private industry by mpe · · Score: 2, Informative

      It'd be more like a company raised its prices because its suppliers were charging them more, then decided to keep them at that level when it discovered that the market would bear that price even after its suppliers' prices dropped again.

      The oil companies have been doing this for a long time. If the price of oil goes up the price of oil products tends to go up quickly, but if the price goes down the excuse tends to be "the stuff your putting in your car is made from oil we bought a few months back"...

  4. I have a better idea on how we can save money by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want a refund. I want my money to go toward funding the FBI teams that are going after Rep. Jefferson. I want them expanded by several hundred agents and to have what happened to Jefferson to happen to the entire Congress. You want to save money? Bush the sons of bitches who spend nearly $2B on bridges to nowhere, $1B on repairing and then moving a perfectly good railroad and all of that other pork barrel crap. Sorry, they can keep my $18/year in exchange for the FBI continuing to go after these scumbags. I'd consider that some of the best $18 I've ever spent.

    1. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by paiute · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't want a refund. I want my money to go toward funding the FBI teams that are going after Rep. Jefferson. I want them expanded by several hundred agents and to have what happened to Jefferson to happen to the entire Congress. You want to save money? Bush the sons of bitches who spend nearly $2B on bridges to nowhere, $1B on repairing and then moving a perfectly good railroad and all of that other pork barrel crap. Sorry, they can keep my $18/year in exchange for the FBI continuing to go after these scumbags. I'd consider that some of the best $18 I've ever spent.

      Problem is, the system rewards those who bring home the pork. See, the pork spent in your district is an investment, the pork spent in the other guy's state is wasted. We can put the whole of Congress in FPYITA prison. The newly-elected replacements will preach financial responsibility and restraint for about two election cycles, then it will be right back where it was.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He is admittedly addicted to prescription drugs. That was quietly swept under the rug.

      If it was "quietly swept under the rug" why do you know about it? National media sttention: not exactly the definition of "quietly" to me.

    3. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by Atzanteol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And being driven home by the police and being told "don't do it again" is hardly a serious investigation.

      Compared to what has been done to Rush Limbaugh for a similar problem (though he didn't nearly hit a police car) I'd say the Kennedy incident was nicely 'swept' under the rug. Like father like son...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    4. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the best way to get rid of pork is to go back to the state governments electing the members of Senate, instead of having the people elect them.

      Yeah, that worked so well before...State governments are of course known for being free of corruption, cronyism, and polticial machines that block out any citizen involvment.

      And of course State governments wouldn't have any motivation for sending Senators who would bring pork to their State. No sir-ee-bob.

      BTW, I have this bridge for sale. E-mail me for details, you'll love it. :-)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by Opie812 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want my money to go toward funding the FBI teams that are going after Rep. Jefferson. I want them expanded by several hundred agents and to have what happened to Jefferson to happen to the entire Congress.

      Jeeze dude, how much tax do you pay?

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    6. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by flosofl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $18 to permanently impose a fascist state in the US.

      Are you seriously suggesting that Congress is above the laws they themsleves enact? How is conducting a search with a legitimate warrant an act of fascism?

      I would think the opposite is true. The fact that Congress appears to suggest some kind of special "immunity" from due-process is the far larger danger.

      Until the jackboots kick down the doors of Congress and they are denied due-process, they shouldn't be bitching about this.

      --
      "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
    7. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, and by the way the article you linked to basically said this:

      The 17th didn't stop corruption in the Senate, but we should keep it anyway.

      Hardly seems like an argument that we shouldn't repel it. After all, if it had no impact, what could be the harm in repeling it?

    8. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact he spent millions on legal fees is punishment enough considering he already admitted himself to rehab. Yup, no good deed goes unpunished.

      Meanwhile, congressmen get a slap on the wrist and told "don't do that again".

      Talk about a total disconnect from the people and inside-the-beltway.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by rthille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be great, except that the investigations of Republicans (or if the current administration were democrat, then democrats) wouldn't turn up any evidence of wrong-doing, but even saints in the other party would have cocaine residue and used condoms found in the couches in their offices...

      Regardless of what party you support, think about the tools you're willing to give one party in the hands of the most dispicable characters in the other party before you grant that power.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    10. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by monoqlith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please. Rush amassed over 2,000 pills of Oxycontin to feed his habit. This is equivalent under the law to trafficking in opiates(like Heroin), and usually such an offense requires a sentence of something like 20 - 25 years. However, his charges were reduced to "doctor shopping" for only 40 pills. Now, you tell me that's not getting off easy, considering he could easily be in jail for the rest of his natural life. Ans since he regularly rails on drug-addicts and other ne'er -do-wells on his show, the whole thing stinks of hypocrisy and favoritism.

      The law should be the same no matter where you are in society or who you are in the public eye. This applies to Congressmen and radio pundits alike.

    11. Re:I have a better idea on how we can save money by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Informative
      You are in error. Rush was NEVER charged with any such thing. There was never even a hint of 'prescription fraud'.

      Well, here is the summary from a fox news article (emphasis mine)

      Rush Limbaugh must submit to random drug tests under an agreement filed Monday that will dismiss a prescription fraud charge against the conservative commentator after 18 months if he complies with the terms.

      So, you're wrong about that.

      Personally, I think the government has no business in our chemical intake.
      I'm against the investigation against Mr. Limbaugh.
      I think it's funny and ironic that he was caught in the same machine that he fought to justify, but I'm still against it.

      I'd like for our government to respect everybody's privacy. I fight against government growing its power as I can. That doesn't stop me from laughing at someone who gets caught up in something I disapprove of when they have lobbied for it.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  5. It will stay on phone bills by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What do you bet the tax stays on your phone bill anyway? It is a well-known fact that phone companies attach all sorts of fees disguised as taxes, some of which actually go into their own pockets. So their costs will be lowered, but for phone customers its just another day.

  6. Income Tax by mulhollandj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they ever going to repeal income tax which was only supposed to be 2% max? Many of us pay over 50% in taxes if you include gas tax, sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc etc.

    1. Re:Income Tax by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Informative
      Many of us pay over 50% in taxes

      There's probably plenty of you who pay more than that. This year, your Tax Freedom Day falls on June 3 Tax Freedom Day

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Income Tax by Uncle+Kadigan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tax Freedom Day is calculated using a flawed methodology and is not representative of middle-class tax burdens.

    3. Re:Income Tax by necro81 · · Score: 2

      I call bullshit if you are living in the United States and make less than $200k a year. According to a report released at the end of last year by the Congressional Budget Office (congresses book-keepers), the effective federal tax rate for the United States (averaged across all households) was 20%. For the middle 20% of Americans making about $52k/household (pretax, 44.5k aftertax), the federal tax rate was less than 15%.

      For the fourth quintile, average income $77k, the tax rate was 18.7%. It is not until you get up to the top quintile, whose average income is $180k/household, that the effective tax rate gets to wham-o 25%. Let's say, to be generous to your argument, that the state also takes 15%, that's only 30% of your total income. In fact, the state tax rates are substantially less than that - New Hampshire, Nevada, and Alaska don't even have state income taxes.

      Of the rest, your take-home pay, which is still 70% of your gross income, you start paying out things like property taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes. In order for those additional taxes to take away an additional 20% of your gross income (so that your total taxes = 15% + 15% + 20% = 50%), the tax rate on your after-tax dollars would need to be 20%/70% = 28.5%. In other words, if all of the taxes applied to your take-home income had a rate of 28.5% (or a weighted average of them all), then that would make up an additional 20% of your gross income that had been taxed away.

      I don't know about you, but the sales tax around here isn't anywhere near 28.5%. Neither is the gas tax, alcohol tax, property tax, or any other kind of tax that I can think of. And if each of those smaller taxes are less than 28.5%, the effective tax rate on your take-home income doesn't exceed 28.5%

      Are they ever going to repeal income tax which was only supposed to be 2% max? Many of us pay over 50% in taxes if you include gas tax, sales tax, income tax, property tax, etc etc.

      You're counting things in two different and incomparible ways to make your argument. Way back when they first introduced the income tax, there were still a whole lot of other taxes in effect, just as there are today. You are comparing the 2% to 50%, but income tax (as you noted) is only one component of all the taxes you pay. What did people pay out in total taxes back then? I don't know. I'll grant you it is certainly less than today.

      Bear in mind, however, that back when the income tax was still very low, the government didn't do nearly as much as it does today. I'm not just talking about pork-barrel politics - there was plenty of government corruption back then, too - I'm talking about things like having the world's foremost military, an impressive tax-backed national infrastructure, and social welfare programs.

      If you would rather be susceptible to invasion, have no roads or bridges, your parents and in-laws stay with you when they grow old, and out-of-work beggars at your door, then by all means advocate the libertarian viewpoint. Just be sure your math is correct, though.

    4. Re:Income Tax by Clod9 · · Score: 2

      I don't know what bracket you're in, but last year I paid just shy of 20% in taxes.
      That includes federal income tax, state & local sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and social security tax. The only tax I could think of that I didn't include was airport taxes, but most of those were going to foreign governments anyway. I think my tax freedom day was back in mid-March.

    5. Re:Income Tax by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of this effective tax rate includes credits and deductions that only apply to couples with children. My wife and I have no plans to have kids (we don't want them, period) and we get fucked by taxes - no earned income credit, no childcare deductions, nothing.

    6. Re:Income Tax by ghoul · · Score: 2, Funny

      You deserve to be fucked in the ass with a broken broom. You dont want to have children and save money that way but at the same time you want social security payments in your old age paid by other peoples children , be protected from foreign invasions by other peoples children , treated when you are sick by other peoples children etc etc. People who dont have children are parasites on society. I propose all the people who dont have at least two children should be disqualified from collecting any social security, be barred from emergency rooms even if they are keeling over from heart attacks and sent off to Iraq to be used for exchanging with any hostages the insurgents capture. Then these selfish bastards will realize why they should have children.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  7. there's no temproary tax or program by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for those of here in California, you might remember the sales tax history. it was capped at 6% forever, then when the earthquake hit northern california in 1989, they allowed a "temporary" sales tax increase to help pay for it. Well, it's going on 17 years now and Los Angeles is 8.25% and isn't going down anytime soon. The same is true of spending. It only gets larger and grows, which is the source of our current economic problems and even longer term nightmare. I understand alot of the political sympathies around here, many at odds with mine (mostly foriegn policy related) but at least there'd be enough sentiment for small governemnt. big brother is big brother, whether he's listening to your phone calls OR taking half your paycheck.

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    1. Re:there's no temproary tax or program by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually all emergency legislation should have expiration dates on it. I.e., anything that's done as a kneejerk response to some particular event: school shootings, 9/11, whatever. Anything made that way ought to have an automatic expiration date associated with it, so that it can be evaluated by clearer minds, further down the road.

      I think some sort of system which had two paths for legislation would be good. An "emergency path" that required less votes to close down debate, but could only produce laws valid for the remainder of that legislative body's term, or a "standard path" that required a supermajority that could produce laws that have no expiration date.

      Laws produced in response to particular catastrophic events are generally some of the worst legal constructs we have, and are almost always plagued with unintended consequences. While to me this seems like it ought to be obvious (using the legal system to solve or react to a particular social problem is like using a Minuteman III to kill a fly), Congress too often falls into the trap of just "doing something" because they want to justify their paychecks, and they deepen the legal morass that we're in as a nation.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:there's no temproary tax or program by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally I think ALL laws should have an expiration date. And each law must be voted on seperately.

      We have some pretty antiquated laws that should just die. You get the added benefit that Congress is too busy keeping murder laws on the books to introduce stupider laws!

  8. Spanish-American War Over? by ReidMaynard · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's over? Does Bush know about this?

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

    1. Re:Spanish-American War Over? by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not as far as I am concerned! To arms, my Brothers! Remember the Maine!

      Hell yes! I say we storm the Spanish beaches and drink all their wine and eat all their tapas. Oh yeah, and take lots of photos. And maybe visit a few art musuems and ...

      --
      [Insert pithy quote here]
  9. VOIP by bostonkarl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is all about VOIP. And how VOIP doesn't pay these taxes. Traditional services complete with VOIP.

  10. The Nature of Taxes by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason this is getting appealed is because it was originally for the Spanish American War (Remember the Maine!). It was a humourous enough example to get someone in Congress to actually repeal this tax.

    Generally, taxes never die. So be very cautious about adding a new one.

    Pennsylvania still has the "Jonestown Flood Tax". A 18% excise tax on alcohol meant to raise funds for the flood that occured in 1889 or something like that.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    1. Re:The Nature of Taxes by im_mac · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be the Johnstown Flood tax and it was passed in 1936. Here's the PA Restaurants lobbying for a better alcohol taxes and giving a bit more info.

    2. Re:The Nature of Taxes by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Informative

      PA has bigger problems relating to alcohol than taxing.

      Foremost, the state controls all alcohol sales. Last I heard though, they were doign to do a 'trial' and allow some grocery stores to sell beer and wine. What a forward thinking state! Nevermind that I think every state surrounding it has already allowed those alcohol products (and more) to be sold just about everywhere.

      Unfortunatly PA is ruled by a bunch of 80 year olds that don't want anything to change from the 1930s. Philadelphia offsets this somewhat, but when you have the second highest number of elderly in the country, don't bet on anything changing soon.

    3. Re:The Nature of Taxes by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please don't underestimate the entrenched problems in Philadelphia.

      But yes, the case law for beer, state stores, etc. needs to go. Although they do get good discounts on wine due to volume purchases.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    4. Re:The Nature of Taxes by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I had another thought and it relates to the point of taxes not going way.

      In Pa. you have something similar. That whole alcohol system was developed. And now, today, it remains the way it is not because of people's views of alcohol but mainly because it is an entrenched system. There are people with a vested stake in it remaining the same. And they will care more and have a louder voice than the vast majority of people who want change. The average person, in this case, is annoyed by the system but doesn't have a vested interest.

      --
      Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
    5. Re:The Nature of Taxes by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pennsylvania still has the "Jonestown Flood Tax". A 18% excise tax on alcohol meant to raise funds for the flood that occured in 1889 or something like that.

      18% sales tax on alcohol? No wonder why those people in Jonestown drank all that Kool-aid...

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  11. Why do we have to file? They have our records by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they already have our phone records, couldn't they just analyze them to see who is elgible for the refund?

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  12. Maybe they could tackle this tax next.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    The myriad of taxes on airline tickets. Ever since 1980 the feds have put a 10% tax on all airline tickets and the fund is doing nothing except offsetting the deficit. If you think about it, that's a ton of money. Airports got fed up and start charging PFC (passenger facility charges) which you see on yout ticket ranging from 3.00 - 6.00.

    Ever pay attention to the taxes on your tickets after you buy them? In some low cost fare markets it increases the cost by almost 100%.

    Then there's the "fuel surcharges" that airlines charge that never get refunded or repealed.

    At least regarding long distance I have a choice NOT to use a meatspace carrier like Verizon. Give me help with air travel! Yikes!

  13. You lucky, lucky bastards! by DataCannibal · · Score: 2, Funny

    You Americans have it easy. We Brits are still paying income tax, which was originally raised to pay for the Napoleonnic wars !

    --
    No but, yeah but, no but...
  14. Re:Woohoo! by szembek · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wanna be a sandwhich too!

    --
    nothing
  15. I read it differently... by maillemaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >Bowing to changes in technology and pressure from taxpayers and phone companies

    The deeper significance here is that taxpayers don't mean squat but phone companies can get things done.

    I'm not surprised, I always knew dollars were stronger than votes. I just hate having my nose rubbed in it.

    Steve

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  16. Just what the conquistadors have been waiting for by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now that the US defense is no longer funded, the time for a new Spanish conquest has arrived.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  17. Re:Suspicious Vonage Bill by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vonage chared that 3% fee even when my first month of service was free.

    I tried to explain that $0 * 3% = 0. They didn't seem to understand.

  18. The local phone tax is still there by EaglesNest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The big crime, the excise tax on local phone service that applies to every land line, is still there. I haven't used a land line to make long distance calls in years. But I still have a land line. Wake me up when I can save money by not paying the tax on it.

  19. Good news and bad news by Johnny5000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The good news is you'll get your $18 back since we don't need to fund the Spanish-American War anymore.

    The bad news is they're going to add a tax of $5000/year to your phone bill to fund the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran.

    --
    The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  20. one less tax! by vinnythenose · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, don't complain, it's one less tax.

    Now up here in Canada if we could get rid of this "temporary wartime tax" from WWII that we call "Income Tax"... :)

    --
    --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
  21. Does this mean the...? by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does this mean the Spanish-American war is finally over? Did we win?

  22. Stop bashing taxation...be honest about their uses by NorseWarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all acknowledge that there is some waste in government....until it comes to the programs you like! Taxes do good things--they generally build roads to somewhere...they pay for schools...they pay for police, fire, and other stuff. In business, you get what you pay for. In business, waste takes on forms like Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling....and other overpaid CEOs. (and, oh yes--it was GOVERNMENT, in the form of prosecutors, not stockholders, who held them accountable.!) Guess what--the principle works the same in government. You get what you pay for. You don't like it--then get involved in the process and change it. This phone tax is a red herring....a right-wing fakeout to avoid the fallout over huge tax cuts to the rich which vastly overshadow the cost of this little sop to the masses. I say keep my $18. Give me good roads, and good schools. Hunt down the criminals. Feed kids who go to bed hungry. And yes--make those who benefit the most in our society bear the burden for taking care of the least among us.

  23. Is this fair? by d_54321 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great.
    When the tax is instituted, you have to pay it or men with guns come to your home.

    When the tax is repealed, you have to fill out a form to get your money back. That's fair.

    Why not just repeal the whole damn thing and replace it with something that makes more sense?

  24. take back our government by KidCeltic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [a soft, scraping noise is heard as the soapbox is pushed closer to the keyboard]

    Am I the only American who has noticed that our governments, the Federal one in particular, have spiraled way out of control (I doubt it)? The Fed has usurped so many powers originally intended for the States that it only vaguely resembles what was laid out by our founders. It was never intended for our Senators and Representives to be full-time, sometimes lifelong (albeit by election) positions. Nowhere is an exclusivley two-party system endorsed by our foundational documents (the Constitution, etcetera). State militias were devised in order to keep our Federal government in check, not as an auxillary force in time of need. And above all, our government was never supposed to be a for-profit concern.

    We the American public need a revolution! No, I'm not talking an armed conflict. I'm talking about an educated public demanding that their government serve them, not vice versa. We need to demand term limits for Congresspersons and Federal Justices. We need to limit Federal speding via a reduction of cash flow. We can do this via a reduction in Federal taxes. Why does the government need so much money? They have fallen into the trap of thinking that the Government needs to be the baby-sitter of the American public. Providing for the common defense and general welfare of the public does not include paying farmers NOT to farm or subsidizing sheep/wool farmers. Specific cases such as these are best handled by those that are closest to the problems: the States.

    The States need to take back their rightful powers. By severely reducing Federal income taxes and expenditures, States will have the ability to fairly tax their residents and handle their own internal problems and promote ideas and programs specifically tailored to their citizens' needs.

    We need to mobilize and educate. We need to make demands of our government and not take "No" for an answer. They are supposed to be serving us. We need to make them honor that trust. And above all, we need to vote! Even if that means standing in the rain for hours in line. We need to write and phone our elected officials on a regular basis to let them know our concerns and find out how they are representing us. It is only through action that we will win back control of our government and set things on the right path again.

    [pushes soapbox back under desk]

  25. History of this tax by autophile · · Score: 5, Funny
    Havana, Cuba (a colony of Spain), February 15, 1898

    USS Maine: Blam! Glug, glug, glug.
    America: WTF? Spain, can't you control your own damn harbor?!
    Spain: STFU
    Tomas Estrada Palma (head of Cuban Revolutionary Junta): Spain, I've got $150 million for you if you'll let us have independence.
    Spain: STFU
    American Democrats and Big Media: Free Cuba! Woohoo! Spain sux0rz!
    Prez. McKinley and Republicans: WTF, we don't need dat shit.
    Americans: Remember the Maine? Let's go kick some ass!

    (April 11, 1898)
    McKinley: Fine. Spain, GTFO of Cuba.
    Spain: STFU

    (April 25, 1898)
    McKinley: No, YOU STFU! We declare war! As of... uh... 5 days ago!
    Congress: Let's tax... inheritance! That oughta make us some bling-bling. Oh, and let's add one penny to the telephone bill. Only rich people have telephones, they can afford it.

    (June 10, 1898)
    US Marines: Ha ha, we ownz0r Guantanamo Bay! Freedom from torture for all!

    (August 12, 1898)
    Spain: Dios Mio! All our fleet are belong to you!
    America: Yay, we win! Give us all your wine. And tapas.

    Time Machine: Wowowowowow

    (1982)
    Congress: Let's set that war tax to 3% of the phone bill, that oughta keeps us in da bling-bling. But only until 1985.

    (1984)
    Congress: F Dat, we want to keep our bling-bling. At least until 1987.

    (1987)
    Congress: Mane, what were we thinking? Keep da bling-bling until... 1990?

    (1990)
    Congress: Too fun! Let's make it... permanent! Par-tee! Par-tee! Par-tee!

    (2000)
    Congress: That was stupid. Let's repeal the war tax.
    Clinton: Ah agree. But there's nothing in this big ol' Bill (heh heh) about that edumication spendin' ah wanted. Y'see, it all depends on what the meaning o' the word "Spanish-American War Tax" is. Ah veto this Bill (heh heh, I cain't never get enough o' that joke, now come set on daddy's lap).

    (2005)
    Internet: Congress, you are too stupid!
    Congress: Well, I guess we can try again.

    --
    Towards the Singularity.