Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Taxes On Cell Phones Hit All-Time High

Posted by timothy on from the what-the-tax-market-will-bear dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "As a breakdown of the top ten states with the highest and lowest taxes shows, the wireless consumers in Nebraska, Washington, and New York pay more than 20 percent of their wireless bills in taxes and fees, mostly due to the proliferation of archaic or duplicated surcharges. Experts from KSE Partners spent five years monitoring the federal, state, and local taxes imposed on wireless consumers. According to their analysis, wireless taxes grew three times faster than the retail sales rate between 2007 and 2010. The reason behind this is that legislators and Congressmen are targeting the wireless industry for tax money to relieve the burden from more recession-starved industries. In fact, a few states even tax wireless consumers for non wireless-related projects; for instance, Utah funds its poison-control centers with a poison-control surcharge found on wireless bills, and in 2009 Wisconsin imposed a police and fire protection fee to subsidize local departments."

171 comments

  1. Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So wait, emergency services that need to spend extra money for equipment and procedures to locate mobile callers (instead of much simpler land-line callers) are completely unrelated to cell phones?

    1. Re:Not that unrelated... by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I agree, they are not "unrelated."

      But those services can be used by more than just people who are using phones. In fact, the person using the phone may even be calling for someone else. It makes no sense to put a tax on phone service, wired or wireless, for the purpose of funding a service that serves more than those who have phones.

      I would think a service that basically is supposed to serve everyone ought to be a tax levied on everyone...

      But I suppose that makes too much sense :)

    2. Re:Not that unrelated... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      The 911 dispatchers require additional equipment, not the police and fire departments mentioned in the summary. They just go wherever the dispatcher says to go.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    3. Re:Not that unrelated... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I can see that, but that doesn't explain charging cell phone users for the poison control centers.

    4. Re:Not that unrelated... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I can see that, but that doesn't explain charging cell phone users for the poison control centers.

      Haven't you heard? Cellphones are poisoning our minds ... and our society.

    5. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can see that, but that doesn't explain charging cell phone users for the poison control centers.

      Why should taxes only apply to the item/product/service being taxed? Why shouldn't a tax on gasoline go to research into the electric grid, for example? Why shouldn't a tax on luxury yachts go toward education?

      I understand that there's a certain clarity when a tax on cigarettes goes toward providing research into lung cancer, but revenue is revenue. We've got municipalities and counties and states that are experiencing severe revenue shortfalls because of the economy. That money has to come from somewhere.

      I'm not saying I like the wireless taxes being piled on because it's easier than closing tax loopholes for investment bankers, but the notion that all tax money has to go directly to an expenditure directly related to the tax itself seems simplistic.

      Remember, the reason our tax code is tens of thousands of pages is not because it contains so many different taxes, but because it contains so many tax loopholes for special interest groups. Years ago I used to work for CCH, the company that publishes the tax code (like Westlaw, except just for tax law) and worked on tax preparation and compliance software (I wrote the manuals - I am not a programmer). Like most people, I thought all those huge books were full of ways for the government to collect money. Instead, I learned, they're full of ways that certain people can avoid having to pay taxes. It follows that the reason we can never get tax simplification laws passed is because rich and powerful fuckers don't want to have to pay their way.

      As we learned in the 90's, the best way to get out of deficit spending and huge public debt is to have a good economy and lots of people working and making money. Cut the deficit from the supply side by increasing revenue. Then, when times are good, that's the time to look for ways to cut costs and make things more efficient (and more fair!). Cutting public spending when people are already suffering is just going to make it all worse. Look at how all the budget cutting is failing in Europe. When you've got a bunch of people who have been out of work and probably will never have another job because nobody is going to hire someone who's 60 years old and unemployed, the last thing you want to do is raise the retirement age so that now you not only have an unemployed old person, but you've got an unemployed old person who's going to have to eat cat food for an extra five years before they can collect Social Security. Since corporations that are showing record profits seem determined to continue to lay off workers, that's not really a good time for the social safety net to be cut back.

      Maybe we can ask all those patriotic Americans at the upper end of the economic spectrum who have done so well over the past couple of decades to help out. Society has done a lot for them, maybe it's time to ask them to do a little bit for society besides expect a 25% annual return on their capital.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Not that unrelated... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Informative

      Emergency services requires no new equipment and procedures. AFAIK, from my experience dealing with it with VOIP, when you call 911 two things happen:

      1) Your carrier determines the nearest Public Safety Answering Point. They know which one to connect you to, because they know your location.
      2) Your carrier passes your location information to the Public Safety Answering Point when connecting you to it.

      In the past the ANI (Automatic Number Identification), not to be confused with Caller ID which can be modified, was used to transmit the information to the PSAP. The PSAP then did a reverse directory search to get a physical address.

      My understanding is that recently (the last 15-20 years) with everything gone digital the PSAPs are already getting the address information without the need for a reverse directory search. Otherwise, cellular callers would not have any location information available, which most of the time there has been some.

      It has ALWAYS been the responsibility of the carrier to connect you to the correct PSAP and transmit the correct location. This was difficult with wireless carriers since initially they could only guess based on the known physical location of the cell tower you were connected to. E911 laws (the FCC) in its current implementation phase require wireless carriers to transmit location information of a caller accurate to within 100 meters.

      There is E911 service for most VOIP now. It is required by the FCC for most large operations anyways that are marketing to consumers or meet some sort of criteria like Vonage and the ISPs. My VOIP service offers it as well. That works by the customer registering an address (one only) with each phone number that they own. You make your E911 call by setting the Caller ID on the line. With my systems I inspect the corporate extension making the call, look up the branch office, set the appropriate Caller ID, and then the VOIP provider passes it to the appropriate PSAP they determine from that address.

      So to my knowledge, there is NO DIFFERENCE between a cellular call, VOIP call, or land line call as far as a PSAP's equipment is concerned. It just presents the location information to the operator.

      No new equipment required. No new procedures required. If the FCC already has this handled with current legislation, and all of the carriers are already passing the location information to the PSAPs, why are we paying all of these taxes on wireless for emergency services?

      Not that I object to funding them. Just pointing out it does not need to be funded disproportionately from cell phones since they do not represent an added cost of providing the service.

    7. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where can I get a 25% return? I have some money to invest.

    8. Re:Not that unrelated... by EdIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe we can ask all those patriotic Americans at the upper end of the economic spectrum who have done so well over the past couple of decades to help out. Society has done a lot for them, maybe it's time to ask them to do a little bit for society besides expect a 25% annual return on their capital.

      You forgot to add, "I want a pink pony too" at the end.

      Not only do those "powerful" people not pay their way, they are actively "fucking" us.

      I seem to remember the idea of the bailouts was that we, The People, help out the banks and Wall Street from going under and they would work with us to keep us in our homes.

      Did not work out. The banks actively fought and dragged their feet. Home loan modifications were not in their best interests. There are some very rich people right now that used government money to purchase properties with bad loans (fucking over the people in it) so they could literally double their money by selling it under market value (which was getting lower).

      The banks, Wall Street, and "powerful fuckers" laughed their asses off when we collectively asked them to keep their end of the bargain. Some really dirty dirty mother fuckers. They would not pay the property taxes and stiff the home owners associations, but rarely if ever, met the same penalties as the consumer for doing so.

      Where was government in all this? Doing the same thing they did with the tax code. Looking the other way and counting their special interest donations greedily.

      Such a big song and dance by GW Bush and Obama on how they were going to make things better and the only thing they did was give a TRILLION dollars to a bunch of clowns that not only did not change their behavior, but actively made it worse for us.

      Why is that a regular person can show up to court with proof that multiple banks bought the same mortgage security instrument and demand that one entity stand up and provide the note, the court shoots them down and proceeds with the foreclosure? Why is that the courts are powerless to allow an investigation into this kind of fraud, but must allow the foreclosure and tell the poor regular person that they must leave the house and then fight their battle in court again? The law. The law is the reason why. In most states the foreclosure is allowed to happen regardless of the circumstances. You can sue afterwards..... but that puts the consumer at a huge disadvantage and already causes them tremendous damages they will probably never recover from. At least from that mortgage company.

      The whole game is rigged for the "powerful fuckers". If they have not grown a heart and a conscience by now, I doubt we can hope they will anytime soon.

    9. Re:Not that unrelated... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Our tax code is complicated for several reasons. 1.) Yes, corruption and special interests, but also 2.) to social engineer society to vote "my way" in whatever direction is currently lead by the party in control. The most recent example is the IRS giving tax breaks to mothers who breast feed. Why? It's like they tax the hell out of us and then where supposed to act all "ohhh, thank you master for giving us a nice break". Ya well, eff that! Especially since none of that money being collected goes to where it's supposed to go in the first place. I mean, tax revenue gets directed toward a general slushfund anyways without any external accountability. That behavior has got to stop!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That money has to come from somewhere."
      no it doesn't. stop spending so much and cut non-essential services.

    11. Re:Not that unrelated... by Idefix97 · · Score: 1

      It's not that 911 operations need extra equipment: the tax is actually used for operating the 911 centers.

    12. Re:Not that unrelated... by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not that 911 operations need extra equipment: the tax is actually used for operating the 911 centers.

      Okay.

      The poster I was replying to was under the impression it was needed to provide equipment for location information and training for new procedures. I was responding very specifically to that misunderstanding.

      If that same tax is put on land line telephones and VOIP then I don't have a problem with it. It's strange to disproportionately tax cellular customers for a service that is provided to everybody.

      Obviously, as many people have pointed out this is not what they are funding so much that is offensive, but that they are finding a product and service we hold to be valuable and taxing the living crap out of it to create badly needed revenue for all programs.

      Land lines are absolutely on the way out. I predict we will move to a VOIP only solution quite soon, and even VOIP will start to take over wireless soon. Since the revenue is shrinking rapidly from land lines, cell phones are an obvious target.

      However, slamming taxes that are unrelated to communications on to it only puts an unfair burden on the middle class instead of spreading it around evenly. Not that taxes are ultimately even or fair.

      Aww, hell I disagree with everything about how we do taxes right now! :)

      I was just trying to give an informative post on how 911 service actually works.

    13. Re:Not that unrelated... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Cut the deficit from the supply side by increasing revenue. Then, when times are good, that's the time to look for ways to cut costs and make things more efficient (and more fair!). Cutting public spending when people are already suffering is just going to make it all worse. Look at how all the budget cutting is failing in Europe.

      It's not as simple as that, unfortunately, it very much depends on what you cut. Taxation is essentially leakage from the economy, this means that it is money taken from what should be productive activities. The only expenditure which has an effect like you describe is that which is pumped straight back into circulation, like wages and social welfare. And even then, you need to balance out what you are spending from taxation against what the government actually needs to operate. There are plenty of useless sinecure departments in every European government, or areas which could use more efficiency, or groups which could easily be merged.

      Ideally, cutting back certain areas and raising taxes strategically should nail the deficits completely, which is a good thing when you consider a deficit is something which all citizens must ultimately pay for from their taxes. Strategic tax raises should be targeted at those sectors which provide minimal employment and minimal circulation of currency (productivity).

    14. Re:Not that unrelated... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please, do tell me where I can get my 25% return.

      There is a real misconception on /. about money. You, and probably almost everyone else here, think that someone making $300k/year is rich. They're not; they're making a lot of money, but that's not the same thing as rich. Let's do the gedankenexperiment:
      Let us assume I make $300k. FICA, federal income tax, and state income tax reduce that to about $180k. For this experiment, we will make me the sole breadwinner in a family, and I will spend my income as though I were the median American household - which has an income just over $50k. Taxes take a much smaller chunk of that income, so let's call it $40k. I'm going to save $140k/year. Over a forty-year work life, I will be able to save $6.4M, barring growth in investments. Assuming that I invest in 5% interest bonds, I'll get to $18M - but with a constant, well-controlled 2% inflation rate over that time, that's only worth as much as $9M today.

      Nine million dollars is a lot of money, until you try to live off it as one of the idle rich. You rapidly find that you can only take about 1%-2% of the money per year to live on, if you want to stay ahead of inflation and the occasional market downturn. You can thus count on this: living off 1/8 of your pretax income for 40 years straight in a high-paying field will allow you to grant one of your grandchildren an idle life on the grand sum of about $120k/year. The truly rich are not living in the same world as the rest of us, even the upper middle class, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference. Any scheme designed to get money from "the rich" is going to fall disproportionately on the professional classes, because we're the ones who actually make the bulk of the money. And while we make quite a lot, most of us didn't come from privileged backgrounds, so I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the class war rhetoric. Society didn't give me jack - my parents did, by living well below their means in order to send me to good (private) schools.

    15. Re:Not that unrelated... by Idefix97 · · Score: 1

      I was just trying to give an informative post on how 911 service actually works.

      As was I. No intention at all to bash you.

    16. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The truly rich are not living in the same world as the rest of us, even the upper middle class, and there aren't enough of them to make a difference.

      Do me a favor, find a graphic that shows the amount of money/wealth held by each percentage of the population. See what it looks like.

    17. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ((True Cost of Government) + (Fudge factor of extra-constitutional junk)) / (Number of Citizens) = the fair tax, per citizen.

      Actual taxes are unfair, but necessary, simply because not everyone can afford their "fair" share.

      The tax code is the formula used to balance unfair amounts of money taken from whomever can pay combined with printing money out of thin air and the politics of helping friends and punishing enemies.

      I find it funny that people seem to want the government to "cut spending" but the government only (claims) to "cut the budget". If I don't send less this year than I did last yet, it is not a cut. PERIOD.

    18. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An annual income of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars puts you in the top three per cent of American households, and is more than four times the national median.

    19. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The whole game is rigged for the "powerful fuckers". If they have not grown a heart and a conscience by now

      Oh, I'm not suggesting expecting them to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of fear of the guillotine.

      That's why I have hopes that what happened in Egypt can happen here.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taxation is essentially leakage from the economy

      Nonsense. Taxation is paying dues to have civilization.

      There is no such thing as an American that made it on their own "hard work and innovation". If someone claims that they did, I suggest dropping them in Somalia and seeing how well they do where there is no "big government".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Please, do tell me where I can get my 25% return.

      If you bought into the stock market shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as president, you'd have done much better than 25% annual ROI. I don't mean necessarily to pick individual stocks, but to buy the index.

      I have a little game I play with money: Since 1990 (when I first had money to play with) I would buy into various stocks and market instruments when Democrats became president and sell when Republicans became president (and buy currencies or hold as cash in bank instruments). I have outperformed the market since 1990 by several times. The stocks I buy are generally from companies that have products I like or admire, so there are a fair number of tech stocks, but mostly I just bet on the index. To be fair, it's only been Clinton-Bush-Obama, and even an idiot could tell that the market would tank with that monkey in the middle. If I had held those investments during Bush's term, I'd have probably lost ground, even including the big 90's boom. I think my index fund was at about 6800 when I bought back in during the first few months of Obama's term. It's around 12000 now. If a Republican should win in '12, I'll be out of the stock market like a prom dress. That might be when I finally just convert it all the euros and move to Montenegro where my wife and I bought a little place with the profits we took when Bush was elected. It's just a little house on the coast near Sutomore, but it's perfect for our retirement. With the way things are going, I think the next Republican president would be a good time to get out while the getting's good. Things are going to get real mean around here and I'd rather remember the US as the place I grew up in, rather than the Fox Nation it's become.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You're right of course. Tax breaks for breast feeders I can almost understand. The deduction for mortgage interest is one that bothers me, though. Social engineering, pure and simple, to keep property values artificially high. It's been good for me personally, because I've been the beneficiary, but I think it's bad for society as a whole because now you need to have two household incomes to buy a first house and even then you've got to take unreasonably long mortgages. That is, if you can find a loan. Property values in most places in the US are still on an artificial bubble, IMO, and one of the reason debt is so high is because housing costs so much. In the words of one of our greatest national leaders, the rent is too damn high.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:Not that unrelated... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Property values in most places in the US are still on an artificial bubble, IMO, and one of the reason debt is so high is because housing costs so much.

      Absolutely! I'm in my mid 30s now, and even as a teenager then I never quite understood the concept of investing in a home. It was an American culture (started in the 50s?) that we can always flip a house into a better home and find a newer one in its place. Perhaps this culture was restricted to the urbanites, but even I knew then it wasn't sustainable with our fiat system. And just when it couldn't get worse, our Federal Gov compounds the issue with new laws in order to make housing more affordable to those that otherwise couldn't afford one. Sounds like a great idea in theory, but we all saw careless the banks got rolling loans over into an oblivious abstract cluster. Not to mention buyers getting into debt so high they couldn't pay off the principle. Sure enough, the entire system collapsed and no one wants to sell their home. Can't blame them, but it's still ratcheted too high. They're sitting on debt and now there's what seems like an eternal struggle between the seller and prospective buyer. Only when the home owner defaults, property returned to the bank, can the re-evaluation and negotiation take place at the "true" market value. Either way it's not pretty.

      FYI, there is a nasty real estate bubble in Shanghai, China. God forbid, that's another shoe waiting to drop.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    24. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should taxes only apply to the item/product/service being taxed? Why shouldn't a tax on gasoline go to research into the electric grid, for example? Why shouldn't a tax on luxury yachts go toward education?

      I understand that there's a certain clarity when a tax on cigarettes goes toward providing research into lung cancer, but revenue is revenue. We've got municipalities and counties and states that are experiencing severe revenue shortfalls because of the economy. That money has to come from somewhere.

      I'm not saying I like the wireless taxes being piled on because it's easier than closing tax loopholes for investment bankers, but the notion that all tax money has to go directly to an expenditure directly related to the tax itself seems simplistic.

      It is helpful for services to be funded by closely related taxes, since it means everything scales even as the situation changes. In the example you mentioned, if more people start smoking, there is a high probability there will be more cases of lung cancer down the road and hence the need for more research; if fewer people are smoking, society isn't going to be having nearly as many lung cancer cases in the future. Similar situation for gas taxes and alternative energy, if people are driving, alternatives will likely be needed in the future.

      There though are two major problems here. First, often it can be unclear which tax a given service maps best to. Second, even with the two tied closely together, there is still a need to include padding to smooth over good/bad economic times. You see this most often with schools/libraries, both benefit society greatly, but what do they equate best to? Income? Land/home ownership? Sales? (I'd rate sales tax as an abomination, it doesn't equate well to anything and requires massive infrastructure to enforce)

    25. Re:Not that unrelated... by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You think that somebody that makes $300k isn't rich? Less than 4% of all households make that much money according to the census. Income Distribution in the U.S.

      I'm not really sure how you can say that somebody that's in the top 5% of all households isn't rich. 90% of all house holds are making a third of that. You have a really strange definition of rich.

    26. Re:Not that unrelated... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Exaclyt like that.

      I am working as an extra project with the local 112 (european equivalent to 911) and here location of mobile calls do not require extra equipment, neither.

      When a cell call is issued to 112, the carrier sends a bunch of bytes to one of our servers, who just parses them. It is even a standard for all national (maybe european?) carriers, the typical message is about 128 bytes of ASN.1

      And, BTW, nothing like the typical spy movie where you see a dot blinking and moving. The localization info we receive is basically the coordinates of the cell tower they are using as the center of a circular sector where the user maybe located. The standard allows for two such sectors to be delivered, but we never receive "triangulation" information; at most two overlapping sectors centered at the same cell tower (the bigger with a biggest % of having the user in it).

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    27. Re:Not that unrelated... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      the median American household - which has an income just over $50k

      I know it's too much to ask you to RTFA, but please RTFP.

    28. Re:Not that unrelated... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Gosh, to read that, you'd almost think that I hadn't mentioned what the median household income is in the United States in my post.
      To me, "rich" is someone who doesn't have to work in order to maintain their lifestyle. Lots of people with six-figure incomes have net worths well below zero, and my whole post was an attempt to show people that it takes a long time and a lot of sacrifice to build wealth with savings.

    29. Re:Not that unrelated... by Onuma · · Score: 1

      "Hard work and innovation" can be applied anywhere. We could argue that said American starting a small-but-growing uprising against Somali warlords, eventually shifting the whole economical and political arena of that area.

      Our system can allow the small guy to succeed where he may not have a hell of a chance otherwise - his worst case scenario is bankruptcy, which can be overcome (look at Donald Trump, for example - he's been bankrupt numerous times over the years). The risk in Somalia or comparable third-world shitholes is that you'll be dragged into the street, beaten to near-death and then burned inside a stack of old tires.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    30. Re:Not that unrelated... by killkillkill · · Score: 1

      Right. It's Somalia's tax policies that set it apart from the US.

    31. Re:Not that unrelated... by Onuma · · Score: 1

      And some people with 5-digit incomes have 6+ digit net worth. Fiscal responsibility and preparation for the future is a huge part of it.
      I think most people are just too used to having their $200/mo DirecTV with a bajillion channels, internet speeds which most will never even dream of maxing out once (other than techy types, who is really going to utilize 20+ Mb/s, ever?) two late-model car notes, a too-large home which they can't really afford, and oodles of plastic credit which slowly tightens the noose over the years. Increased "quality of life" does not necessarily mean we need a whole lot of unnecessary shit in our homes -- why the hell would ANYONE need half a dozen iPods for their individual (non-business) use?

      Before I turned 25 I had saved over a year's worth of my 5-year salary. I don't foresee the $300k/year range any time soon (interest nonwithstanding) but I sure don't plan on not having money on which to fall back if I need it. Besides, even if I got "rich" by demonlapin's definition, I think I'd go stir-crazy and find some job to do anyway.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    32. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Right. It's Somalia's tax policies that set it apart from the US.

      No, it's the size of its government that sets it apart.

      Somalia is the extreme case of "small government".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! I'm in my mid 30s now, and even as a teenager then I never quite understood the concept of investing in a home.

      Honestly, I believe a home is a great investment, but not because it's going to make you money, which has been the belief over the previous decades. It's not more honorable than renting, though, which is the intended subtext of the mortgage deduction.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Not that unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are not only dues to have civilization. They also pay for patronage, special favors, and pork. They also pay for excessive regulation. Don't forget all that domestic surveillance we don't like. They help pay for a War on Drugs which is counter-productive.

      Those on the left are creating strawmen. Only anarchists are against all taxes. People are railing against excessive spending and taxation. There are diminishing returns or even negative feedback loops on all sorts of government activity past different points. This includes taxation, regulation, and spending.

    35. Re:Not that unrelated... by stdarg · · Score: 2

      Someone with $300k income is also so financially conservative that they only invest in low-risk bonds over a 40 year period? Doesn't add up. People with that kind of income and that kind of time span are going to make riskier investments and do better than 5% over the long term.

      You're also neglecting salary increases over the 40 year period. People making $300k early in their careers (30-40 years left) are going to grow substantially. Maybe you're a partner in a law firm, soon you'll be a senior partner and make double that. Maybe you're a doctor in a respected hospital, soon you'll have your own practice and make even more. And so on.

      And as an anecdote, I know a doctor who is 35 and was just offered a job making $330k for a HALF TIME JOB (26 weeks full time, 26 weeks off) in a major hospital. If he had taken it, he would have also been able to run his own practice on the side. You are absolutely insane if you think there's a good chance he's going to be "barely rich" or whatever 40 years from now. I would agree he's not rich now, but he's living a rich lifestyle, and he's saving plenty of money. Also, he's not investing in 5% bonds, he's looking for businesses to buy or invest in.

      I don't like class war rhetoric either, but let's not exacerbate it by denying plain as day facts. The reason I don't begrudge him his money is that he earned it, not that "it's not really that much anyways" or whatever.

    36. Re:Not that unrelated... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Taxation is paying dues to have civilization.
      Nonsense, Taxation is taking from someone to give to someone else. Sometimes it is helpful, other times, we do it just because see Federal Telephone Tax. If you are so keen on taxation and government control of the economy I recommend you hang out north of the 38th parallel on the Korean peninsula.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    37. Re:Not that unrelated... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Taxation is paying dues to have civilization.

      I'm speaking in the purely economic sense, as regards the injection-leakage model.

    38. Re:Not that unrelated... by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Yet, have they been better or worse off than the communist government that existed before?

    39. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I'm speaking in the purely economic sense

      I'm sorry, Economics is approximately as scientific as astrology. I don't engage in discussions in an "economic sense" any more than I would engage in serious discussions in a "homeopathic sense".

      Junk science is junk science. Just because it's taught in every university doesn't make it less so. And Economics (capital "E") is junk science.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, Taxation is taking from someone to give to someone else.

      Society is "taking from someone and giving to someone else", too. Civilization is also "taking from someone and giving to someone else".

      It's what human beings do, and your Ayn Rand fantasies aside, it's how you survive. And yes, I mean "you" specifically.

      Go peddle your "free market" nonsense to someone more gullible.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:Not that unrelated... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not only do those "powerful" people not pay their way, they are actively "fucking" us.

      Just to be clear, we're not talking about -me- are we? I'm a scientist, not a powerful person. I wasn't suggesting I should only have to pay taxes for things I use. And I'm fucking very few of you.

    42. Re:Not that unrelated... by edmicman · · Score: 1

      *Nobody* does anything out of the goodness of their hearts. *Every* individual is motivated by self-interest and that's it. If people would realize that and make policy accordingly we'd be out of this mess that much sooner. Stop telling me why doing something will help somebody else and instead make it in my best interest to do what you want me to do. If you want all the rich fuckers to do something, give them a reason to do it instead of penalizing them for being rich.

    43. Re:Not that unrelated... by howardd21 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, Taxation is taking from someone to give to someone else.

      Society is "taking from someone and giving to someone else", too. Civilization is also "taking from someone and giving to someone else".

      Actually, civilization is people VOLUNTARILY giving to somebody else, not having some large, third party come along and just take it. THAT IS taxation.

      Go peddle your "free market" nonsense to someone more gullible.

      No need to mention someone more gullible than yourself, I am not sure that person exists if you think a governmental entity takes money from you so it can help you spend it better on "civilization".

      --
      no comment
    44. Re:Not that unrelated... by edmicman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My house is an investment in my lifestyle well-being. Sure, it might be nice to sell it for a profit someday, but for the time being I'm getting benefit out of living in it, not having neighbors on the next wall, having land to do stuff on, and being able to live and do what I want to do.

    45. Re:Not that unrelated... by houghi · · Score: 1

      And all this because if you were/are against these "powerful fuckers you were/are labeled a socialist and somehow that is a very bad thing to be called.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    46. Re:Not that unrelated... by houghi · · Score: 1

      that's only worth as much as $9M today.

      Holy crap. That is way more then most people will ever get in their lives. The guy who earns "only" 40.000 has to work 225 years to get that and not spend a penny.

      Sure, there will always be some people who have more then you have. Yes, there is a difference between rich and super rich.

      The words you use until you try to live off it as one of the idle rich explain a lot. You also make a difference between rich and idle rich.

      So please stop the rhetoric of saying that somebody with a $300k/year isn't rich, because somebody is even richer. It seriously sounds like the whining of "I want more."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    47. Re:Not that unrelated... by houghi · · Score: 1

      There never were any communist governments. They were totalitarian systems which labeled themselves communists. That does not mean they were.

      Perhaps the closest would be socialist countries, like most of Europe (compared to the USofA)

      And even then you need to define 'best'. European countries have other different priorities.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    48. Re:Not that unrelated... by kryliss · · Score: 1

      What I can't understand is if they weren't able to manage their own money, why in the f**king hell did the government give them more money to mismanage???

      --
      --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
    49. Re:Not that unrelated... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      No need to mention someone more gullible than yourself, I am not sure that person exists

      Example of the famous "I know you are, but what am I?" argument, favored by the Right.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    50. Re:Not that unrelated... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Not only do those "powerful" people not pay their way, they are actively "fucking" us.

      Just to be clear, we're not talking about -me- are we? I'm a scientist, not a powerful person. I wasn't suggesting I should only have to pay taxes for things I use. And I'm fucking very few of you.

      1) We were not talking about you. At least I was not.
      2) Science isn't powerful? Two Words. Death Ray.
      3) You're on Slashdot. Of course you are fucking very few people. In fact, when you say few, that puts you a few ahead of the majority of us :)

    51. Re:Not that unrelated... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "Remember, the reason our tax code is tens of thousands of pages is not because it contains so many different taxes, but because it contains so many tax loopholes for special interest groups. Years ago I used to work for CCH, the company that publishes the tax code (like Westlaw, except just for tax law) and worked on tax preparation and compliance software (I wrote the manuals - I am not a programmer). Like most people, I thought all those huge books were full of ways for the government to collect money. Instead, I learned, they're full of ways that certain people can avoid having to pay taxes. It follows that the reason we can never get tax simplification laws passed is because rich and powerful fuckers don't want to have to pay their way."

      Well, sounds like we need to overcome this block...and pass new tax laws.

      Lets throw out the old code entirely.....make a basic tax (I prefer the Fair Tax type thing)..where it is simply "You make this much as an individual, and you pay $x. There are no longer ANY deductions, that way there are no tax loopholes, and IMHO, best of all, no longer is taxation trying to be used to modify behavior...it will just be used to fund the govt. which is what it should be for.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    52. Re:Not that unrelated... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Science isn't powerful? Two Words. Death Ray.

      Science: yes.
      Scientists: no (compared to people who get on TV and denounce science anyways).
      This particular scientist: embryologist, so no death rays.

    53. Re:Not that unrelated... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I am not even talking about penalizing them for being rich. I don't believe in that. That's why some people believe I am a Republican.

      No.

      What I am talking about is those rich fuckers that are actively hurting other people, exploiting them, and becoming more rich and powerful doing so.

      If you're Orville Redenbacher and made a ton of money selling people popcorn, or a businessman selling a good product or service for a fair price there is no shame in being rich. As much as I would love to be in a Utopia or a resource based economy, I don't begrudge the millionaires that made their money honestly and fairly.

      The rich fuckers that made their money by selling loans to people they knew could never pay it need to DIE.
      The rich fuckers that make their money by preying on desperate people who are willing to pay 300-400% interest just to stay in their apartments for 30 days longer and feed their kids need to DIE.
      The rich fuckers that abuse the political system to get access to bailout funds and then manipulate the financial institutions to block home loan modifications so they can double their money while middle class Americans get foreclosed on, lose their homes, and then incur the substantial costs of moving need to DIE.
      The rich fuckers that abuse the law to deprive Americans of due process and a fair trial to steal their homes need to DIE. Yes, it is stealing when you cannot provide the note and actively block the discovery process that would show loan fraud and fraud regarding the mortgage securities. It is stealing when you use special interests to set up the laws in a way that blocks the home owners from using the same court process they use to steal the house, to defend themselves with their arguments. How ridiculous is it when the judge says the home owner is right, but he is powerless because the law says he needs to transfer ownership to the bank while the home owner files a separate lawsuit?
      The rich fuckers that make their money selling drugs they know are killing people, but have the influence and ability to manipulate and hide scientific studies that show that is, need to DIE.
      The rich fuckers that continually lobby the government with their powerful special interests to abridge our Constitutional rights, and rights as Americans, and rights as Free People, so that they can protect their revenue streams with bad business models and questionable complaints about unprovable losses need to DIE.
      The rich fuckers that hurt our communities, cities, and states, by not paying their way, avoiding or flat out not paying their property taxes, because they can get away with it through creative asset protection schemes and corporate structures need to DIE.

      You make a billion dollars selling something as inane as a spatula? More power to you. Congratulations.
      You make a billion dollars being responsible for hurting people when it was not necessary? You need to be voted off the planet.

      My feelings are not Socialism, anti-Capitalism, blah, blah, blah.

      Just recognizing that as people we can thrive and prosper with a strong moral foundation and without the need to exploit and destroy other people's lives at every turn.

      The problem is not people getting rich. The problem is that our system is set up to protect and encourage sociopathic behavior.

    54. Re:Not that unrelated... by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      Well, at my current job (which is a crappy clerk job), I have a coworker who only worked part of last year and brought in a $6000 dollar tax return when I sincerely doubt they even came close to paying that much.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  2. The young and the rich by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    I think there's a persistent perception in certain areas that only the well off and perhaps the young use cell phones. This makes them easy targets for tax rises - the rich don't care, and the young don't vote. From a revenue perspective it's a no brainer.

    1. Re:The young and the rich by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or politicians are money grubbing thieves and hope people wont notice a 20% tax because it's stuffed int their phone bill. But your theory could be correct to.

    2. Re:The young and the rich by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      I bet this is the reason, in the same way that sales taxes are easier to implement because people get used to it (as opposed to filling a form once a year and looking at the final result).

      The second thing I find most appaling of politics and democracy is the way elected politicians try to deceive people about what they really do. I mean, you get a tax for the politically correct services (emergency services), so if you protest you look like the grumpy odd man who is against PD and FD.

      Well, the question is: Doesn't PD and FD budget come from the same taxes everything else does? Putting a tax like that is just a excuse (because PD and FD budgets will be the same whatever this tax gets to them, the only difference is that with that tax they will receive less money from the "general fund" (and the benefit will end in the "general fund"). A tax like this adds offense to the injury, it means "we will tax you like an adult while treating you like a child who can't add two and two together. Suck it up dumbass!"

      If you have to tax a service, then in my book, one of two:

      • It is really an externality and gets used to it: v.g. "tax to recycle used cell towers", "tax to recicle used cell phones", "tax for healthcare from accidents caused by a driver who has talking in the phone". Whatever.
      • You are honest about it and just put it as "Local/State/Whatever Tax". Then we can speak later if it is appropiate to fund the government through this way, or there are other ways or things to be taxed that would be more sense.

      And BTW, the most appaling thing about democracies is that politicians get to treat their electors as if they were idiots, and they keep getting reelected. One ends wondering if they are if the politicians are, after all, right.

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    3. Re:The young and the rich by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Or you could just have a flat sales tax so its out in the open for everyone to see rather than this maze of tax code that's incomprehensible even to the people that write and maintain it.

  3. Makes sense. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    There are some things the government does that you can't qactually tax.

    Prisons, schools, libraries, and so on.

    So you use a wider tax base to pay for them.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Makes sense. by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you use a wider tax base to pay for them.

      Absolutely. Since these resources are available to or able to be used by everyone, then use the widest tax base possible - raise taxes for everyone. If you can't pay for the poison control in your state, then your state needs to raise more taxes; state legislatures shouldn't be abusing growing industries just because they're terrified to say "higher taxes" instead of "wireless surcharge." It's either that or actually manage the state budget more responsibly.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:Makes sense. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah yes this:

      "...manage the state budget more responsibly"
      I have come to believe that's actually a strawman argument when people use it politically.

      A politicians job is NOT to manage the budget, but to try to do what it's constituents want.
      So what happens when the people don't ant higher taxes, want all the services, and scream at politicians to 'manage the budget"?

      Well, you get in a situation where every pundit blames a politician for the problems when it's really the people that have a problem with a basic understanding of government finance.

      The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.

      No, it's not perfect but it is damn good.

      If someone want's to cut something, then fine we can talk about that specific issue. But blanket statements like "mange the budget" and "cut taxes" are worthless in and of themselves.

      Sorry, I don't want to seem like I am ranting.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll bite:
      In 2010, the budget was 3.6 trillion.
      In 2009, it was 3.1 trillion.
      We budgeted for an extra half a trillion of government, but it doesn't feel like we're doing a whole heck of a lot better. It sure seems like somewhere in that half a trillion, there was a heck of a lot of waste. No delusion required.

    4. Re:Makes sense. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.

      Uh huh. let's look at the top three items, military spending, Social Security, and Medicare. In a sense, they are very efficient. They spend a lot of money without a lot of wasteful worrying about what that money is being spent on. Social Security is just a glorified check writing entity. Medicare is almost as bad (with a much heavier bureaucracy to make sure the checks are cashed properly). And military spending is heavy on cost plus contracts (yet more check writing), yet more comfortable ways to pass money on to private hands without entailing the risk of not making a profit.

      But if you compare the size and cost of these programs to what they claim to do, you see that these programs are vastly inefficient and in some cases don't make sense at all. Currently, the claimed role of Social Security is to offer so-called "unemployment insurance". For that purpose, it takes somewhere in excess of $700 billion from US workers and moves most of it to retirees who are generally wealthier than the workers that the money came from. That's not efficient even if the administrative costs are low.

      Medicare does similar things for medical care. It has pathetic cost controls and grows at a rate faster than GDP (meaning this program will need to be fixed at some point). I don't consider a financial disaster of our own making to be efficient.

      Finally, military spending is more than the rest of the world combined. A large portion of it consists of expensive contracts to private businesses which end up hiring people for several times the cost of the military personnel they replaced.

      Sure, a military that doesn't cut its own potatoes is a better fighting force, but the cost isn't worth that small improvement in quality. I'd rather have a moderately less capable military for a vastly lower cost.

    5. Re:Makes sense. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      We spent that much in attempt to stop things from getting much, much worse. Many economists were predicting a repeat of the great depression.

      Would it have been that bad? Did the money spent even work? Would the economy be better if we spent even more? I don't know. And neither does anyone else. Our models just aren't that good.

    6. Re:Makes sense. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Many economists were predicting a repeat of the great depression.

      So, naturally, the best thing the government could do is what it did to make the great depression a great depression. You know, that isn't always the wisest course. Usually, when you look at history and see that certain courses of action had extremely negative consequences, then you find yourself in a similar situation, it is best to do something different. Unfortunately, our government decided that it liked the great depression so much that it would try the same thing again.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Makes sense. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      I see your reading comprehension isn't that good.

      They did what one set of economists said would be best. Others said different. Neither really knows, they were guesses. Our economic modeling just isn't good enough to tell what would have happened, but feel free to bash it because your horoscope said it was the wrong thing to do.

    8. Re:Makes sense. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      They did basically the same thing that FDR did in the 1930s, which prolonged the Great Depression.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Makes sense. by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Or shortened it, depending on what economist, with what model, you talk to. Then there's the variable of how much to do it, vs doing it at all.

      But I see you've swallowed one view hook, line, and sinker.

    10. Re:Makes sense. by khallow · · Score: 1

      A politicians job is NOT to manage the budget, but to try to do what it's constituents want.

      That's quite the scam (being able to spend trillions of dollars, but having no responsibility for doing so in a fiscally sound way) and I'm not in the least surprised that this remark is found in the same post as vacuous claims that the US government doesn't have a lot of waste. I read it as saying "Even if I'm totally wrong and government is wasting vast sums of money, it doesn't matter because it's the job of the American people, not the people actually delegating the spending, to make sure the money is spent right."

      Well, I'm here to say that you are wrong about this as well your other claims. US Congress has been assigned the power to lay taxes and provide for the common defense and general welfare. Spending that in a way that harms the future of the US isn't providing for the general welfare.

      Sure, you aren't likely to ever get a really bad spending law overturned on constitutional grounds, but I noticed that a number of unconstitutional things are considered constitutional merely because one can get away with the actions. Like something is legal, if you aren't caught doing it.

      So what happens when the people don't ant higher taxes, want all the services, and scream at politicians to 'manage the budget"?

      Compromise.

      For example, I'm quite willing to compromise. I feel that the overall budget, including "mandatory" spending, needs to be reduced about 30-50% to reach near zero deficit. I'm willing to suffer modest tax increases in order achieve that goal. I'm willing to cut anything to reach that goal. Please, call my bluff.

    11. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.

    12. Re:Makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No argument from me on the military side, but there are some counterpoints on Social Security and Medicare. The short answer is that both programs are economically worthwhile, but their current implementation is deeply flawed.

      Social Security is not retirement savings. Social Security is about guaranteed income for your (potential and actual) nonworking years. That's important, because no matter how much you save, market risk, inflation risk, longevity risk (outliving your savings), and the risk of a career ending disability can potentially leave you without any means of supporting yourself. The only way to protect yourself from that is to have a source of postemployment income guaranteed by an entity that you expect to be stable enough to ride out bad times.

      The problem with Social Security, is that it doesn't make use of one of the major advantages of pooling risks: long-run investment return is better than short-run investment return and the investment horizon for a group of people is longer than the investment horizon for one person. Right now, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program which means the money isn't invested except in the form of loans to Federal agencies, which essentially amounts to the minimum possible return you can possibly get on your money. If the money paid into Social Security were earning a decent investment return, it would be an affordable way to provide core postemployment income. Getting to that point would require tackling some tough problems, such as avoiding allowing a government fund participating in the market being used for political influence.

      Medicare has the same problems since it's also pay-as-you-go. It has other problems, such as spiraling claims costs, which you mentioned. On that point... well, dude, I hate to break it to you but, all healthcare costs have been growing faster than GDP... for decades. The whole damn thing is going to have to be fixed at some point, not just medicare. It's really a pretty big clusterfuck since the underlying issue is that improving treatment of cancer and heart disease is increasing health care cost, due to the cost not just of initial treatment, but of ongoing treatment of survivors. Each additional year of life expectancy is more expensive than the last. At some point, people are going to start thinking about how much they're willing to pay to live to a certain age. Regardless of what you think the answer to that is, the cheapest way to pay for it is to pay a contributions over your working lifetime into a fund that will provide you with medical care in your postemployment years.

    13. Re:Makes sense. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's true, but it doesn't excuse these kinds of hidden taxes. If there is a need to plug the budget hole, and cuts are not viable, then raise the income tax (esp. the highest brackets which have been at a historical minimum for the last two decades or so). But this? It's essentially an extra sales tax, except they don't call it such (in fact, they don't even call it a tax), and it's buried in your bill such that you have to know what to look for.

      I am, generally speaking, for reasonable amount of taxation to provide for various useful state services (see sig), but for that to work, taxes need to be simple and straightforward, and spending needs to be completely transparent - like, say, just one progressive income tax (just make sure it covers investment income).

    14. Re:Makes sense. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      A politicians job is NOT to manage the budget, but to try to do what it's constituents want.

      Well, that's certainly the attitude that's gotten us into this mess. There are few things that we absolutely NEED government to supply.

      The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.

      Have you had a lot of experience with government programs? In my experience, they are generally meticulously documented, account properly for every penny, and still are completely stupid ideas. It's not the process that's inefficient; it's the goal. Before we married, my now-wife managed an NSF grant for a public school system. She was careful to dot her i's and cross her t's, and the money was - at least on paper - spent quite properly. But the items the money was spent on were of questionable value, and the cash tended to flow to well-connected firms exclusively. Before she left, she made enough copies of the appropriate documentation to make sure that, should anyone investigate, she wouldn't be the fall guy. Yes, if you look at it from the Washington perspective, it was a great success - a grant was managed with less than 10% administrative expenses and provided a number of services to the local community. But from the local perspective, it didn't do anything really useful.

    15. Re:Makes sense. by superdave80 · · Score: 1

      In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.

      Thank goodness I wasn't drinking anything when I read this statement, or it would have come out through my nose.

      I could fill this post with links to examples that run counter to your ridiculous statement, but I'll stick to just this one:
      http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/04/top-10-examples-of-government-waste

      Hightlights include:
      1. $25 billion that can't even be accounted for.
      2. DOD spending $100 million on plane tickets never used.
      3. Government credit cards that were charged millions for gambling, personal vacation trips, strip clubs, etc.
      4. Billions wasted through Medicare.
      5. The Army Corps of Engineers making shit up to justify unnecessary water and damn projects.

      I could go on like this for days, but I think you get the point.

    16. Re:Makes sense. by 517714 · · Score: 1

      It is the job of our elected officials to manage the budget. It is the job of the politicians to get re-elected, they do it by not doing the job they were elected to do.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    17. Re:Makes sense. by Onuma · · Score: 2

      Having a "moderately less capable" military means we get our asses kicked moderately more proportionately. It may be my perception, but it sounds like you haven't done your time in the service.
      Funding a standing military is the single most expensive venture any nation or entity can accomplish. This is because you have to feed, clothe, house, arm, and equip those soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines effectively. Oh yeah, and you have to pay them -- though their pay is generally well below what your average worker makes. Even with crappy paychecks, soldiers are EXPENSIVE. To top it all off, there are security clearances and compartmentalization for counter-espionage purposes, which adds to the necessary funding.

      Want to know what is even more expensive than keeping a soldier trained up? ...having one die on you. Take ALL of those costs of clearances, training, food, equipment, arms, housing and toss them down the drain. Now you've got to retrain another to do his job, incurring every expense you laid out for the fallen guy. And now you've got to pay out his Soldier's Group Life Insurance policy to his beneficiaries ($400k pre-taxes).

      I'm not saying that the Department of Defense couldn't make cuts here and there; many areas of the DOD have been over the years, even if others have gotten proportionally more funding. But to short change the fighting men and women is both foolhardy and expensive in money and lives.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    18. Re:Makes sense. by khallow · · Score: 2

      I'll be blunt. That shiny army is helping to destroy the US's future. We win the wars a bit more handily today, but we do so at the cost of the wars and other tribulations tomorrow. Poorly controlled military spending is merely a significant portion of the problem and certainly is far from frivolous, but it's not helping. We need to pay attention to our future not just our present.

      IMHO a nation deeply in debt can't maintain an effective fighting force and a nation with lackluster growth can't maintain the technological edge that helps the US military today. I think the current fiscal situation (several years of large deficits as a percentage of GDP) is dire enough that, if continued for another four years, 2013-2017, we will see radical cutbacks in essential federal services like the military.

      For example, interest on the US debt by 2020 may well be as big a percentage of US GDP as the US military is now. All it has to do is triple in size which I think can be reached through a combination of great expansion of US debt, poor growth of the US economy over the next ten years, and a degrading of the perceived quality of US debt (which increases the interest payments on new US debt).

      A significant cost reduction now (mirrored in all significant federal programs, including mandatory spending) would help prevent that.

    19. Re:Makes sense. by w_dragon · · Score: 2

      Maybe you missed the part where the US military costs more than *every other world military combined*. Stop and think about that. You're a large country with only 2 neighbors accessible by land, neither of which is hostile towards you. The only other armies in the world that have both the manpower and potential technology to threaten you from across an ocean are Russia, which is having trouble making payments to keep their nuclear subs heated, and China, who would have trouble maintaining their standard of living if their biggest customer suddenly disappeared. You have so many overlapping military and pseudo-military branches with their own messy bureaucracies that the pentagon has said it can't even put together a high-level accurate budget! I think you could significantly cut military spending and still be the greatest military power in the world, by far.

    20. Re:Makes sense. by osgeek · · Score: 1

      The is a delusion going on that the US government has a lot of waste. IN truth, it doesn't. In fct a large majority of govenrment programs are extremely efficient and costs are well contained.

      What is that sentiment based upon? In my experience, you only know how (in)efficient a program or operation is based upon a comparison. It's kind of hard to compare government programs like military operations when we don't have data from other non-govts doing something similar.

      My best experience is with comparing public education to private education at the elementary school level. My wife has worked in both environments over a period of 2 decades. There is no comparison. Public education is inefficient in the extreme. Public schools make dramatically more per head, teachers are paid more, facilities are always better -- but they almost always stink when compared to nearby private schools.

      Public projects are almost always inefficient. There's no motivation for them to be efficient. They get their money whether or not they're useful or efficient since there's rarely any accountability like you have in the private sector. When a Public sector project fails, often times the government just throws more money at it.

      If you run a public works project, you can almost always spin it so that it looks like success. What are you measuring the damned thing by? Who cares anyway since by the time the next election comes around, voters will have forgotten all about the lack of success.

      Non monopolistic private sector entities are almost always accountable because it's easy to measure success: Are they making money and keeping their customers? When a private sector entity fails, they go out of business and are replaced by a company that does things better/more efficiently.

      --
      Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
    21. Re:Makes sense. by Onuma · · Score: 1

      Maybe you missed the part where I stated that the TROOPS should not be neglected or penalized, downgraded, or barred from any of the care, training, or equipment that they've rightfully earned and deserve. I'm talking about the guys and gals in uniforms and boots digging their own latrines, pulling guard duty and patrols in 145F weather in head-to-toe covering with 75+ lbs of gear and armor, and generally enduring and persevering in the shittiest conditions you can possibly imagine. Not the Gov't Senior Executive who is sitting in a TOC in Baghdad with his Blackberry and Starbucks bullshit making 5-10x the salary of the grunts on the streets (literally).

      There are plenty of agencies and processes within the DOD that can trim the fat. I stated as much earlier. But don't take away from the troops themselves. They are the single resource we cannot replenish indefinitely and/or easily - human life. I'm not just armchair quarterbacking here, I have been in the shit and know full well what the difference between a prepared, well-equipped military can do vs. a bunch of "moderately less effective" troops. Work on making logistics more streamlined, cut out unnecessary communications bandwidth (VTC is a huge waste, for example), quit the useless, overlapping bureaucratic nonsense which delays and convolutes everything, stop printing so much redundant paperwork and go digital, etc. There are thousands of ways to cut back, and the troops should be the absolute last on the DOD list, because when you need them now you can't send in troops you don't have, or who aren't ready for the task.

      --
      What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
    22. Re:Makes sense. by Devoidoid · · Score: 1

      We win the wars a bit more handily today,

      Cite please.

    23. Re:Makes sense. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Cite please.

      khallow, "Re:Makes Sense", February 16, 2011. "Taxes On Cell Phones Hit All-Time High", "timothy", www.slashdot.org, Geeknet Inc., February 15, 2011, Accessed: February 17, 2011.

      You might notice that the citation is self-referential. Opinions always are.

      I could also point to body counts as another means of determining ease of victory. The US has remarkably low body counts in recent wars, while its foes typically do not.

  4. Fees by Dyinobal · · Score: 0

    In the last decade or so, random fees has become an industry all it's own.

    1. Re:Fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obvious reason for being an Anonymous Coward.

      Working for a big telecom (not in US), one quarter, they asked our team to introduce a Service Access Fee for those who used a particular service without an explicit plan for that service, it was 50 cents so no one cared much, Q1 revenue gained, few millions, just like that.

      Next quarter they asked us to charge an additional 50 cents as Administrative fee for those that did have an explicit plan for that service.

      We did, but we were laughing at the business request.

  5. my cell costs are now $7 a month by bball99 · · Score: 1

    discovered the benefits of a throwaway tracfone and haven't looked back...

    all i want is a phone (don't even do SMS) and i am very happy...

    recommend getting a double-minutes-life phone right off the bat...

    can find 'em in a full box w/auto charger, hands-free set, and case for
    $4.88 in the local dollar stores...

    taxes? pppphhhht! negligible...

  6. poison control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you really call poison control from a land line?

    1. Re:poison control by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2

      Would you really call poison control from a land line?

      Me: Hey, what's this in the large white bottle in my kitchen near my landline? [sniff, sniff] It smells lemony. I wonder if it's lemonade or lemon scented bleach?
      :: moments later ::
      Me: Hello, poison control? I just accidentally drank dishwashing liquid while trying to get the taste of the worst lemonade ever out of my mouth ...

  7. Sales Tax by pedersend_ · · Score: 1

    Or it could be that us in WA only have a sales tax. So it's not that we pay higher fees and we get screwed, it's the method by which WA collects it's taxes.

    1. Re:Sales Tax by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      Just because it's the way that we collect taxes doesn't mean that we're not getting screwed.

  8. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Brit, this makes perfect sense to me. 20% doesn't seem particularly high. The current rate of VAT in the UK is currently 20% and that tax is applied to almost all purchases (including cell phone services).

    From the article:

    "On average, consumers pay over 16 percent on wireless taxes and fees, compared to 7.4 percent for other taxable goods"

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got to pay for the services somehow ;)
      In the US, you pay dederal taxes, state taxes, and county/city taxes. The state and county/city taxes can be both sales tax at time of purchase and a yearly tax based on value of things you already own.

      I pay federal income tax, state income tax, state sales tax, county property tax based on value of things I own (my house, land, cars). Plus extra taxes added in for certain things like a county storm water tax, petrol tax per gallon, random fees called taxes for phone service, drivers license, vehicle registration etc..

      Some states require a high sales tax and no state income tax, some pay a low sales tax and a high income tax, some do not one one or the other, some pay no or little property tax but they have a wage or school tax. Some states charge a vehicle tax when you register it yearly, some charge a property tax on the cars even if they are not registered. It is very confusing but most people only have to worry about they area they are in so it's not that bad to figure out.

    2. Re:So? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      The US has a different tax structure from many other countries; we depend heavily on individual and corporate income taxes for governmental revenue. There is NO national sales tax of any kind; sales taxes are purely state matters. Imagine if your local council were to have the authority to put up an additional 5% tax on all purchases.

    3. Re:So? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Which is absurd. You not only pay twice as much as the US in income taxes, but then you pay more than twice as much in sales tax on EVERY thing you buy, plus all the other mountains of taxes they add on. Wouldn't you like to, I dunno, actually have some money left from your paycheck to buy something you want or to save for the future?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:So? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      We seem to have better infrastructure, much better social security, healthcare and all the rest of that socialist stuff.

      plus all the other mountains of taxes they add on

      No, there's income tax (on income) and VAT (value added tax, on "added value", but for an individual that means purchases). Extra taxes on random stuff like in this article are rare, a more-or-less complete list of stuff attracting these taxes is: petrol, alcoholic drinks, tobacco, betting, vehicle purchase, insurance, flights, landfill, aggregates, and climate change (I'm not sure how that last one works).

      VAT doesn't apply on normal food and various other things, and is charged at a lower rate on some things (non-vehicle fuel, i.e. gas for heating/cooking and electricity).

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We seem to have better infrastructure, much better social security, healthcare and all the rest of that socialist stuff."

      Nice strawman. I've been to Europe. Many times. You still have plenty of people who are absolutely destitute, sitting on the corners with their hands out, so don't tell me some bullshit about "better social security." I've never seen a place with so many immigrant street vendors trying to sell me cheap toys and knock-off designer goods or trying to distract me while they lift my wallet as when I'm in Europe. As for healthcare, why do you think the wealthiest people in the world fly to Houston for critical life-saving care? Ever been to the Houston medical center? It's like a fucking enormous hospital city populated by the best doctors in the world with access to the best medical equipment in the world. It's where Rep. Giffords was flown to for her rehabilitation care after that psycho shot her in the head. So much for your "better healthcare" argument. Oh, wait, by "better" you meant "everyone else pays for me." Typical lazy Eurotrash faggot.

      My house is likely twice the size of yours, I have 2 cars, lots of electronic gadgets, and I always have access to whatever food and medical care I and my family require. I'll keep my dollars in my pocket and spend them how I see fit. Enabling idlers to freeload off of the rest of us is not an act of mercy. It's condemning them to a dehumanizing life that robs them of their motivation and potential.

  9. CA sales tax by acwnh · · Score: 2

    Here in CA, the wireless vendors have to charge sales tax on the full retail price of the phone you buy even if you actually pay less than that with a contract. For example, my Droid X retails for $569.99. I can get it for $149.99 with a 2 year contract and an online purchase discount. I will be charged $52.72 in sales tax, which is an effective sales tax rate of over 35%! It's quite the ripoff!

    1. Re:CA sales tax by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Well, no, because you got a $569.99 phone for $149.99. That's $420 the phone company paid you, which counts as income to you.

      That's if you could walk up with a phone you bought and get the same contract at the same rate. If bringing your own hardware results in a lower price, then on the discoutned-phone plan you're really paying for the phone on the installment plan, and the taxes in your contract rate should be lowered by the taxes you already paid on the phone.

      If they aren't, then you have a beef.

    2. Re:CA sales tax by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out the part where the phone company pays someone every time they buy a cell phone. As far as I can tell, money is being exchanged from me to them. Not from them to me. Is there some new company out there I should be aware of? I like free money.

    3. Re:CA sales tax by acwnh · · Score: 2

      No, it's a special case. If I buy a television (or anything other than a cell phone) on sale, I am charged sales tax on the actual price I pay, not the full retail value. If I buy the phone in a non-sales tax state, I don't have to declare the difference in price on my income taxes.

    4. Re:CA sales tax by severoon · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're absolutely right. And if the phone company decides they don't want to make a phone available unless you get a plan, they could charge $1M for the phone and give a $1M - $100 rebate on it. Total cost to you: $100 + tax*.

      * taxes assessed on $1M. problem, citizen?

      Obviously, the phone isn't worth $570 when you get it with the plan. It's worth $150 in that case. I'll give you one guess as to where I got that number... -sigh-

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    5. Re:CA sales tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an added bonus in WA, we pay the sales tax on the 'regular' price of every item. So if a store offers a $200.00 off coupon on a $1000.00 TV, then we pay the 9.5% tax (varies by locale) on the $1000.00 not the $800.00. Lucky us!

    6. Re:CA sales tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Department of Revenue says that it depends on what type of coupon.

      http://taxpedia.dor.wa.gov/ - lookup "Coupons Used in Retail Sales" 2nd result is a Word file with that title.

      This is what it looks like (IANAL, tax guy, what ever, and all that, but I think this is what it is saying here)
      Says that if the coupon is issued by the retail store and redeemable only at that store, or at the affiliated stores of a chain is an actual discount, the the sales tax is the final value since the retailer will only get what the consumer pays.

      A coupon issued by manufacturers or distributors and redeemable anywhere the manufacture's products are sold, since the retailer will get the full price of the good(minus maybe a handling fee), the full sales tax value has to be paid (usually by the consumer...)

      So I guess that if you are paying the tax on the $1000, but only paying $800 for the TV, then it means that they are getting $200 from someone else.
      (And 9.5%? You must be either buying somewhere in King or Snohomish counties since those are the only 2 counties that have any places with the combined rate at 9.5%)

    7. Re:CA sales tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong - if it counted as income, you would declare it on your income taxes on a 1099-MISC form or something similar (and the feds would want a cut). It's not income.

      I get what you're saying, but this kind of fucked up logic only works in the world of accountants and politicians who think reality is their play thing and a warehouse inventory can be changed by simply writing it on paper.

      Back in the world of reality, you and I can arbitrarily set the price of anything depending on a value we negotiate - I could sell you a can of air for $1,000,000 say - and charge you the low rate of $5.99, but "gift/give/whatever" you the rest. Should you pay a 10% sales tax on $999,994.01? So is it the state saying the phone is worth $569.99 or someone else?

      The above sounds like some trollish logic trap, unless you swap out "can of air" with "modern art". The point is, prices on things are relative and determined between the buyer and the seller. Barring fraud or corruption, there is no third party involvement in this transaction, and the only price that matters is the price you actually paid for it.

    8. Re:CA sales tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In VA, you pay sales tax on used cars. The tax is based on the "book value". If you buy a car with a blown engine for $100, you could potentially pay sales tax based on its $5000 book value. To be honest, I do not know the actual law but I've had a signed title in hand that clearly shows the sale price and still paid taxes based on the states assumed value. I argued with the DMV person at the counter but it's not like they are going to compromise and all they have to do is say, "Sorry, have a nice, NEXT!" and you are out of luck.

      I've since started taking a hand written bill of sale with me as well, it has the same exact information as the signed title that changed hands (price paid, mileage, previous owners name etc) and so far the DMV has accepted that as proof of actual price paid. Odd, that the official signed title is not considered valid enough to them but a hand written receipt is.

    9. Re:CA sales tax by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      Caveat: we'll ignore the fact that your monthly rate does NOT go down once you have completed your contract.

      According to the phone company the phone SUBSIDIZED via that 2 year contract. So, by your logic, and by the current state of things that means you are being DOUBLE taxed. How is that you ask: because the customer is providing $420 of value to the telco via the contract (rad: the telco gets their $420 via the monthly payment during the 2-year contract term). So now I'm taxed on that $420 at time of purchase AND taxed on my monthly contract payments. Because make no mistake, that contract has value and the customer is the one providing that value. Don't believe it? Just ask the phone company to give you a phone for at the discount rate without a contract. I only ask that you video the encounter and post it on YouTube so we can watch as the sales rep dies from laughter.

      I mean afterall if we are going to use sketchy logic lets go all the way. And as another poster has already said: we aren't taxed on the full price of a TV when buying it on sale. But by your logic that really is straight up "income to me" so why aren't customers taxed on that full retail price? Yup that's right, it is just as absurd as taxing on the full price of the phone.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    10. Re:CA sales tax by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Caveat: we'll ignore the fact that your monthly rate does NOT go down once you have completed your contract.

      You can't ignore that. That means that the full value of the phone was given to you, but you only paid a portion of it, and the phone contract was a separate deal, even though you had to buy the contract to get the phone cheap.

      That means you should be taxed on the value of the phone that was gifted to you, since in the contract you are only taxed for the contract fees.

  10. hidden taxes are worse than regular taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Coming from Canada I'm amazed at how low taxes in the United States are. I'd love to pay higher taxes and get a better society as a result. (Not that a better society is a given with higher taxes, but I do think higher taxes are necessary to support the functioning of a better society.) But this be the wrong way to do it. I'd love a simpler and more uniform tax code with lower corporate income tax with many fewer loopholes and higher personal income tax or sales tax (or GST or VAT or similar). The idea of special fees and taxes on specific goods and services seems counterproductive to me unless they attempt to make up for the social costs imposed by using those goods and services. Cell phones seem to be valuable and accessible to almost all people, and so cell phone specific fees seem like bad taxation to me, even though I would like higher taxes in general.

    1. Re:hidden taxes are worse than regular taxes by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'd love a simpler and more uniform tax code

      Agreed.

      with lower corporate income tax with many fewer loopholes and higher personal income tax or sales tax (or GST or VAT or similar).

      Er, why? Why do you want low corporate rates and high personal rates? How is it in any way beneficial to society?

      And sales tax? This one is effectively a regressive income tax - a horrible idea.

    2. Re:hidden taxes are worse than regular taxes by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Lower corporate taxes are a good thing for creating jobs. Countries with high corporate taxes (like the US) experience outsourcing because the high taxes increase the cost of doing business, where countries with low corporate taxes experience insourcing (they're the ones the outsourced jobs go to). That's why pretty much every economist will tell you that the best way to improve the US economy is to drastically cut corporate taxes to get companies to move back to the US (then you get income taxes on all the jobs created). But that won't happen, because "corporations are evil" and fuck if we all end up unemployed as long as those "evil" job providing businesses are punished.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re:hidden taxes are worse than regular taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you want a simpler Tax Code, but you want a VAT? I fully agree with most of your post (simple tax code, few loopholes, foolishness of special taxes/fees) but you can't do most of that by throwing something inherently complex.

    4. Re:hidden taxes are worse than regular taxes by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Er, why? Why do you want low corporate rates and high personal rates? How is it in any way beneficial to society?

      Transparent taxes are beneficial to society. Say you buy a bed for $350 dollars. Maybe $38 of that cost goes to pay the corporate taxes on the supply chain. Do most people account for this when they try to figure out how much their government is costing them? And everybody needs a bed, so it's regressive.

      Specific corporate taxes also have problems. Here in New Hampshire we have a corporate revenues tax that doesn't account for profits at all. I have a cool idea for a very low-margin business that I'm not pursuing because it's not worth uprooting the family to do it.

      And sales tax? This one is effectively a regressive income tax - a horrible idea.

      The current income tax is the most regressive of all. 22% of the price of "everything" goes to pay income taxes up the supply chain. That $2 loaf of bread a single mother working for minimum wage buys for her kids' lunches contains 50 cents of other people's income taxes. That's just mean.

      A 'head tax' that's set at a level everybody can afford is the most transparent and fair option.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  11. What's wrong with taxes? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
    Taxes aren't a crime. Taxes are how we transfer wealth away from the wealthy and give entitlements to those deemed deserving. If I've learned one thing watching the news, it's that anyone who's against taxes are a bunch of Baracknophobic idiots.

    Baracknophobia: an irrational fear of hope (Jon Stewart)

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      dude, baracknaphobia is even more twisted than fartbama. Can we at least discuss this like grownups?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Taxes are how we transfer wealth away from the wealthy and give entitlements to those deemed deserving.

      That's a terrible definition, IMO. Practically a Baraknophobic strawman.

      Taxes provide, via defense, infrastructure, public safety, public education, etc., the basis for a stable society. That stable society is the basis on which almost all survive, many prosper and a few become very wealthy. Tax law holds people to their end of this bargain.

    3. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that anyone who's against taxes is also a racist?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      Can we at least discuss this like grownups?

      No, you! lalalalalala. I can't hear you. pbbbbbbbt!

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
    5. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by ynp7 · · Score: 1

      It's very possible, they're both expressions of extreme stupidity.

    6. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Maybe if Warren Buffet paid $1 million/month tax for his cell. Of course he is too cheap to even pay a few dollars in taxes and doesn't carry one...

    7. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Taxes are how we transfer wealth away from the wealthy and give entitlements to those deemed deserving.

      Taxes are somewhat redistributive, but the biggest ticket items (Social Security and Medicare) are mostly just forced savings!

      Yes, I know people will dispute this, since the entitlement is in the form of a promise of future payments instead of a dollar or some other promissory note. But the net effect is about the same.

      As for cellphone taxes, whether they are "archaic" or "duplicated" is beside the point, as is whether "this" money pays for "that" service. What matters is the size of the tax burden and how it is distributed, and the quantity and quality of government services, and how they are distributed. The rest is semantic games.

    8. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your comment is an expression of extreme stupidity

    9. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And here I've been told by the media that Barack Obama would be the "Great Unifier" when in fact he's really propped up to defend against anyone who disagrees with his policies as "racist" by people like you.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      As are blanket statements. Thanks for playing.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    11. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      No, taxes are a way to take money from a person who earned it and give it to a person who did not earn it. People like you think it's OK when the government takes money from those you dislike and gives it to you or those you deem "worthy", even though they didn't earn it or do a single thing to deserve it. However, if an individual forcefully takes money from someone and gives it to someone else they deem more worthy (or keeps it for themselves) we call this "theft". As someone (I forget who) once said, "If I cannot legally do something, what right do I have to petition the government to do it on my behalf?"

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    12. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Actually SS and Medicare aren't forced savings - that's the problem. They're a pyramid scheme of wealth redistribution where the current workforce is required to pay money to support the now-retired former workers of a generation ago. This works just fine as long as you have a constantly rate of population growth ( for any population growth rate >= 0), but once you have a significant decrease in population growth from one generation to the next (as the US did going from the baby boomers to the current generation), then it all falls apart (which is exactly what's happening to the US) because either a) you keep the contributions per worker the same and then run a massive deficit due to the lower ratio of workers per retirees or b) you drastically raise taxes to compensate for the lower ratio of workers to retirees, but then the current generation both has a lower standard of living and less money to save for retirement.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    13. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      All of the entitlements beyond those necessary to maintain a stable society are used to provide stability to the parties in power. Tax law is used to determine whose vote is purchased.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    14. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Demographic shifts are bound to cause those issues, more or less regardless of how they are managed or accounted for. Money doesn't actually store value, it's just a way of recording future entitlements (although money does NOT specify what or how much of anything you'll be entitled to when you go to redeem it).

      A society with low birth rates will have a lower standard of living regardless of what numbers in bank computers say. There are less producers and more consumers. If people have lots of savings, then the wages for laborers (now relatively scarce) will increase.

    15. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      In a closed economy, you would be correct. However, we do not live in a closed economy and we do business (both buying and selling) with pretty much every country in the world.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    16. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Do you also call your landlord a thief when he forces you to pay the rent or else to GTFO?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Wow, totally fallacious argument. Not only do I voluntarily decide to rent apartment X at monthly price Y, but he is providing a service and I am paying for it. That is 100% different from you being taxed to pay me to sit at home doing nothing because I failed at life and can't keep a job.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    18. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Tortenglocke,

      the society provides you and your potential clients with the security and infrastructure you need for business transactions. This is the service you pay for. You also - providing you don't live in a dictatorship that doesn't allow its citizens to move out, which I doubt, otherwise you wouldn't have the means to bitch about taxes - are absolutely free to, as the analogy goes, rent a different appartment elsewhere. It is a free market after all. If you decide to stay within your current borders, it is your voluntarily choice and it is none of your business what your landlord uses you rent payments for. If he choses to support his ne'er-do-well cousin, so be it.
      The society you live in is your landlord and you pay the rent in form of taxes. Don't like paying the rent - move elsewhere.
      And as for calling me a troll and implying me being a leech, I am actually one of those who at the same time are in favour of high taxes and actually do pay them. If you absolutely want to know, last year I've paid EUR 14424 in income taxes - which at the current exchange rate is almost as much as you've earned.

      Who has failed at life now?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Taxes are somewhat redistributive, but the biggest ticket items (Social Security and Medicare) are mostly just forced savings!"

      That's an interesting way to look at a Ponzi scheme. I don't know any banks that would guarantee poor people a huge return on their money in the "savings" account, while guaranteeing that the wealthy get hosed. If you do, then by all means provide a link. Yes, taxes are necessary to provide a stable society. What's not necessary is for the government to spend more than it takes in year after year after year, and then crank up the money printing presses and / or demand more money from me when they realize they've nearly spent themselves into insolvency. That's just incompetence, plain and simple.

    20. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Meh, that's one thing I'll have to disagree with Jon Stewart on. I don't think Baracknophobia is an irrational fear of hope. I am pretty sure it's an irrational fear of change. Even in my home state (California) where we are supposed to be progressive and forward thinking (by stereotype), people seem to consistently keep things as close to the status quo as possible. Hell, I even have a coworker whose personal motto is, "Change is bad."

      I don't think it's the hope that scares people, but rather, the thought of change.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    21. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Good point, although I would add that much of what seniors need are services, rather than goods that can be imported. This is particularly pertinent for Medicare.

    22. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      the society provides you and your potential clients with the security and infrastructure you need for business transactions.

      Which I have never argued against taxes for police and roads. However, paying people to NOT work and punishing those who work hard in order to benefit the lazy and incompetent does NOT benefit me or society as a whole.

      The rest of your post is irrational crap that's totally off the point of what I said regarding rent. However, if you suggest moving to another country - I've considered it. The only problem is any other first world country rapes you even harder than the US government does when it comes to taxes punishing hard work and success, so unfortunately, there are no viable alternatives.

      And as for calling me a troll and implying me being a leech, I am actually one of those who at the same time are in favour of high taxes and actually do pay them. If you absolutely want to know, last year I've paid EUR 14424 in income taxes - which at the current exchange rate is almost as much as you've earned.

      Well given the fact that the BOTTOM tax bracket in Europe tends to be around 40%, you could've made a whopping (that's sarcasm, by the way) $50,000 and paid as much in taxes as I earned in a year.

      Who has failed at life now?

      I never said anyone here failed at life. What you failed to read was me saying that YOU should not be held financially responsible if I mess up MY life. As for my income? Two factors there - one is that I was unemployed the first three months of the year and two, I'm in grad school, so after I graduate I'll probably be making more than you (and that's just straight out of school), paying less taxes, and having a higher quality of life than you. Oh, and the comment about you trolling is in regards to your nonsensical and fallacious "arguments" in favor of absurdly high taxes.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    23. Re:What's wrong with taxes? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The rest of your post is irrational crap that's totally off the point of what I said regarding rent. However, if you suggest moving to another country - I've considered it. The only problem is any other first world country rapes you even harder than the US government does when it comes to taxes punishing hard work and success, so unfortunately, there are no viable alternatives.

      And guess what, it is not a punishment for hard work and success, it is a fee for enabling you to be successful. You can move to a tax heaven, but you probably would not be able to earn much there. This is what you constantly fail to understand.

      Well given the fact that the BOTTOM tax bracket in Europe tends to be around 40%, you could've made a whopping (that's sarcasm, by the way) $50,000 and paid as much in taxes as I earned in a year.

      Which would still not be bad - I've earned about as much a few years ago, but you exaggerate a lot. The top income tax bracket for Germany was around 28% last year IIRC. Anyway, what you forget in this equation that I would receive adequate social services for these high taxes. It really helps not to be forced to much lower living standards if suddenly unemployed and not to have to take the first job that comes along to pay the bills. In fact, both times I was unemployed for a few months, I was able to find a better paying job than the previous one, and if the job is better paying I pay more taxes, so it was worth the money spent both for me and for the society. And so it goes most of the time.

      What you failed to read was me saying that YOU should not be held financially responsible if I mess up MY life.

      I am not directly responsible for anybody failing their lives. I pay my fees to the society, the society decides then what to do with them. I happen to chose a society that promotes social peace, which results in a more relaxed living and less crime. The percentage of those who abuse this social peace is miniscule.

      and having a higher quality of life than you.

      Now that is very debatable. As you can see from my UID I am already sometime on Slashdot. It also helps to have a cousin who lives in USA and works at Google. I do know about life in USA and I'd rather stay in Germany, thank you very much. Too much crime, too much fear, too much dog-eat-dog, all that is not a sign of high standard of living to me. If I'd wanted to have all that coupled with some chance to make a lot of money I could as well move to Moscow - I can speak Russian better than English anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  12. Free nationwide minutes? by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

    Why would anybody buy a phone in one of these states?

    Buy the phone in a state with reasonable taxes, lie about your address if you have to and go for the internet/paperless billing option.

    Simple technical solution to a social problem (politicians with no spending discipline). Starve the beast.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Free nationwide minutes? by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rent a mailbox in Oregon (or other favorable state), charter a corporation, get a phone + plan in the corporation's name. As long as you're routinely on the home network (not siphoning their profits to competitors via roaming agreements), they won't care. Bundle other location-dependent services like vehicle registration and insurance. Contract with a local registered agent as the corporation's location. With care, it'll cost a lot less in taxes. It's beneficial if you want change, no matter which change you want, since it creates more burden on the tax system by removing support from it. With enough people removing themselves from high-tax jurisdictions, the low-tax jurisdictions will be forced to change or the high-tax ones will break under the strain. Either is a win, depending on what team you root for.

    2. Re:Free nationwide minutes? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Why would the low tax locations be forced to change. They are laughing all the way to the bank. The high tax locations would be forced to change to avoid breaking. If that means a few parasites have to find honest jobs I'm good with that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Free nationwide minutes? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      There are powerful interests behind many different taxes. Some are populist, some are protectionist, some are for other reasons. It's not always (or even usually) the most efficient system that wins out. There are a lot of outside influences that don't necessarily care how a system works; they want it to work to their own ends.

  13. Prepaid data + Google Voice by PRlME · · Score: 1

    I'm looking for a decent prepaid data option to just go wifi + prepaid + google voice and drop regular voice/data plans for good. Eying t-mobile's $1.49 unlimited data 24-hour day pass. I'm so rarely in a non-wifi environment (subway commute) it hardly makes sense to pay for a standard voice/data plan.

    1. Re:Prepaid data + Google Voice by russotto · · Score: 1

      I'm looking for a decent prepaid data option to just go wifi + prepaid + google voice and drop regular voice/data plans for good. Eying t-mobile's $1.49 unlimited data 24-hour day pass. I'm so rarely in a non-wifi environment (subway commute) it hardly makes sense to pay for a standard voice/data plan.

      That's what I'm using. $100/1000 minutes, good for a year, and the $1.49 daypasses come out of the $100.

  14. So what? many choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most people have access to multiple carriers. Whether your poor or rich, you can find a cellular plan that fits your needs. That's why a tax on it isn't a big deal. If home internet access becomes that omnipresent and accessible, I expect it to be taxed just the same.

    I wish there was a hipster tax.

    1. Re:So what? many choices... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a hipster tax.

      I just wish all the people in favor of high taxes were the ones who actually have to pay those high taxes. Unfortunately it's always those who pay little or no taxes demanding others pay higher taxes to subsidize their lifestyle.

      Note: Before anyone claims that I'm some rich person who doesn't want to pay taxes, I made a whopping $22,000 last year before taxes, I simply believe in wacky notions like personal responsibility and that one person shouldn't be forced to pay for another.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:So what? many choices... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I just wish that all those who bitch about paying taxes would have to pay fees instead of taxes everytime they use anything public - be it walking on a public road for a couple of metres, farting outside their house or even using government issued currency for their financial transactions.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:So what? many choices... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      It's a highly wacky notion counter to a civilised society.

    4. Re:So what? many choices... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      When did I say "no taxes"? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I selected assholes like you (I just realized from your sig, you're the same troll from a few posts up) who say "Make that group pay for everything while I pay nothing and reap all the reward". I'd save a fortune if I only had to pay for the services I use instead of also having to pay to support the leeches like yourself.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    5. Re:So what? many choices... by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't realize that forcing one person to work against their will for another persons benefit (also known as "slavery") was "civilized". And to think all these people cried when the South made blacks work for another persons benefit! I guess it's OK though as long as it's only white people who worked harder in life than you did being forced to work for your benefit, right?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  15. I've seen that before by Superdarion · · Score: 1

    In fact, a few states even tax wireless consumers for non wireless-related projects

    In Mexico, when you pay certain taxes (like the "tenencia", which is a tax you pay every year for owning a car), they give you the bill and in it there are certain "voluntary donations" to stuff like the Red Cross, the Firemen, the Children Hospital and the State University. Sure, they say it's "voluntary" but they actually include it in the bill they send you every year and removing it can sometimes be a huge hassle. Not to mention the dirty looks you get from the cashiers...

  16. Nebraska cell phone tax... by flatbedexpress · · Score: 1

    The Nebraska legislature is looking at possibly passing a bill that will drop the cell phone occupation tax all together. But, a lot of cities like Omaha are freaking out about losing out on that money. So they're putting up a fight to stop this bill from passing.

    1. Re:Nebraska cell phone tax... by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Omaha in particular is Nebraska's great tax sink. The economic gravitational gradient is amazing... billions of dollars careening madly into Omaha's coffers from all over the state (via the Legislature), never to be seen again outside the borders of the city. And it's never enough. Easier to fill up a black hole than satisfy Omaha's insatiable hunger for tax dollars.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  17. taxes are excessive! by metalmaster · · Score: 1

    My most recent cell phone bill was $53.88. That's on a $40 package that includes 300 minutes and Tmobile's MyFave addon. That rounds out to about 26% in fees and extra charges. I dont have texting. I dont have data. I'd say it's a bit excessive. I paid for my phone outright, and im no longer under contract with them, so in theory the bill should be lower.

    The only reason I could think that brings the cost up is that the bill is fixed each month. I cant go over 300mins or it just cuts me off. I can however talk to my MyFave contacts for as long as i want and use nights and weekend minutes starting at 9pm

    1. Re:taxes are excessive! by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen (just my experience, perhaps it's my state), taxes and fees on cell phones are the same regardless of plan, so the relative tax rate decreases as the cost of your cellphone plan increases.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:taxes are excessive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ProTip: add a google voice line as a MyFave and you're set for free phone calls.

  18. Taxes are not excessive, you are just being gauged by Vekseid · · Score: 1

    Even by American standards. Unlimited voice+text+data plans go for a whopping $45 in the US.

    --
    Adult Role Playing Forum
  19. Re:Taxes are not excessive, you are just being gau by metalmaster · · Score: 1

    I worked for a carrier that charged $62.50 for a $45 package that includes talk text & web, so im not paying nearly as much as some people. It was a post-paid monthly service.

    After seeing this thread i went and checked out AT&T's offering and it's on par with my carrier. They probably charge just as much too.

  20. They will get the money by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Whether it's a user fee, "sin tax", sales tax, ad infinitum....your government is especially adept at this one thing: getting your money in a fashion least likely to catch your attention enough to cause you to vote against them.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:They will get the money by JimboFBX · · Score: 1

      It's true, I've started to push for the complete repeal of a state sales tax and an upper margin income tax increase because people in an upper income bracket either: can afford the extra taxes, or, they own a home, have a mortgage, itemize their deductions, and wouldn't notice the extra taxes. Of course, after doing the math and research I found that no state has income taxes above 10%ish even in the upper tax brackets. Oregon has no sales tax and people lambast them ignorantly as one of the most taxed states, but when you factor in that ALL of their state taxes can be deducted on their federal income tax return they are actually quite a bit less taxed.

      And yet, the super rich still complain that a measly 2% increase on upper margins will result in an mass exodus of rich people from the state and all businesses will close up and shop and leave.

      Give me a break.

      Fact is, people are ignorant, and rich politicians scratch each other's backs and live in a fantasy world where they believe the money they earn is directly proportional to the amount of hard work they put into it and completely unrelated to how fortunate they were to be given the opportunity to make that kind of money in the first place. Then they know a buddy who's trying to start a business so they do them a bunch of favors to remove the risk of starting that business while that buddy enjoys the rewards the government hands out in droves to small businesses. Ever wonder why all the high school kids of farmers drive nice brand new pick-up trucks? its because those are "company vehicles" them kids are driving, and the government ponied up $25k for it, not counting the write-off it's one-year depreciation is. Farmers were literally getting new Ford F-150's for virtually free with cash for clunkers.

      Washington's tax system is by far the most ridiculous. They have an 8% sales tax (6% state sales tax, 2% sales tax for most counties) and no income tax. They try to compensate for the sales tax's burden on the poor by having insanely unfair social programs that encourage low income/untalented women to get pregnant and churn out babies and not marry because it pays more than ever getting a job or marrying someone with a job would. I must emphasize how unfair these are, as usually the benefits are day in night between qualifying and having your expenses more than paid for and getting jack squat. This creates a huge hurdle that low income people don't see the point in trying to overcome. I must also add that real estate prices correlate directly with "left over" money that people have. Quite simply by not having an income tax you are just encouraging the real estate market to go up since people have a little more jingle jingle left in their pocket.

      Sorry, this is a ramble, but I'm pissed off.

  21. Utah Poison Control Centers by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The statement in the header is misleading. Yes Utah charges a surcharge to fund the Poison Control Centers (someone you call if you or your child have been potentially poisoned so they can tell you what to do before the ambulance arrives, such as drink milk or charcoal or vomit depending on the substance). But Utah charges this surcharge against all phone bills not just Wireless. This post phrases it as if Wireless is the only phone hit with the fee. Maybe some of you kids without Landlines don't think you are on the hook for the taxes that landline users pay but that's not the way it should be. Everyone should pay the fee that goes to support 911 and other emergency services like the poison control center. Wireless should be no exception to these very legitimate taxes.

    Now on the other hand, if the fee is simply to go around the regular tax system and is being used for general services it's a bad tax.

    1. Re:Utah Poison Control Centers by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Why should 911 taxes be limited to those who have phones? If you fall down and have a heart attack somewhere, a telephone is still going to be used to call 911. You will be using a system you did not pay for, effectively stealing from those who did.

      It is unfair to those who have phones for those who don't to get off the hook for the taxes. In that sense, it is not a legitimate user-based tax, because some users do not have to pay it.

    2. Re:Utah Poison Control Centers by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      So explain to me how someone that doesn't have a phone calls 911. If you answer someone else does then you've just answered your own question. The person making the call paid for it. Every pays the fee, even pay phones. Don't have a phone? You won't be calling 911 will you?

    3. Re:Utah Poison Control Centers by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      If two people get one DSL line and share it, it is theft.

      If two people get one phone line and share it, it is theft.

      If you want to have access to 911, you should pay for it like everyone else, and not steal it by using someone else's access to it.

  22. Simple answer... by markass530 · · Score: 1

    Go prepaid. I Went from virgin to sprint, because I HAD to have an android. So of course 3 months later Virgin Mobile gets the same phone I got with sprint (the intercept) . Right now me and sprint aren't talking, and I'm not paying, still deciding if I'm going to go back to them or not. The only reason I would is because of my need to have the New 6G 5.4 inch Quad Core HTC PURECOCAINE ORGASM

  23. Let the bears pay the Bear Tax! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost of poison control services should obviously be paid by people who plan to be poisoned. Any other scheme is clearly unfair and totally worth whining about!

  24. Re:Taxes are not excessive, you are just being gau by demonlapin · · Score: 1

    Unlimited voice+text+data plans go for a whopping $45 in the US

    With whom? And I do mean after-tax, after-fees.

  25. Can't beat the price by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I have the $25/mo plan from Virgin Mobile, 300 talk minutes plus unlimited text and data. No contract and the only extra is the sales tax on $25. They do have an entry level Droid phone for $150 but its way beyond my needs for just the occasional phone call.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  26. att mta tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ATT wireless in nyc charges a mta tax. Verizon wireless in nyc does not. Figure that out. Since no ATT phone works on a subway.

  27. Cry me a fucking river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have the government you deserve. You only pay attention to what your elected officials are doing during presidential election cycles, and even then you sit back and let the state-run media propagandize you into bootstrapping a foreign-born community agitator into the most powerful office in the world. You know God damned well that Democrats have a tax and bureaucracy fetish, so don't act surprised when you vote straight-ticket Democrat and then your local elected officials shit all over you. You are their own personal MasterCard. When you're ready to get serious about a leaner, more responsible government, you'll check out some anti-establishment candidates. Until then, recognize that you got yourself into this mess because you cared more about American Idol than what your elected officials were doing in your name. Fuck you all. Fucking morons.

  28. Ebay Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up next, the ebay tax: buyer agrees to pay [purchase price + $1] shipping

  29. Tax Rates by Pinky3 · · Score: 1

    My income tax rate is higher than the tax rate on my wireless bill. So what? An appropriate question is whether wireless customers pay more in taxes than landline customers. Neither the article nor the study even consider that obvious question.