Slashdot Mirror


Taxes On Cell Phones Hit All-Time High

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."

27 of 171 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
  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.

  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 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?
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.