Slashdot Mirror


California Considers Text Messaging Tax To Fund Cell Service For Low-Income Residents (thehill.com)

According to a report from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California may soon tax text messaging to help fund programs that make phone service available for low-income residents. The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax. The Hill reports: The report outlines the shrinking revenue coming from a current tax on the telecommunications industry and argues that a new tax on text messaging should be put in place to make up for it. "From a consumer's point of view, surcharges may be a wash, because if more surcharge revenues come from texting services, less would be needed from voice services," CPUC spokeswoman Constance Gordon said in a statement. "Generally, those consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more, whereas consumers using more voice services may pay less." "Parties supporting the collection of surcharges on text messaging revenue argue that it will help preserve and advance universal service by increasing the revenue base upon which Public Purpose Programs rely. We agree," the report states. The CTIA, a trade association representing major carriers in the wireless industry, says the tax is anti-competitive and would put carriers at a disadvantage against social media messaging apps from tech companies such as Google and Facebook. The CPUC is expected to vote on the proposal in January 2019.

244 comments

  1. Nobody texts anymore, gramps by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The iPhone crowd have their own messaging system and the rest uses whatsapp et al.

    If the tax gets through, the latter will be used by everyone.

    1. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If by "Nobody" you mean "95% of people" then.. I guess? It always amuses me how out of touch people are with reality.

      "Hey guise, nobody uses credit cards anymore, it's all BITCOIN!!!!". Sure.

    2. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cracks me up too especially the iPhone crowd. Seems like the numbers are going up to me:
      https://www.textrequest.com/media/2448/statistic-brain-number-of-text-messages-sent-each-month-in-united-states.png

    3. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texting is the most reliable messaging method and the fastest. All other methods require more software support and bandwidth. You also know exactly who you are texting because it is tied to a phone number and much harder to spoof than other chat apps.

    4. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And those same services can be used on a phone without a plan. Or a tablet. Or a PC with a web browser. How do you tax that?

    5. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by BitterOak · · Score: 0

      And those same services can be used on a phone without a plan. Or a tablet. Or a PC with a web browser. How do you tax that?

      Again, I doubt they'd make the legislation specific to what kind of plan you have. Why can't they all be taxed the same?

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    6. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sending sms with a spoofed number is trivial. Receiving an sms on a number that doesn't exist or belongs to someone else can be possible depending on the network configuration but requires significant resources to get the required access to the signalling network.

    7. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is silly. Who would tax a text message. People would stop texting unless they had an emergency

    8. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      You missed the part where it would be a flat fee. So in other words they're taxing any cellular plan capable of texting, whether or not you actually text.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    9. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Testing is for things like

      Honey the neighbors are coming over to eat and use the trampoline. Would you get some rare prime rib and worcesorshire sauce? Oh and I am almost out of salt ;)

    10. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by omnichad · · Score: 1

      How do you tax "no plan"?

    11. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by omnichad · · Score: 2

      So then people will demand plans without texting.

    12. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by saider · · Score: 2

      I can see someone making a "game" that has a chat feature, just to dodge the tax.

      This will be an endless cat and mouse game between developers and regulators. I look forward to the hilarious shenanigans that will follow.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    13. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother. It's because the old fee was based on voice calls that they need to do this at all. Tax any plan voice only, text only, data only, or any combination with a flat fee.

    14. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume the tax would apply to those services as well. Generally legislation isn't specific as to which service you use.

      How can they possibly know or measure the use? When my computer and another computer talk to a server, you have no idea that some of the information happens to end up getting displayed to some user as a "text-like" message.

      Generally legislation isn't specific as to which service you use.

      Well, the PDF is full of oddball terms like "carrier parties" which mean jack shit once you move up to IP. That's a [semi-] old school telephone term. Bet ya anything this law will only apply to SMS.

    15. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by saider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This idea is hilarious. Tax text messages to pay for phones for the poor, who will then use it to send text messages! This is the government equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

      This is like the lottery, or a tax on milk. It will hit the people it is trying to serve much harder than "the rich".

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    16. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, not at all.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    17. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I assume the tax would apply to those services as well. Generally legislation isn't specific as to which service you use.

      How's that supposed to work? The two aren't anything alike.

      They operate over different networks (cellular vs. cellular, WiFi, and wired). They operate on cellular via different channels (dedicated vs. general purpose). They differ in security (not encrypted vs. end-to-end encrypted). They require different hardware (SIM vs. any Internet connection). They operate on different classes of devices (phones and SIM-equipped laptops/tablets vs. PCs, phones, tablets, and MP3 players). The natively support differing numbers of devices per user (one per user vs. many per user). They natively support different content (texts alone vs. texts + effects, audio/video, typing notifications, tap backs, read receipts, stickers, money, hand drawings, etc.).

      And that's all before we even get to the most obvious problem: one costs the end user a monthly fee just to use it, the other doesn't cost anything. Collecting a tax on $0 is a fool's errand.

      I'd shudder to think how legislators would define the law in such a way that it could apply to those services in any sort of reasonable way. Aside from how they are visually presented to end users, there's really no similarity at all between iMessages/WhatsApp and standard SMS texting. If anything, the former bears more resemblance to instant messaging than it does to SMS texting. How are legislators supposed to draw a line that puts iMessage/WhatsApp on the same side as SMS without also including IRC, Slack, Facebook Messenger, Google app of the month, e-mail, or really just about any other form of asynchronous communication, free or otherwise?

      A user may think that the only difference is that one is a green bubble and the other is blue, but the actual differences are vast.

    18. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it says that. It also says "consumers who create more text revenue" will pay more. Then again, it also says the purpose is to increase revenue, while also claiming people won't be paying more. The whole thing is full of California-speak.

    19. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His about a tax on pinching a loaf. Use the taxes to fund toilets in India where 500 million people just squat wherever.

    20. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      he rest uses whatsapp et al.

      Yep.....my anecdotal experience is...I have YET to meet anyone that uses whatsapp, much less even has ever heard of it before.

      Everyone communicate with uses text....Apple switches to use whatever the recipient uses..so, likely a mix of iMessage and regular text...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    21. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.

      If you really need a mobile phone pick up a cheap ass tracfone and do the prepaid thing. Mommy government doesn't need to be buying everyone an iphone -- and taxing the rest of us to fund the little feel goods.

    22. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by NaCh0 · · Score: 1

      It's really easy.

      You tax the provider (Apple, Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, the wireless companies, etc) and the provider passes the charge through to you.

      What's that, all of those providers don't have a tax passthru infrastructure setup yet? Nobody said big government is cheap.

    23. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMS has been considered untrustworthy among the infosec community for years now. So many people have had their 2fa hacked through SMS that its use as a second factor is now frowned upon.

      I think if you want security for something readily available, I'd pick whatsapp any day over SMS. Even Facebook started bitching and moaning about how they can't monetize it enough without being able to spy on it, hence they attempted to remove its privacy functions before being reminded that they agreed to not hinder that in any way as a buyout condition.

    24. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      This idea is hilarious. Tax text messages to pay for phones for the poor, who will then use it to send text messages! This is the government equivalent of a perpetual motion machine... It will hit the people it is trying to serve much harder than "the rich".

      It's only like a perpetual motion machine if the exact same people receive benefits who are being taxed. But if (as in the plan) more people get taxed and fewer get the benefits, then it's just bog-standard redistributive taxation and unrelated to perpetual motion.

      If it hits one group of people harder than another, that's another way of saying that it's like a perpetual motion machine.

      The only way it can hit the people it's serving harder than "the rich" is if the benefits that people get (subsidized phones) have a value less than the surcharge they pay on their bill. That seems vanishingly unlikely.

      I think it's much more likely to hurt most the people just slightly better off than those it's trying to serve.

    25. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nothing more than using taxes to buy votes. The "Poor" "Need" a smart phone to access all of their "Benefits" being provided by the government, creating more "Need" for services. That's the true perpetual motion machine.

    26. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travel outside of the US much/ever? The rest of the world uses it for texts, video, and voice calling. Literally everyone...

    27. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Then you have to decide exact what constitutes messaging. Next thing you know, someone has to argue in court why app notifications are not messaging.

    28. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except not everyone outside the US uses it. Sooooo there goes that i suppose.

      The whole me AND my two friends use it does not make it anything but STILL anectdotal and unrepresentative...

    29. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Travel outside of the US much/ever?

      No, like most Americans, I have no need to travel outside the US, PLENTY to do here....hell, most of us don't even have a passport.

      I have traveled to Europe before, MX and the caribbean....but last time out was years and years ago.

      I really don't see much of anything compelling that would tempt me for foreign travel, hell, there's so much to do and so many places to see in the US that I'll never get close to them all in the rest of my lifetime.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    30. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by unity · · Score: 1

      How do you tax that?

      Govt Tax ticks: "Challenge Accepted"

    31. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by quenda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.

      Communications is a basic need to function in modern society, and governments have been involved in that since Henry VIII.
      Governments subsidised where needed postal, and later phone services, to cover their countries.
      Now in the 21st century, cellular service has become much cheaper than fixed lines to provide, so it makes sense to stop mandating cheap rural fixed-line services, and replace them with cellular. Also, telcos are not allowed to charge more in small towns than in the city. None of this cross subsidy is new.

      But this California proposal makes no sense. Why create another micro-tax? Do you have a separate tax for each spending program? Thats ridiculous.
      In Australia we pay A$10 (us$7)/month for unlimited calls and 1-2 GB of data. UK is similar. Even homeless people have cellphones. What does a basic service cost in the US?

    32. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by antdude · · Score: 1

      SMSes still use between iPhones and Android hpones though. I only know one person who uses WhatsApp, and he lives in China.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    33. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I text exclusively with Signal now. No Facebook-owned apps and no snooping, only end-to-end encryption.

    34. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Wait so people VOIP but they don't TOIP, now that just don't make any sense what so over, you people have been scammed. In reality you are actually TOIPing but being charged likes its an extra special service, ohh you schmucks.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    35. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WhatsApp is owned by Facebook and should not be trusted. So, they can always hand over message data to California.

      Signal and Telegram are the only ones that are truly safe, with Signal being the safest.

    36. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.

      A phone is not a basic right, but having one can turn a poor person's life around. They have a number to put on a job application form, they can talk to friends, find out about opportunities, call for help, etc.

      But this proposal is a bad idea in a much deeper way: We should NEVER has specific taxes targeted toward specific purposes. It is always a bad idea. The decision on what to tax should be made completely independently of the decisions of what to spend it on. All taxes should go into one pool.

      One consequence of tax-spend bundles is exactly the problem described in TFA. Money for the subsidies is coming up short because they come from a source that is declining.

      A bigger problem is that stupid taxes are pushed through because the money is "for education" or "helping Vietnam amputees" or whatever. If these spending programs are really so important, then we should fund them out of sensible general taxation, and if necessary, raise those taxes.

    37. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      Honestly 'a phone', in the basic, utilitarian notion is already so ridiculously cheap -- that anyone who truly needs one, or would use in the 'basic human need' sense, already has one.

      This is a poorly conceived gimme in an effort to buy votes.

    38. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how's life in your parallel universe where WhatsApp has not completely replaced SMS years ago?

    39. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We pay the second highest fees in the world for cellular service. This means that some people can not afford the service. However the well connected billionaires that run the cell phone companies need everyone to have cell phone service to maximize shareholder value. They could lower the cost of cell phone service, but this would decrease their performance bonus. So in order to keep the price of cell service high, and ensure everyone has a cell phone, the billionaires have made generous campaign donations to politicians. These politicians then pass laws taking money from middle class and giving it to fortune 500 cell phone companies to provide 'Free Cell Phone Service' to poor disadvantaged people.

      If you think this is a bad way of running things it means you are a racist NAZI who hates the poor. ''

      It is a really great system.

    40. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by andsand · · Score: 1

      The price is about the same in Sweden for that kind of service. Look at Hallon.se

      --
      Luck is opportunity meets preparation, lets get lucky
    41. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 0

      I can't wait to see America implement a 30% tax on free services. It should raise so much revenue that it will Make Trump Great Again.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    42. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Signal is the worst spyware that there is. It wants every single permission on your devices.

    43. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Poor people having phones saves the government money. Instead of having to employ humans to process interactions with citizens, they can use web sites or apps. Even just having a call centre instead of an office where people have to go is a saving for the government.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wut. It's 2019...you're denying the permissions youre not immediately using ....right?

    45. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love how hipsters live in their own little bubbles and assume their way is the only way.

      I don't know anyone that uses their own messaging system or whatsapp. Texting is alive and well, so is actually making a phone call considering it is a telephone we're using.

    46. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Poor people having phones saves the government money.Â

      If that was the case, then why do they need a tax to pay for the phones? Shouldn't they send the phones to those who need them and cut taxes with all of the savings?

    47. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It takes many years for the savings to be realized. I guess they could borrow the money, but it's America so to avoid looking too socialist they have to do it this way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one trying to tax it. But someone's going to have to draw an oddly arbitrary line somewhere.

    49. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by faedle · · Score: 1

      Most VoIP providers charge a per-text fee for sending text messages via SIP. That's because the gateways to the major cell carriers charge for each text message (granted, it's usually fractions of a penny, but the end result is that the end user gets charged a penny-per-text). On top of that, many of the low-end VoIP end terminals (ie. phones) don't support anything other than SIP (or MGCP), and at that an even smaller subset handle texting.

      My SIP provider literally just started handling text messages over SIP sometime early this year, and yes, it costs a couple of bucks more to get the plan. I personally don't care (I only have the SIP carrier in the first place for business reasons), but as I understand it this is common among the "dirt cheap" SIP providers like mine.

    50. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To create a new organization to manage the funds from the new tax. This is job creation. Do you have jobs?

    51. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But don't you want to get stabbed in London? Or have acid thrown on you in Italy? Or get beheaded beneath the great pyramids of Egypt?

      Xenophobe!

    52. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by foghelmut · · Score: 1

      You'd be hard pressed to find a plan for under $30 per month in the US.

    53. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 1

      In Australia we pay A$10 (us$7)/month for unlimited calls and 1-2 GB of data. UK is similar. Even homeless people have cellphones. What does a basic service cost in the US?

      My plan in the USA with with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2GB of data is $55/month. I don't know of any plan that would cost much less except perhaps a pre-paid type that would charge by the minute. Family plans are closer to $100/month or more.

    54. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My plan in the USA with with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2GB of data is $55/month. I don't know of any plan that would cost much less except perhaps a pre-paid type that would charge by the minute.

      Not all pre-paid plans charge by the minute. Most MVNOs offer unlimited talk/text + x GB data plans

      Cricket and Metro by T-Mobile (former MetroPCS) both offer an unlimited talk/text + 2GB data plan for $30 per month
      Mint Mobile has an unlimited talk/text + 2GB data plan for $15 per month (must pay full year in advance)
      H2O Wireless has an unlimited talk/text + 6GB data plan for $30
      Straight Talk has an unlimited talk/text + 2GB data plan for $35
      Total Wireless has an unlimited talk/text = 5GB data plan for $35
      Veizon pre-paid has an unlimited talk/text + 3GB data plan for $40

    55. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can text on RingCentral work phone #. I will not be paying CA anything.

    56. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I roll with the T-mobile "Walmart plan" that's $30/month pre-paid for unlimited texts+data [5GB of LTE], and 100 minutes of talk time. As far as I know, it's the cheapest thing available.

    57. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.

      If you really need a mobile phone pick up a cheap ass tracfone and do the prepaid thing. Mommy government doesn't need to be buying everyone an iphone -- and taxing the rest of us to fund the little feel goods.

      In Washington state all the homeless have cell phones. Passes the time while they panhandle

    58. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get them, but they're on subpar services like Boost, Cricket, and Virgin Mobile.

    59. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Bitbeard · · Score: 1

      How are they subpar? Most use the exact same base service (AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint) as the name brand. Sorry not sorry if no one has told you that your Lincoln is just a Ford with a different coat.

    60. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else are they supposed to track the homeless if they won't carry a homing beacon with them?

    61. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I think you are confused. Adding taxes to give something to people is perceived as socialist. Issuing a bond to pay for something that's going to be a fiscal benefit is not. Or that's how it worked when I was young. Perhaps things have changed.

    62. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by quenda · · Score: 1

      My plan in the USA with with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2GB of data is $55/month. I don't know of any plan that would cost much less

      This is surprising, since just about everything else is cheaper in the US than in other wealthy countries. You guys are really getting ripped off by the telcos.

      The $10/month plans here are not sold directly by the major companies who own the networks, but but re-sellers or subsidiary brands (Belong, Kogan, ALDI, ...) . Most are prepaid, but thats not a problem here.
          Voice calls uses such a small amount of data, that the networks decided to effectively make them free, and just set a monthly fee based on your data cap.
      Well, one network did this, and the rest had to follow.

            Most people here would still be on more expensive plans, because they want a subsidised handset, lots more data, or just don't know any better.

    63. Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.

      It is, go back under your rock

    64. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      But don't you want to get stabbed in London? Or have acid thrown on you in Italy? Or get beheaded beneath the great pyramids of Egypt?

      Xenophobe!

      I always wanted to visit Iran so I could appreciate the thousands of years of Persian culture before getting thrown off the top of a building like the rest of the gay people who don't exist in that country.

    65. Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps by pezezin · · Score: 1

      Don't you want to be mass shooted in the US?

  2. So people will be billed for incoming? with only c by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    So people will be billed for incoming? with only choice to get out of it to block all txt

  3. Calphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More welfare state vote buying.

  4. Text to CPUC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FU

  5. Because what better way to fund services by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for low income residences than with a regressive tax that disproportionately impacts the working class, including the working poor.

    Seriously, in 2018 does anyone still fall for this crap? It's like when they rebranded trickle down economics as "Tax cuts for Job Creators" and left out the fact that "Job Creators" don't pay taxes when they invest in their companies...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Because what better way to fund services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US rewards bad life decisions. If you drop out of school or get pregnant at 16, don't worry about it, get a minimum wage job and wait for everyone else to provide for you. The key to getting ahead in this world is to provide value, if anyone can walk in from the street and do your job with no training, you aren't providing much value and you probably aren't being paid much.

    2. Re:Because what better way to fund services by alvinrod · · Score: 0

      Seriously, in 2018 does anyone still fall for this crap?

      I don't know, but people keep thinking that trickle-down economics exists, so I'm hardly surprised.

    3. Re:Because what better way to fund services by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The very major flaw of Prop 13 was the failure to index for inflation. Inflation is the fault of the federal government.
      There's nothing good about anything in politics called "progressive."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:Because what better way to fund services by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Many people don't seem to understand that the poor and the rich can drive roughly the same amount of miles (fuel taxes), consume the same amount of alcohol and cigarettes, and use the same amount of cell phone service.

      Even if a rich person consumes 10x as much fuel and 100x as much alcohol, the tax is generally a smaller fraction of their income than it is for a poor person. It hits middle-class harder, since the marginal utility of any spending is lower, so they'll toss more pennies here and there for texting and tie themselves to service more.

      So of course it sounds good: people are richer, they buy more, they get taxed more. Then: rich people take trips to Europe and buy tons of alcohol over there to throw a party for investors. No sales tax. No excise tax. They might pay VAT to Germany, but they're not paying it to their home state. That lost tax revenue comes from the poor and middle-class.

    5. Re:Because what better way to fund services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. Some like to blame Prop 13 for all the woes they feel they've suffered. That's crap. In fact Prop 13 was necessary to keep folks from losing their homes due to a massive planned property tax hike by the progressive democrats in charge of California. I remember this quite well. It saved my parent's house and those of our neighbors. It continues to keep property taxes under control. The calls to repeal/modify it are blatant attempts to remove that roadblock and steal more of our money. Again, by progressive California democrats.

      Inflation is indeed the fault of the federal government. The establishment of the Federal Reserve and the removal of the gold standard ushered in this experiment in centralized management of the US money supply which we now suffer. Progressives were at the heart of this too.

    6. Re:Because what better way to fund services by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      That's crap. In fact Prop 13 was necessary to keep folks from losing their homes due to a massive planned property tax hike by the progressive democrats in charge of California

      Oh sure, Prop 13 was necessary. But it's totally possible to go way overboard in "correcting" a problem.

  6. Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    When a state needs to tax everything tech, considers a ban on ban employee cafeteria?
    Wont enforce laws about trash and waste in the streets. Park RV and tents in the streets.
    Has to clean waste from its streets.

    How many more "tech" tax attempts before tech understands that many other US states are clean, safe, welcoming and low tax?
    Move to a state where you don't have to "pay a bit more" in new tech tax and you can invest a lot more.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has to clean waste from its streets.

      Oh the horrors, why that is terrible.

      Meanwhile, in Soviet America they're still trying to shut down Planned Parenthood and that doesn't care how its schools are failing.

    2. Re:Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by zippo01 · · Score: 1

      The issue is that as the tech move the workers who voted for all this in the first place, vote more of the same people in to office and it just slowly moves with them...

    3. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between shutting down Planned Parenthood and killing off public funding for it.
      If you like Planned Parenthood so much, why not donate your time and money so they don't need to take in tax revenue to operate?

      I'm pro abortion, and I don't want any tax money going to PP. Nearly half of the people in this country have actual moral objections about what they do. You can disagree with them like I do, but you can't ignore them to the point of forcing them to fork over their cash. Claiming their cash won't be used for things they object to is ridiculous hokum. Any cash given is cash they don't have to otherwise raise. Any cash given but earmarked for NOT X can just be used for Y, and other cash intended for Y can then be moved to X.

      Beyond the moral objections of about half the country, there's also the fiscal objections. I object primarily on the same basis that I object to just about every welfare program fed by my tax dollars. Not on the grounds that such things are inherently wrong or bad or that I'm selfish, but on the grounds that they're almost universally terribly run with little to no accountability and operate mainly as self-serving pork projects for those in charge.

      And the schools are failing because we won't fire bad teachers, hold back stupid kids, or discipline shitty kids/parents.

    4. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between shutting down Planned Parenthood and killing off public funding for it.

      Not to Soviet America. Especially since they literally do admit the one is a means to the other.

      If you like Planned Parenthood so much, why not donate your time and money so they don't need to take in tax revenue to operate?

      If you like X so much, why don't you donate...yeah, that is a stupid argument. We don't operate society that way.

      I'm pro abortion, and I don't want any tax money going to PP. Nearly half of the people in this country have actual moral objections about what they do.

      Provide Contraceptives? Health screening? Actual medical care with provably effective results unlike say conversion therapy?

      Pardon me, but I don't have to respect their moral bankruptcy.

      You can disagree with them like I do, but you can't ignore them to the point of forcing them to fork over their cash.

      Do you not know how compulsory taxes work?

      Claiming their cash won't be used for things they object to is ridiculous hokum. Any cash given is cash they don't have to otherwise raise. Any cash given but earmarked for NOT X can just be used for Y, and other cash intended for Y can then be moved to X.

      I can provide actual examples of ridiculous hokum. Rush Limbaugh's attack on birth control pills. That senator who lied about the work Planned Parenthood does. Conversion therapy.

      Beyond the moral objections of about half the country, there's also the fiscal objections. I object primarily on the same basis that I object to just about every welfare program fed by my tax dollars. Not on the grounds that such things are inherently wrong or bad or that I'm selfish, but on the grounds that they're almost universally terribly run with little to no accountability and operate mainly as self-serving pork projects for those in charge.

      That's nice for you but in Soviet America they specifically single out Planned Parenthood even after their own investigations turn up no meaningful or actionable results.

      So feel free to joust against your own straw man, it just makes you look silly to me.

      And the schools are failing because we won't fire bad teachers, hold back stupid kids, or discipline shitty kids/parents.

      Or because failing schools is actually to their benefit as they don't feel any obligation to educate the public, but do like enriching their private partners.

      There is a reason DeVos was given the pick.

    5. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The retard is referring to christian fundies as "soviet america", and you are trying to have a reasonable discussion with him?

      Give your head a shake.

    6. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The schools are failing because of Progressive education, and that is deliberate. The uneducated are easier to deceive and control.

      Planned Parenthood continues as the racist organization it was started as, dedicated to persuading blacks not to reproduce.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re: Another state tax on your exceptional talent? by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      If you like X so much, why don't you donate...yeah, that is a stupid argument. We don't operate society that way.

      Yes, we absolutely do. That is the entire point of charities. We don't just shut down charities and say "yeah, the government is doing this now."

      Just because it's a good idea does not mean that it's a job that should always be done by the public sector.

  7. Absolutely by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Should tax people on a per character basis.

    1. Re:Absolutely by steak · · Score: 1

      Think of all the rappers posting screenshots of themselves texting the complete works of Shakespeare.

    2. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it will have to be inversely related to the person's character...

    3. Re:Absolutely by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      But double the tax on missing vowels and abbreviations like 'u'.

  8. Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strikes me as violating the interstate commerce clause. All my texts are to my parents in another state, so one would think texting is an interstate commerce thing.

    It might pass if it ends up being a flat tax on the service, because buying the service could be construed as a deal between the provider and the user, but I still expect this to be challenged in court, making it an utter waste of time and resources.

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

      The interstate commerce clause does not apply, for two very distinct reasons.

      First, you are not being taxed on the texts themselves. Second, there is no prohibition on states taxing things merely because they can be used in such commerce, and in fact, Congress has consented to these taxes.

    2. Re:Unconstitutional by saider · · Score: 1

      Change your billing address to your parents house.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    3. Re:Unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. That's why when you buy gasoline in one state and drive across the border into another state, the state you left always refunds the tax you paid on the remaining fuel. It's also why they refund all the taxes paid on everything else in the car too, including your clothes. The reason I never liked this, though, is that the state you're arriving in, then immediately taxes you on all the same things. Just driving across the Utah-to-Colorado border took me 5 hours simply from the two sales tax audits. How people way up in the Northeastern part of the country with their tiny states handle a short roadtrip totally confounds me.

  9. how do ideas like this get so far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My imagination has failed me. Suppose a lawmaker means well and really believes (sincerely, no corruption) this isn't a stupid idea. How would they explain it?

    1. Re: how do ideas like this get so far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Ronald Reagan, even he supported these programs due to the great utility of the phone in modern society.

      And he grew up as a Pony Express rider and lost his job to Union Telegraph.

    2. Re: how do ideas like this get so far? by youngone · · Score: 1

      And he grew up as a Pony Express rider and lost his job to Union Telegraph.

      No he didn't. Stop making stuff up.
      I know how much you Americans love making up myths about your heroic presidents, but that one is straight up bullshit.

    3. Re: how do ideas like this get so far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he grew up as a Pony Express rider and lost his job to Union Telegraph.

      No he didn't. Stop making stuff up.

      I know how much you Americans love making up myths about your heroic presidents, but that one is straight up bullshit.

      Oh sure, just because the Pony Express was sold to Wells Fargo after the Civil War ended and Reagan wasn't born to until 1911, that automatically makes it bullshit??

    4. Re: how do ideas like this get so far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how much you Americans love making up myths about your heroic presidents, but that one is straight up bullshit.

      Then why do I have it on video tape?

      Fortunately for Reagan he later found a job wrangling monkeys.

    5. Re: how do ideas like this get so far? by youngone · · Score: 1

      Oh bugger.
      Whoosh!

  10. Yeah because no one can control themselves by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Don't want to pay the tax turn off texting. Your regressive tax has just become progressive.

  11. That's one way to kill text messaging. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    How bout taxing things like multiple lines, or those $1000 phones or something? Oops that would tax those that are well off, best to tax something the poor have to use to reduce their voice and data costs.

  12. Better idea by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's tax every stupid idea a politician has. 1 cent per.

    We'd be able to pay off the national debt before the end of the year.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  13. More taxes.. Sure that works by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    California will tax itself into prosperity.

    Get rid of the bureaucrats.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  14. Don't drink the water in California by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What can possibly be more logically coherent than regressive taxes to help the poor?

    After massive fraud magnet that USF has proven to be states just can't help themselves to more of the same.

  15. Dark Ages by Thelasko · · Score: 1

    Just as long as it doesn't send us back to the dark ages of text messaging (2008).

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  16. subsidizing? wtf by ahodgson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can have a prepaid cell in California for $12/month. No one needs subsidizing. End the subsidizing and you don't need a new tax. ffs.

    1. Re:subsidizing? wtf by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      Yes, but politicians get more votes from low-income residents when they give low-income residents things totally for free. When someone buys a $12 prepaid card a politician can't get the credit for it. When a politician pushes a law that gives phone service away totally for free, that will buy them votes.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re: subsidizing? wtf by misnohmer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember, every government program is an opportunity for people to skim, grant contracts to friends and family or for kickbacks in one form or another. Maybe you have a family member who needs a job, why not hire them to administer some new program and of course pay for the job it of the same pool of taxes collected for that program.

    3. Re:subsidizing? wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the reason why people getting subsidizes / hand outs from the government should not be allowed to vote. Voting should be a right only for those that have earned the privilege. And you should only have that privilege by contributing some thing into the system. The easiest way to determine this would be through the paying of taxes or military service, past and present.

      This will keep politicians from "buying" votes by promising more welfare. An just to be clear social security isn't welfare. It's money that the government owes you for taxes you have paid in. So being on social security wouldn't deny elderly individuates from voting .

    4. Re:subsidizing? wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But how are they going to embezzle money from a tax fund if the fund doesn't exist?

      california politicians all enter office not being millionaires... but they all leave as one.

      why do you want to upset their system? you must be one of those alt-right nazis!

    5. Re:subsidizing? wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are wrong there. You can totally have a cell in CA for $3 a month. I do - http://www.h2owirelessnow.com/ . All you need to do is prepay $9 and you will have service for 3 months. An the phone cost me less than $200 from Costco including crazy California taxes. so I did not break the bank buying the phone. If one has no money, one can totally get the service for very little money.
      CA government should all be replaced since it does little for the state and its residents. I will move away from CA at the first opportunity and I am sure that I am not alone.

  17. Real men of genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It always amazes me how creative politicians are at dreaming up new ways of taxing people yet very few of them can figure out how lower taxes. How about these stupid fucks figure out a way to boost the local economy so that people can afford their own phone plan. Or better still how about a special tax that only targets politicians who vote for raising taxes.
    God damn hippies get off my lawn.

    1. Re:Real men of genius by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You can't like, own a lawn, man. It's part of Mother Earth.

  18. Thats why we use text. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Because text messaging is cheap enough for us "Low Income" folks.... i dont get it.

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Thats why we use text. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about the actual need, it's about the want. They want to charge you for text, and in the future they want to look at ALL your text. The need is just made up. If the need doesn't work, they will come up with a different need to get this shit through.

  19. Build more trains! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course only a small portion of this tax revenue will ever go towards its stated purpose. More likely it will be used to fund billion dollar rail projects in CA, which effectively just funnels money to labor unions.

  20. Time to get out the yellow vests! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxing the middle class disproportionately is a bad idea. Giving free stuff to people who typically won't work is a bad idea too.

  21. Or how about.. by Tutter · · Score: 1

    ..or how about the TelCos make it affordable or hell, even free, for low income families! There is a thought since they charge the rest of us enough and post profits that boggle your mind.

    1. Re:Or how about.. by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      ..or how about the TelCos make it affordable or hell, even free, for low income families!

      Perfect! The bonus is the 7,000 new jobs created by the new government bureaucracy required to manage such a program! Can't just give that shit away. The state will have to issue cell phone vouchers! On paper first... then revamp the program in 10 years. Add in a dash of fraud and a touch of embezzlement and we've got ourselves a real boondoggle here!

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
  22. Is there nobody who can explain the internet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... to politicians? They don't need to use it, but could they make an effort to understand the technology? They're not going after SMS, or they would not have used the more general term "text messaging". This raises the question: How are they proposing to tax something that I can very easily move to another country and that comes in hundreds of different forms on a continuum where it's impossible to draw a line what is text messaging and what is not? And then they want to tax the use, not the ability. Like, per message? There is something in the water, I tell you. People are going crazy.

  23. good for the urban poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry rural poor, we'd like to help you get a cell phone, but the carriers won't invest in infrastructure in your area so fuck you. :/

  24. Why is this not a flat telecom tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or better yet a flat x cent or x dollar fee.

    Then it affects everyone equally, provides a clear and fair burden, and ensures no loopholes cause the tax to come up short of the expected revenue.

    Doing it on just texts seems like an excellent way to get no text plans instituted and everyone switched over to data. Maybe the cell companies got it passed to help push data usage higher so they will get more revenue?

    1. Re: Why is this not a flat telecom tax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we are at it, pretty much every body also breathes, so why not tax everyone on a flat per breath basis? I mean, it is only fair! What? Texting and breathing are not the same? Well, the poor people who cannot afford high speed internet do not care where the money comes from, so who cares! Speaking as one who lived for 7years without internet access. As in, I moved in May 2018, so I know a little about the struggles of the rural populase.

      TLDR, stealing from the ritch and giving to the poor does not solve all problems. Look to the skies, like in the thousands of satalights approved for this very reason last month...

  25. text tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No different than the other taxes on your phone. None of you think that taxes should keep up with the times?

  26. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... Fuck the poor! Tax money should go he rich because they create the jerbs! Without our contributions they'd have settle for good profits instead of record profits.

    We all have to do our part to eradicate second homlessness!

  27. New game: The Onion or California? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's play a game. Somebody posts a news story and the rest of us try to guess whether it comes from the Onion or from California.

    That could be a very challenging game.

    Okay, okay - I know someone reading this probably *likes* California, and doesn't think California politics is ridiculous. That's cool. Thanks to Article 1 of the Constitution, the rest of us aren't allowed to tell you how to live. California can have whatever laws you all want. Just in case anyone forgets to read Article 1, the framers repeated it in the 10th Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So don't worry. Even though I think you guys are a parody of yourselves, I'm not going to try to stop you, I can't stop you. You can tax blinking if you want to.

    1. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      I find it amusing when proponents of huge government finally realize that they are going to be the ones paying for it.

      Remember, a government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take everything you have.

    2. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by skam240 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thanks for the tip! On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states in the union, I would like to ask you to please stay out of California.

      Okay, okay - I know you might be reading this and thinking "he doesn't have the ability to ban me from the state". That's cool. I don't.

      Our governance isn't perfect but we generally have no desire to be run like a broke ass red state. It's great you're making this one issue all about how absolutely horrible California laws are but we've been blue for a long time now and are still the 5th largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, red states have their own preposterous laws just like California does and are also the most economically backward in the union so maybe mind your own garden.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    3. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Taxes are cornerstones of modern society, particularly ones that are used to fund things for the disadvantaged.

      Sorry you hate people, be sure to bring that up with your god when you're at the gates, he'll totally understand.

      I'm sure you've heard that all taxes are regressive, and bureaucracy propagates bureaucracy. If a government can demonstrate fiscal austerity, responsible spending, and minimal waste on grossly negligent pork products and needs to increase taxation to raise revenue...alright.

      You assume that governments automatically know what is best. They don't. You accept that if the government says it needs more money, the first response should be for them to steal more of everyone's money instead of auditing their spending for waste. Have you ever SEEN a CBO report? On how grossly wasteful and financially irresponsible virtually every aspect of our government is?

      It isn't people-hating to question bureaucracy, it is civil duty - and while civic responsibility is a pipe-dream in America now, the only people hating is YOU. You hate people so much that you think the government should take their money unquestioned.

    4. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lotta projection goin' on in that post.

    5. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll happily take the midwest's regressive policies of not allowing people to shit, piss and shoot up anywhere they want.

    6. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      we've been blue for a long time now and are still the 5th largest economy in the world.

      5th a while back, now 7th and declining.

    7. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we generally have no desire to be run like a broke ass red state"

      Says the fucking retard living in and proudly standing by a broke ass blue state full of homeless tent cities that makes broke ass red states look fiscally responsible in comparison.

    8. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      No, 5th. http://fortune.com/2018/05/05/...

      Nice completely made up response though

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    9. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Tell me, just how do the "disadvantaged" contribute to modern society?
      Taxes are termites eating the floor of modern society. See, I can make silly metaphors too!

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are cornerstones of modern society, particularly ones that are used to fund things for the disadvantaged.

      Sorry you hate people, be sure to bring that up with your god when you're at the gates, he'll totally understand.

      What book of morality says that we should force others to pay for our favorite charities?

    11. Re: New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is ranked 50 in poverty. Dead last. You are the most taxed, and the most impoverished.

      Let's pretend that there isn't a correlation.

    12. Re:New game: The Onion or California? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can tax blinking if you want to.

      DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE IDEAS.

  28. just cut the sharade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just call it a tax on being alive - why choose arbitrary "things" to tax, just keep adding to your "being alive in California tax" whenever they need to redistribute the hard work and time of others to those that don't? (and don't get me wrong, those that "can't" should get some help)

    1. Re:just cut the sharade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just call it a tax on being alive

      That's already being used to cost shift Health care; it's called the Individual Mandate. Literally a tax for being alive.

  29. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, yes, go march on Sacremento and challenge the evil Prince John and his vile henchmen.

    I'm sure this will be the great motivator you want it to be.

  30. I'll go there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low income is code words forl immigrants, 70 percent who are families with kids are on some form of public dole.

  31. Fuck California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  32. Re:So people will be billed for incoming? with onl by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    It says flat tax. If your cellular service includes texting you get an extra tax.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  33. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... Fuck the poor!

    not providing the poor with a cell phone isn't exactly saying "fuck them".

    Without our contributions they'd have settle for good profits instead of record profits.

    presumably, you are paid for your contribution.

    We all have to do our part to eradicate second homlessness!

    how does a cell phone eradicate homelessness. what the poor need are job skills, not phones.

  34. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You misunderstand. Tax money shouldn't go to anyone. Not the rich. Not the poor. Go fuck yourself statist.

  35. better idea by Hentai007 · · Score: 1

    Tax reality TV stars at 25000%, sure that just means they will all leave ... but how is that a bad thing?

  36. Let's tax Prop 13 houses by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    That makes a lot more sense than taxing text messages

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Let's tax Prop 13 houses by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Prop 13 is why taxes like this exist in California.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:Let's tax Prop 13 houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, get rid of Prop 13 and the relatively stable upward trends in the housing market in California will disappear.

  37. Interstate Commerce? by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    My sister and I recently moved from California to Colorado to take advantage of the lower cost of living. However, we both kept our cell phone numbers to make it easier for friends and family to keep in touch. We often text each other to avoid distracting a driver, and since the area codes are in a different state, would this be recorded as interstate commerce?

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
    1. Re:Interstate Commerce? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1
      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  38. Re:Absolutely, per character basis by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Should tax people on a per character basis.

    Why do you hate character actors so?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  39. Lies from the get-go to get new tax in the door by misnohmer · · Score: 2

    1. If it's going to be a wash because they will lower voice service taxes, why bother, just take a portion of voice service taxes - unless somehow California has separate governments for voice and text services.

    2. How do I reconcile those two statements:
    "The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax."
    "consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more"
    If the tax is flat, how to consumers who create greater texting revenue pay more? Did they not think it through, or just telling people whatever they want to hear?.

    This is straight from the government "How to get some more money to skim from" handbook - ask for a new tax, make it small do people don't think it matters, tell everyone what they want to hear, get sufficient approval (or indifference) from the public to add the new tax, wait a year, increase the new tax, award new contracts to people who now owe you. After all, six taxes at 4% each don't seem as bad as one at 24%, right?

  40. FTFY by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 0

    Taxes are cornerstones of modern socialism, particularly ones that are used to fund things for the disadvantaged.

    FTFY.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    1. Re:FTFY by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Taxes are cornerstones of modern bureaucracy, particularly ones that are used to collect your taxes.

      There, Fixed it for you!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How'd that turn out for some of the poorer cities with highest taxes? Look real hard. They line the streets.

      The top 10 cities in order with NYC leading:
      NYC
      LA
      Seattle
      San Diego
      DC
      San Jose
      San Fran
      Vegas
      Boston
      Philadelphia

      Your high taxes still hasn't helped the DISADVANTAGED. Where all that money go you suspect? Me thinks the disadvantaged aren't getting their due.....

      FTFY :)

  41. ha ha ha - they made it RETROACTIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The plan is to tax any messages sent not only in the future, but any sent within the past FIVE YEARS

    This is what happens when you give Democrats mega-majorities in legislatures. In California they now control the state Senate and state Assembly by far more than even a 3/2 super-majority. No non-Democrat has any say in California state politics at this point.

    Funny that when your side does this stuff, you cannot deny it so you just try to minimize it (ahhh... who cares? nobody even does it anymore...). If that was true then the tax would raise no revenue and there would be no point to the tax. The Democrats who run California clearly expect a large pile of cash from this, which they are planning to spend funding more re-distributionist programs, so you are clearly just blowing smoke.

    Own it.

  42. Sidestep the tax by PPH · · Score: 1

    Go back to e-mail. Or IRC, or ....

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  43. And the welfare trap continues by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I can almost guarantee that their "low income" definition will have a hard cut-off. This will just make the hurdle of transitioning from welfare to work that much harder to jump. Anybody above the low income bar will be regressively taxed. California's government really needs to turn in it's progressive card. They've totally forgotten what that word originally meant.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  44. Destruction of the "golden state" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Democrats in CA are waging war on the middle class. They've imported millions of illegals into the state, given them driving licesnses, registered them to vote, given them Obamacare, and denounced any middle class person who objects as "racist". California now has the highest poverty level of any state in the union, and more middle class people are leaving every year than are arriving. The gap, therefore, between the rich and the poor in CA is widening at an alarming rate.

    They'll just keep increasing taxes on the middle class, and funding more poverty, while not overtaxing the supr-rich of Hollywood and Silicon Vally (who fund the campaigns of these Democrats while dishonestly promoting socialism as a twisted form of virtue signalling) until they run out of other people's money. They hope the general public sleeps through all of this, aided by legalized recreational pot.

    This is all about raw, amoral political power. The political class is buying the votes of the stupified, dependent masses as they drive out the people who would object, and use the political power to cozy-up to the wealthy business elites. If you're poor, your VOTE matters to them. If you're running a tech company, your MONEY matters to them. If you're anybody else, they want you gone.

  45. Looking forward to taxes to replace gas use fees by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    This is pretty interesting, but what is going to be really interesting is to see how governments end up replacing gas taxes as electric cars become more popular...

    They are going to have to do something, in the end I am thinking it will probably have to be an extra yearly fee on electric vehicles. Which will make hybrids rather unpopular, as you get taxed twice...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  46. Re: Taxation is theft by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Try getting a job when no one can follow up with a phone call.

  47. Given that this is California... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out of every $1000 raised I'm guessing about $1 will actually be spent toward the stated purpose. The rest will either go to the general fund (to pay for social programs for illegal immigrants, no doubt), or toward bureaucracy. The state government of California should just learn how to be fiscally responsible rather than trying to come up with a tax for anything and everything.

  48. Re: Taxation is theft by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    the French are right.

    Yeah... Fuck the poor!

    That was the Romans

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  49. The beginning of something good by theendlessnow · · Score: 0

    The goal is to provide free service to all the good people of Mexico. You just have to use the service while in California. Bonus: you get a USA driver's license, the ability to vote in our elections and lots of free benefits, possibly even free college.

    Many are moving from the USA to Mexico just so they can take advantage of the great deal.

    "Do you like the California plan?"
    - Yes, especially the voting rights. My brother is a felon, but sentence is up early next year. This way he can move to Mexico and come into the country of [through?] California and regain his lost voting rights. It's the most American thing California has ever done.

  50. marx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goverment unions and other unions will add the cost of the tax to their wage demands, so the tax will fall on general revenue, with corporations raising their prices to cover the tax and the poor paying more for their goods and services. So it's a tax on the poor. The marks.

  51. Different strokes for different folks. BIG pile of by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If you like California, of course you wouldn't want me to come there are ruin it for you. That's cool. I got the F out of California.

    I wouldn't want you to bring your California crap to Texas. We prefer different things.

    We're both fortunate that we live in a country that has federalism - each state can do what they want, with the federal afederation) government only doing the things that need to be done at that level, like national defense. You do you, and I'll do me.

    > 5th largest economy

    I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. I'd rather have money to do what needs to be done. I'm not sure I'd be bragging about my state being a BIG pile of crap. California's economy, like Mexico's, is big - okay and ... ?

    I'm sure California has some great things to brag about. Being economically similar to India can't be the best thing, can it? Maybe it is. Maybe "we're like India, big economy" is the best thing that can be said about California.

  52. Where is dyac when you need it? by raymorris · · Score: 1, Informative

    > On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states

    I would have died laughing if autocorrect had made that "one of the most preposterous states".

    Seriously I'm glad you like where you live.
    I like where I live.

    If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there.

    1. Re:Where is dyac when you need it? by skam240 · · Score: 0

      "If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there."

      Thanks. When the oil markets finally collapse and Texas looses it's primary means of economic growth you're not invited over.

      Lean on your outlier crutch all you want. Blue states provide prosperity. Red states do not.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Where is dyac when you need it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I laugh about here is you really are the typical californian. And I speak as someone born and raised in LA metro/San Diego, and got the fuck out of there. I hate it every time I have to go back and just yearn for when I can leave again. You're so god damn self important and you take yourself so seriously you are literally incapable of laughing at yourself.

      We've got raymorris saying "I'm glad your like where you live, I like where I live, feel free to come over" and you saying "stay the fuck away!!!!!".

      You're just an asshole. Plain and simple. Who knows, maybe if you ever got out of CA for a while you'd realize just how toxic your echo chamber is.

    3. Re:Where is dyac when you need it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've got raymorris saying "I'm glad your like where you live, I like where I live, feel free to come over" and you saying "stay the fuck away!!!!!".

      Uh huh. He was totally being friendly and kind, not patronizing and false-polite.

  53. Dumb Socialists: People are already fleeing CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed at how retarded the states government is. It's sad because it's not much better anywhere. Either you get the bigoted republicans who raise taxes to murder brown babies or you get democrats who do much of the same plus run businesses and there own people out of town. I left another socialist hell hole called NJ. That state decided to raise my costs and deprive me of business by adding a 7% sales tax on the tech services I provided. This led to less money in my pocket because people would just buy new computers instead of getting them fixed or it would force me to take less in profit as people will only pay so much before just buying a new computer. That was until I fled that state of NJ for NH. NH is a little better with all the libertarians migrating from other states for the purpose of a political take over. Which has had some success. NH politics is weird and already leans toward less taxation and has a heather environment for citizens to survive. Not it's perfect and there are a lot of things that need to be fixed that socialists [who come into the state and don't even live here mostly] have screwed up.

  54. Non-California Cell Plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this would apply to cell phone numbers in California only.
    What about folks with non-California cell phone numbers and plans?
    What about non-USA cell phone plans?

    Maybe we need to bring back the coin-slots on phones.......please deposit 10 cents to continue your call

    1. Re:Non-California Cell Plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this would apply to cell phone numbers in California only.
      What about folks with non-California cell phone numbers and plans?
      What about non-USA cell phone plans?

      Maybe we need to bring back the coin-slots on phones.......please deposit 10 cents to continue your call

      Excellent questions!

      +10

  55. No, because texting is usually free by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    data isn't. So if you have a pricey plan and an iPhone you won't notice this in the slightest. If you've got a cheap subsidized burner phone it'll hit you hard. You'll have to choose between texting and doing your homework. A lot of regressives like that choice.

    There's a sizable group of people in this country that want poor people to suffer. The idea is that their suffering will encourage them to stop being so damn poor. Now, virtually all research on the topic shows that pressure does not in fact make diamonds, and instead the stress from constantly being screwed and the mental gymnastics poor folks do calculating every little nickle and dime stolen from them exhausts them and leads to poor decision making, but that's not the point. Some folks just want somebody else to have it worse them them, and they don't care how that happens.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:No, because texting is usually free by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Take a look at your phone bill the taxes are flat and a couple of bucks. Don't like the tax drop the service.

    2. Re:No, because texting is usually free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy your prepaid phone outside the state, and pay with store-bought prepaid cards. Hence, not traceable to California.

  56. we didnt need a tax for the obamaphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why start now?

  57. Re:Looking forward to taxes to replace gas use fee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, change the gas tax to a tax on how many wheels the vehicles has.
    then it's on ICE vehicles and on electric vehicles.

  58. Re: So people will be billed for incoming? with on by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Which I already do.

    Number of texts I have sent or received in the last 5 years: 0

  59. Re: Taxation is theft by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    You misunderstand. Tax money shouldn't go to anyone. Not the rich. Not the poor. Go fuck yourself statist.

    Maintaining a developed civilization isn't free, it costs money. But you want to enjoy that standard of living without paying for its upkeep - so fuck your self, you self-centered parasite.

  60. Re:Different strokes for different folks. BIG pile by skam240 · · Score: 1

    "I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. "

    One of the worst parts of Texas is simply driving through it. Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left. Driving through the desert there is like driving through some sort of post apocalyptic scenario of abandoned business'. Texas' economy is exactly like that of the countries you try put on California with no supporting arguments. Nothing is sacred and everything is for sale.

    And how about your one proper hub of innovation? Oh, Austin? They're bluer than any blue state.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  61. Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a 0.1 cent tax on the SENDER of the text or phone call? It would put telemarketers and spammers out of biz. Their whole model relies on free. I'd be willing to pay an extra 30c/month to get rid of spammers. That is 10 calls/texts/day which is about average for most I suspect.

  62. Just tighten the requirements by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    Individuals making $27,000 a year (the approximate current limit) can afford to pay $10-$15 a month for a basic phone plan. Reduce the maximum income to $20,000, or to whatever it takes to fit within the program's funds. Or if you must, make it be for homeless people only -- they're the ones whose lives it makes the most difference in (connecting them to services and making it more possible to find work).

    Incidentally, this same approach could help California's affordable housing crisis. Stop making families with $60K+ incomes eligible for subsidized apartments and suddenly those 2 year waiting lists will evaporate and the needy will get housing.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
    1. Re:Just tighten the requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A family making $60k a year IS needy in California, fuckwad.

    2. Re:Just tighten the requirements by faedle · · Score: 1

      Not just in California. In many major cities one is struggling at the $50k/year mark. When housing and basic transportation to/from work costs 2/3rds of your take-home that doesn't leave a lot of room for things like food, clothing, and basic utilities. Portland, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Boston, NYC. You have to be making closer to $100k before things start getting "comfortable" in these cities.

  63. Well there's a good thing by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Hey cool. I *thought* you could come up with something better than "our economy is like Mexico, India, and Russia".

    See that's really cool you live in a place where half the land is owned by the federal government, compared to Texas where we own our own homes that we live in. That's awesome. Renting an apartment next to a federal hazardous waste^H^H^H^H^H preserve is much better.

    One of my favorite things about California is that you can pick your season. You can waterski on Saturday and snow ski on Sunday, a fairly short drive from the beach to the mountains. That's pretty neat.

    1. Re:Well there's a good thing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      That's a nice fiction you've got there but let me put things plainly for you.

      California's country side is not full of hazardous federal waste sites. Texas' "country side" does in fact look like a big spread out dump.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Well there's a good thing by raymorris · · Score: 1

      You like that the California land is owned by the federal government.
      I like that the Texas land is owned by me. We both get what we want.

      We don't have to argue about whose preference is better, we both get what we want. For now, anyway. The feds have already gone way past their Constitutional authority, and it keeps getting worse. Hopefully I'll be able to leave you guys to do things your way, in your state. I gtfo of there.

    3. Re:Well there's a good thing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed? You're just making shit up now.

      All I've commented on is how Texas seems to have no concept for land management at all so that anyone can buy land anywhere and then abandon anything they want there.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    4. Re: Well there's a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The National Parks, Forests, and Monuments in California are appreciated by tens of millions.

      Meanwhile those big Texas ranches are failing enterprises propped up by subsidies and corruption while TRAP laws dominate the state legislature's calendar.

    5. Re:Well there's a good thing by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed?

      You said:
      --
      Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left.
      --

      I take that to mean you prefer California, where most of the land is owned by the federal government, vs Texas, where we each own our land.

    6. Re:Well there's a good thing by skam240 · · Score: 1

      And blue states achieve brilliant economic growth while maintaining proper land usage.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  64. Re:Looking forward to taxes to replace gas use fee by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    Well, rule out any method that doesn't involve the taxation itself adding an additional unnecessary cost that is paid for through the act of taxation.

    For example, in Oregon they're already piloting a GPS unit that you're required by law to connect to your vehicles diagnostic port. How's that for convoluted and needlessly expensive? It even comes with with the added bonus of privacy and security concerns.

    Sacramento is going to piss themselves in excitement in copying this system for their state, if they haven't already.

  65. There is Little Help for Poor In CA by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    In fact, in CA, the poor have to pay for the Lifeline help for people in other states, yet they cannot get help.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  66. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Prop13 houses" are ALL houses (including ones being rented, which means higher rents would follow).

    Back in the late 1970s, elderly people barely managing on Social security were being kicked out of their homes as the state government re-assessed their home values every year (inflating the values at higher than the Jimmy carter era double-digit inflation rates) and kept raising the taxes. As the tax bills went up, the elderly were rendered bankrupt and their homes were being grabbed by the state. Prop13 was part of a set of revolts against the power-mad Democrats back then (another was the recall of the state supreme court judges after the majority of them stopped enforcing laws they did not like). It's completely EVIL to take the home of a senior on meager income who paid taxes his/her whole life in order to get cash for people who are not even legally in the country!

    ALL Homes in California are taxed fairly heavily, Prop13 only LIMITS THE RATE OF INCREASE in the taxes.

    California Democrats have long despised Prop13 because it effectively forces them to rob school funds and road funds so they can keep packing billions of dollars into the state workers union pensions, highspeed railroad to nowhere plans, free lawyers and housing and welfare for illegal aliens, and so forth (CA spent @23 BILLION on illegals last year). They have to keep packing those pensions in order to keep the votes of those unions and keep getting elected. We have prison dentists here who are retired on more than $00K per year in pensions and San Diego even has a firefighter who was never injured on duty yet collects over $600K per year in pensions. It's how thw Democrats get their power here (State employee unions + support for illegal aliens).

    1. Re:um by Uberbah · · Score: 0

      It's not like you actually give a shit about seniors. You just want to pay lower property taxes, that's all.

  67. It's a mental health thing by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    No multiple personalities.

  68. Spending less not an option?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is the state spending less money elsewhere not an option?

  69. Best idea ever, keep up the good work! by rwrife · · Score: 1

    This is another great idea from the California legislators, they need to keep up the good work. All of these new taxes, welfare programs and regulations are exactly what the people of California asked for and need.....to make other states look more attractive for businesses and people. Soon the whole state will be like one massive Detroit: corrupt, bankrupt and overwhelm with crime.

  70. Taxation is the same as buying votes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politicians literally give zero f*cks about the people they claim to represent. They are using this tax to attract more low income voters, once they sucker those people in theyâ(TM)ll offer âoetax breaksâ to whatever other group of voters they want to appeal to.

  71. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try getting a job when no one can follow up with a phone call.

    I've done it before, when I was younger I didn't have a phone, my sister had a phone, I used her number. This is one of the biggest problems we face, no one wants to solve their own problems anymore. Individuals lack the ability to solve such a simple problem, so everyone else has to be taxed and solve the problem for them. We need more "eat what you kill" in this country.

  72. Thought you wanted more taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these comments while you bitch when trump lowers taxes. Enjoy more taxes California. Keep raising those taxes so you can give everyone UBI

  73. Or I could vote by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    for left wing candidates who oppose regressive taxes. That works too. Especially since in 2018 a cell phone is a necessity for any kind of job worth having.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Or I could vote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      left wing candidates who oppose regressive taxes

      Bwa ha ha ha! Left wing... oppose taxes. Hee hee.

  74. Re:Looking forward to taxes to replace gas use fee by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    no, change the gas tax to a tax on how many wheels the vehicles has.

    The problem with that though, is it's not proportionate to how much you drive, the way gas tax is...

    Unless you mean charge an additional tax per tire sold? That could be interesting, and also encourages people to get longer wearing tires where people that wanted to splurge a little on higher quality tires would pay a bit more in road tax.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  75. Industry Revenue falls, better add more taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's great is that the CPUC report has nice charts showing that industry revenue has fallen steadily over the year while the tax receipts have risen. That is the justification for adding more taxes on another service. These people are fucking evil.

  76. Another tax from the California communists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is enacted, I'll get my next phone & number in another state.
    Screw taxifornia and its communists leaders.

  77. Left wing ??? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Business groups in the state and wireless carriers are against the proposal
    https://thehill.com/policy/tec...

    You do realize your state is controlled top to bottom by left wing politicians ?

  78. Drop SMS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello Phone Company, I want to drop SMS from my phone because I never really use it anyway. Or I can drop the whole phone service, but keep the smartphone and just use WiFi access with VOIP apps, XMPP instant messaging. E911 still has to work by law.

  79. Texting should be FREE by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    You're saving a ton of bandwidth vs. making a phone call. How we got into this bizarro land of pretending like texts are some premium feature is beyond me.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  80. jail everyone who came up with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're too retarded to exist in society. They need to be locked up before they impose their stupidity on millions of other people

  81. Who cares what NAZI PROPAGANDIST RAY MORRIS does? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  82. "low income residents" = illegals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to get the local population to pay for a sustainable invasion, hmmm... let's put a tax on their text messages, maybe on their farting too. By the time fkers wake up it will be too late. Goood (evil laugh).

  83. As usual California legislators have goofed. by Wizardess · · Score: 1

    It's pretty obvious the California legislators have not been paying attention. The first thing I thought of when I learned about this tax is the Emanual's plight over in France. Macron's about to get chewed up and tossed out about like the last French royal family. Let them eat cake, er let them use pencil and paper.
    {^_^}

  84. A wash? Someone's math stinks. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    "From a consumer's point of view, surcharges may be a wash, because if more surcharge revenues come from texting services, less would be needed from voice services,"

    Except that you're still adding a new surcharge so there is an instant increase in cost. It's never a wash from the consumer's perspective, only from the tax collectors', and then only after it's been in place.

    Besides, the whole point is that, "The report outlines the shrinking revenue coming from a current tax on the telecommunications industry and argues that a new tax on text messaging should be put in place to make up for it", so clearly it won't be a wash because the whole point is extracting more money from consumers. They will notice.

  85. how you text doesn't matter by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 1

    This is about declining number of land line users paying into the utility fee attached to every physical phone line. The Utility commission isn't going to tax you per message, they are going to slap a monthly fee on your cell account. There will be no getting around it. It sucks but it's not going to be a per text sent or received issue. You may continue your blissful ignorance.

    --
    Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  86. is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Californians don't actually care about the poor
    2. Just use an app
    3. Compulsory poor tax is NOT AMERICAN

    The ultra rich who make these laws should band together and use their own money for philanthropy, what does this have to do with Joe Citizen

  87. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  88. Or maybe you meant by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Did I misunderstand when I thought you meant you preferred California-style federal ownership vs Texas individual ownership?

    Maybe your emphasis was on "economic growth", your point is that having a big economy is bad?

    1. Re:Or maybe you meant by skam240 · · Score: 1

      All you're doing is putting words in my mouth.

      "your point is that having a big economy is bad?"

      Clearly I was not claiming that as can be easily inferred by me discussing the wealth of California and Blue states in general in several posts.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  89. Somebody can't recognize wit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just don't like the irony of Red State America being run by the same oppressive nomenklatura as the USSR just with different masks, do you?

    The facade of their authoritarian exploitation of the public ignorance is just hilarious.

    That their bannerbearer is a sellout to the current Russian corruption is just icing on the cake.

  90. Never change Miss Marple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, and after all the school privatization and standardized testing and union busting, you still can't accept that the rightwing goal is to end public schooling since they can't get back segregation of schools. Except by pretending that their private exclusive academies will somehow open to the public in some way.

    But hey, you continue to think that Margaret Sanger's provision of birth control to women in her own Jewish-American neighborhood was racist. After all, women having autonomy over their own bodies is totally discriminatory.

    Meanwhile you rail about ghetto welfare queens and braided hair in public schools. Can't stand that, can you?

    1. Re:Never change Miss Marple by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      But hey, you continue to think that Margaret Sanger's provision of birth control to women in her own Jewish-American neighborhood was racist. After all, women having autonomy over their own bodies is totally discriminatory.

      We have no evidence that Sanger was actually racist (certainly her writings and her actions did not reflect that), but she was very classist, and overlapped with eugenicists that the stupid should not reproduce. She believed in forced sterilization for the profoundly retarded and strongly recommended that the reckless and destitute limit their populations, because she believed that environmentally-acquired traits were inherited. Basically, if you were too poor and "reckless" to properly raise healthy children, then those children who lived would grow up to be the same. But she explicitly rejected race and ethnicity as factors.

  91. Is this tax only directed at SMS texting? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    I would assume so, sense they are talking about the flat fee on the bill for texting. But never assume. If so, there are plenty of different ways to send messages. Not just whatsapp.

    The best text messaging apps for Android and iOS
    https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/best-text-messaging-apps/

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  92. Flashback: Email Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the old Email tax hoax?
    It was a hoax because it was such a stupid idea.

  93. Data plan being taxed, $10 plan to cost $10.70 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They plan on taxing data plans at 7%.
    So, me paying $30/month for the unlimited family plan would start paying $32.10/month, or $25.20/yr... which given how much I already pay each month is nothing.
    Yep, obvious end of the world.

    Now, if, you do not have a data plan... well, they charge $0.20/text... so the tax is $0.014/message. 5 text messages will cost you $1.07, rather than $1.00.

  94. Woohoo! by skaralic · · Score: 1

    Yay, more taxes!

  95. Able bodied people shouldnt get free anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is yet another bad idea in a long string of socialist bad ideas. Able bodied people shouldnt get free anything. I'm thinking if this get rolled out that nayone receiving so called "free" subsidies need to give something back and work for it. There shouldn't be a single gum wrapper or cigarette butt on any public lands from here on out. Period.

  96. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try getting a job when no one can follow up with a phone call.

    "I'll swing back around every day just to check to see if I get the job." Someone will hire that level of dedication.

  97. Re: Taxation is theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GP is correct. Tax money should go to *general welfare*. Not "welfare programs". Police, Firefighters, roads, bridges, sanitation, national defense. That sort of thing. If you want to get some of that tax money to someone who doesn't have money, then get them busy working on the general welfare and pay them with tax dollars earmarked for general welfare. D's keep talking about starting shovel-ready jobs, but they don't want people to feel like they're earned a day's wages, because then they might be unhappy that the D's skimmed some of the money off the top.

  98. So your point is? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership. If economic growth, twice as much as California, is good, and personal ownership is good, I'm not clear on what your point is.

    Were you pointing out some ways Texas is better, with the economy doing twice as well as California, while we retain our property rather than handing it over to the government?

    1. Re:So your point is? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership."

      More words in my mouth. When will you stop making shit up? Lying just makes you look weak.

      Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to its long term determent which has been my point all along. Texas has used its exclusive ownership of its territory to exploit it to its extreme, thus making the states "rural" regions look like a dump. This point has been clearly made twice now and you continue to try to distort it.

      Oil is going up in value again in a significant fashion and you crow on about the wise governance of Texas when it has nothing to do with that. Every time oil prices plunge Texas all of a sudden looks like the red state it is.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:So your point is? by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to which has been my point all along.

      Okay, thanks for stating your point clearly.

      When you just point out that, unlike California, Texas didn't cede half its land to the federal government, it's a bit unclear what your point is.

    3. Re:So your point is? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      "it's a bit unclear what your point is."

      Holly Jesus Christ. For I think the fourth fucking time, it's that Texas has sacrificed all of it's public land in the name of economic advancement. I've fucking told you this several times now. Texas' economic model is based on maximum exploitation of it's public land to its long term determent. Blue states are able to achieve economic success without this.

      You keep on trying to bring the federal government into this and it's fucking meaningless.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  99. Heh... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    You did it to yourselves, California.

    You can fix it.

    God help you, but I don't think you're going to.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  100. BTW by skam240 · · Score: 1

    By the way, no one likes the douche bag that tries to look like they're making peace while putting the person they're talking to into a completely false characterization. If you had any integrity at all this conversation could in fact have ended with "hey, we're opposite ends of the political spectrum and that is what it is". But no, you chose to intentionally miss-characterize what I have been repeatedly saying while trying to look like the "good guy".

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.