how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to PeterCollins
Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins:Understand that I don't support adding this tax "to compensate for falling tax revenue." The taxes should be expanded (and equalized) to treat all services equally. Phone, Internet & Cable tv can all be delivered across the same fiber. Why should one be taxed differently than the other? Should we apply the "car vs. semi use of the road" model and tax by byte usage? If that was the case, for most homes television would see the highest taxes, followed by internet use, followed by phone. Cities are responsible to look after the r.o.w., and pay employees to manage those rights of way. They can either tax those that use the r.o.w.(via fanchise fees or telco taxes), or just raise the property taxes for all to do the same. Or your model - remove all the taxes on everything to do with communications. It will however then be shifted to property or sales taxes. Take your pick. What utter BULLSHIT! Why do you persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable? They haven't been, and quite likely won't be for the forseeable future.
Why should telephone, VOIP, cable television or IPTV end users be taxed for access to these services at all? Why should such worthless, bogus taxes be expanded to cover all services and access to services?
Internet access certainly isn't taxed at the present time, and that fact is what this thread is all about; the renewal of the current BAN on internet access taxes, and possibly making the extended BAN permanent.
Cities charging Telcos and Cablecos for access to public "rights of way" began in a era of regulated monopoly that technically no longer exists. Public rights of way for telephone and cable services require little maintenance that isn't provided by the lessees of those rights of way who pay for use. Taxes on telephone and cable end users is double-dipping, and has NOTHING to do with city maintenance, property tax, or provision of public telecommunications services; i.e., it is simply a tax revenue generating scheme for general fund use. I believe that end user taxes on the services under discussion are unjustified based on the fact that end users already pay for the infrastructure, services and access thereto, and the cities/states do not add value to the system through "use tax" revenue generated and siphoned off for general operating purposes.
"Take my pick"? OK, I pick NO END USER TAXES whatsoever on telecommunications services, forever! | | |
|
| Why do I persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable?
Regulation (Federal, State or Local) is not going to remove telco taxes or franchise type fees (taxes). It's a given.
Moving forward from that point, all "communications services" that use publicly held r.o.w. should be treated equally. Since we know the other two are not going away, we should move to treat them the same.
As to the cities not adding to the equation, who do you suggest should look out for the public rights of way? The cities or AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Cox? Would you prefer that AT&T get to decide where that 52B box goes (looks great in a front yard) or that the city p.w. (on your behalf) has some say in the matter?
Again you can take your pick on how you want to pay for that... "communications type taxes" that hit the users of the services, or just a blanket increase in property or sales taxes. The cost of the management of the r.o.w. (city services) has to come from somewhere.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| said by PeterCollins:Why do I persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable? That's right! Internet access taxes are NOT inevitable, they have been banned, and will continue to be banned.
said by PeterCollins:Regulation (Federal, State or Local) is not going to remove telco taxes or franchise type fees (taxes). It's a given. Far from a given, as was the case of the telecommunications luxury tax imposed to fund the Spanish-American War, unnecessary, superfluous and obsolete taxes can be removed/repealed. Although, it usually takes a lot longer than one would hope. I believe that taxes such as the ones you advocate should cease to exist because they are simply revenue grabs unassociated with the creation, maintenance or improvement of the services upon which they are levied.
said by PeterCollins:Moving forward from that point, all "communications services" that use publicly held r.o.w. should be treated equally. Since we know the other two are not going away, we should move to treat them the same. I agree, and NONE OF THESE SERVICES SHOULD BE TAXED since the use of the right of ways is already paid for by the lessees. What the lessees subsequently use it for is none of the local governments goddamned business, except as to the apportionment of income taxes on the businesses involved collected under different authority. The scenario you advocate is rather like AT&T's suggestion that content providers and internet end users should pay double for the same infrastructure and services they have already paid for. The cities behavior is no different from any other tenacious, mendacious bum looking for a free ride on the taxpayers while not providing any value added; not even entertainment.
said by PeterCollins:As to the cities not adding to the equation, who do you suggest should look out for the public rights of way? The cities or AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Cox? Would you prefer that AT&T get to decide where that 52B box goes (looks great in a front yard) or that the city p.w. (on your behalf) has some say in the matter? Again you can take your pick on how you want to pay for that... "communications type taxes" that hit the users of the services, or just a blanket increase in property or sales taxes. The cost of the management of the r.o.w. (city services) has to come from somewhere. Hahahahahaha! What a fucking joke! In most localities, city services consist of sewer, water and in some cases electric utilities, and telecommunications infrastructure is co-located with these city utilities for the most part. The city charges fees to its residents for provision of municipal services which already include the cost of maintaining "right of ways". The telecommunication lessees of public "right of ways" pay for the maintenance of their portion of upkeep costs both in the leasehold fees they pay, and in direct expenses to maintain their equipment and the right of ways; e.g., pole replacement, excavations, repaving, etc.. Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued.
The taxes we are discussing are "use" taxes on end users of telecommunications services which bear no relation to the creation, regulation, or maintenance of telecommunication right of ways. These types of taxes are attempts by tax authorities to double-dip and extract additional revenue from end users who have already paid for the costs of providing services. Such taxes are tantamount to theft.
As the lines blur between Telco and Cableco in the transition from analog to digitally provided services the ability to identify, separate and slap additional taxes on these services will become much harder to do. The solution is not to slap a blanket use tax on all services, but to abandon these bogus counterproductive taxes altogether. | |
| "Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."
As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do.
Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| said by PeterCollins:"Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do. I agree wholeheartedly, but doubt the Telco lawsuit will be deemed frivolous by the courts, and, furthermore, the cities will probably lose. The point is the cities you say are collecting use taxes from end users to protect the right of ways are NOT collecting use taxes for this purpose, are NOT doing their job effectively, and will fail to prevent AT&T's placement policies because they, along with their state governments, have surrendered jurisdiction, either voluntarily, or involuntarily as a result of Telco lobbying at the federal level.
said by PeterCollins:Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services. No city gives away use of public right of ways, they charge the lessees a fee for such use. Cities are then trying to double-dip by taxing end users in the form of use tax for on services provided by the lessees which right of way costs are already included in the cost of service to end users, and then triple-dip through sales taxes on the services provided by lessees who have already paid the city for the leaseholds, and are desirous of extracting further tax revenue by taxing access to the internet as a separate service, and this behavior is unconscionable. Cities have NO INHERENT RIGHT TO TAX TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES OF ANY KIND. They especially have no right to collect internet access taxes, and in fact, are prohibited from doing so by the very legislation under discussion, up for renewal, and which, hopefully, will be made permanent. | |
| Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications.
But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names.
The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. | |
1 edit | said by PeterCollins:Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications. But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names. The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. You have some kind of vested interest in taxes on telecommunications, judging from your erroneous insistence that cities universally currently tax telecommunications.
They do not do any such thing in the city where I live. There are no city taxes on telecommunications anywhere in my geographic area. There are no internet access tax imposed by any tax authority anywhere, with the notable seven or so exceptions grandfathered in by the internet tax moratorium that is up for renewal. There is a very tiny ($0.27 on $11.50 phone bill) county assessment on telephone service in the county next to mine, but no such tax in any of the other surrounding counties, including mine.
The best thing to do about end user taxes on telecommunication services is to ban them all outright, thus allowing all technologies equal competition based on inherent merit/superiority/utility. That ban should include "use", "access" and "sales" taxes (except as result indirectly from income taxes on the entities providing service).
REUTERS:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Thursday urged the Senate to make permanent the moratorium on taxes for Internet access and electronic commerce.
In a statement, the cabinet secretaries said passage of legislation keeping the Internet free of access taxes by the time the current moratorium expires on November 1 would help keep the Internet an "innovative force".
The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to consider a bill to extend the moratorium on Thursday. The ban has been in place since 1998 and was last reinstated in 2004 for a period of three years.
Internet service providers say the price of Internet access could rise by as much as 17 percent if the moratorium on state taxes were allowed to expire.
"Preventing the taxation of Internet access will help sustain an environment for innovation, ensure that consumers continue to have affordable access to the Internet, especially high-speed Internet, and strengthen the foundations of electronic commerce as a vital and growing part of our economy," Paulson and Gutierrez said." | |
|
