Taxes for Text Messages

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Taxes for Text Messages

Gotta love the CA gubment. Now they want to go after text messages. They are like what, 10 years or so behind?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/12/12/california-text-tax-state-considers-plan-charge-messages/2288600002/

Good news is iMessage, Whatsapp, etc doesn’t even use SMS protocol so it would pretty much only apply to Android users.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
22
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:44 pm    Post subject:

iPhone for life
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:31 am    Post subject:

retroactive tax?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Conker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 13056
Location: MDC

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:04 am    Post subject:

Why not impose a poll tax while they're at it.
_________________
(❍ᴥ❍ʋ) ʕʘᴥʘʔ (⌐ ͡■ ͜ʖ ͡■) (┛◉Д◉)┛( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ༼;´༎ຶ ۝ ༎ຶ༽
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:38 am    Post subject:

It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.

Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.

Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 9:14 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.

Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.

Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal.


Creating opposition to even more taxes particularly on things like this is good, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:29 pm    Post subject:

Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Raijin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 08 Feb 2009
Posts: 6576

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:08 pm    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.

They could always try to reduce spending
_________________
"It was tough," Kobe Bryant said. "But when it got really tough for me, I just checked myself in."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Taxes for Text Messages

ringfinger wrote:
Gotta love the CA gubment. Now they want to go after text messages. They are like what, 10 years or so behind?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/12/12/california-text-tax-state-considers-plan-charge-messages/2288600002/

Good news is iMessage, Whatsapp, etc doesn’t even use SMS protocol so it would pretty much only apply to Android users.


Slippery slope. Could they start taxing you for posting on internet message boards? I mean the resources for both are no different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:17 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
It won’t pass in its current form. There are way too many unanswered questions and it has become a PR nightmare.

Like all political issues, there is a lot of spin on this one. It was originally labeled as a “surcharge”, just like the ones that show up at the bottom of many of your bills already. Most of the surcharges we pay are a dollar or less per bill. They say they want to use the money to help subsidize cell phone costs for the poor.

Calling it a “tax on text messages” is a clever way to gain headlines and create opposition in my opinion. If the tax/surcharge was big enough for people to really care, they’ll just switch to WhatsApp, FaceBook Messenger, or any other number of messaging apps which are excluded from this proposal.


I believe the FCC already came out and ruled against it. It will probably end up as a surcharge to make up for the decline of revenue from phone calls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 6:57 am    Post subject:

Raijin wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.

They could always try to reduce spending
who says they are not trying to reduce unnecessary spending? See never says SPENDING. thats foolish. there are some things you need to spend money on. you can't do it and have a nice state to live in. But there are some things that are completely unnecessary. So you should only say No UNNECESSARY Spending.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ExPatLkrFan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 3982
Location: Mukdahan, Thailand

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 7:56 pm    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
Raijin wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.

They could always try to reduce spending
who says they are not trying to reduce unnecessary spending? See never says SPENDING. thats foolish. there are some things you need to spend money on. you can't do it and have a nice state to live in. But there are some things that are completely unnecessary. So you should only say No UNNECESSARY Spending.


As long as the LA-SF bullet train project exists the state cannot truthfully claim to be attempting to reduce unnecessary spending.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 8:50 pm    Post subject:

Raijin wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.

They could always try to reduce spending


I live in a state where we are divided between the pro and anti tax people. And the anti tax people always scream the loudest at the cost cuts that affect them (after they block tax increases to pay for those things) and they are already heavily subsidized.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 5:47 pm    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
Well when you really read about why they are trying to put the tax on the text messages you realize we may just need them to at worse maintain a similar revenue stream we've had since we started paying taxes on our landline phones.

So no more landlines due to Cell phones and then you end up with less revenue via phone taxes. So now where are you going to get the money from? text messages because thats the only thing thats being consistently used that could be in comparison to the old revenue stream. so in theory HECK NO to a text tax. But in reality Yes we need it.


The taxes on the land lines were to subsidize low income land line users. But, now that people are not using land lines anymore, they still need a way to subsidize low income land line users, so.....

Let's just tax something different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB