dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
745
share rss forum feed
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

How was it worded on the ballet?

Did they use deceiving language? Did they mention the word's "fair" in reference to "alternative" telephone services "shall pay their fair share of taxes"? If they worded it straight up, I question whether or not the general public would understand what they were "approving".

FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: How was it worded on the ballet?

said by rradina:

Did they use deceiving language? Did they mention the word's "fair" in reference to "alternative" telephone services "shall pay their fair share of taxes"? If they worded it straight up, I question whether or not the general public would understand what they were "approving".
You can read it here:
»www.smartvoter.org/2008/02/05/ca/la/meas/S/
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: How was it worded on the ballet?

quote:
Apply the tax equally to all communications technologies, including new and emerging technologies; and
Which is why I'm glad that I live outside of L.A. city limits. LAUSD is another L.A. failure.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39
REDUCTION OF TAX RATE AND MODERNIZATION OF COMMUNICATIONS USERS TAX. Shall an ordinance be adopted to reduce the City’s tax on communications users from 10% to 9%; modernize the ordinance to treat taxpayers equally regardless of technology used; exempt low-income senior-citizen and disabled households; to fund general municipal services, such as 911, police, fire protection, street maintenance, parks and libraries; subject to an annual independent audit?

jimbo48

join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA

Re: How was it worded on the ballot?

Looks discriminatory to me based on age, income and physical disability to me.
I'm not a low income Senior citizen nor am I disabled (yet) so this tax would be discrimination against me, a violation of Federal law but it would never be considered because the courts would refuse to consider it.
You think for one minute that this revenue is going to go to all these social amenities and services? Hell no the politicians will gobble the added revenues up faster than they can be generated to fund their pet projects, pay for their high maintenance lifestyles. These same politicos will be back to the pig trough asking for more and more.
People will not be able to retire and live in California and we'll see another round of feel good laws passed (a 21st century Prop 13 all over again)so that the senior citizens homes won't be lost to the host of taxes in place.
Taxes are necessary to maintain a society and as a society we are responsible to pay a "fair" share. Cut the waste, the graft, the pork out of the system, then determine whats really needed.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

Re: How was it worded on the ballet?

Hell, I may have voted for it! 10% to 9% sounds like a tax reduction.

Are there THAT many VOIP users skirting this tax in LA that they can reduce it by a point? Are all those cell phones somehow not being taxed "equally"?

What does gripe my ass is the fact that they want to fund police, fire, streets, parks and libraries with a tax on "communications". How does one associate a communication tax with all of these services? What bizarre politician brain believes that "heavy" communication users benefit more from these services and therefore should have a greater burden to support them? Are we to believe there is a correlation between high crime rate and heavy phone use? Does someone who talks on the phone all the time do more smoking in bed? Can they find the time to read more library books if they are always on the phone?

This is just idiot taxation.

Does anyone here consider that such a tax asks you to pay more simply because you have two phones in your house? I don't agree with it but it's natural for folks to believe the rich should have a higher burden. I just didn't know that having two phones was like parking a Bentley in your driveway. What the hell, I have three phones. Look at me, I'm filthy rich!

jimbo48

join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA
Has a politician EVER used "straight up" language to convince the public to tax themselves even more. No they cite things like decreased spending on "the children" reduced police , fire and social services. Then they figure out a way to siphon off the enhanced tax revenues to pay off their debts for getting reelected etc. Read the various bond issues and tax rate increase proposals. This is what four years of Law school generates. The ability to hide the truth with legalese that is meant to obscure the true impact.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

Re: How was it worded on the ballet?

said by jimbo48:

Has a politician EVER used "straight up" language to convince the public to tax themselves even more.
At least in California they don't need to. The powers-that-be in the San Francisco area want to use that mythical man-made global warming hoax to convince the voters there to allow for a 10 cent "global warming reduction fee" to be added to the gas tax.

»www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c···politics
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate!

jimbo48

join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA

Re: How was it worded on the ballet?

And that is why I'm going to get out of the Bay Area-California as soon as I can. It doesn't matter what the voters vote for , the nutcases (a la San Francisco, Sacramento and Berkeley) take it upon themselves to show us conservatives the error of our ways by keeping our wallets empty of any appreciable wealth over 20.00.
The APris pickpockets could learn a thing or two form California politicians on how to lift a wallet without being causght.

Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari

join:2005-05-17
I suspect (and I don't live in California, so take my thoughts for the senseless ramblings they probably are) that it would stand a good chance of passing anyway, since a lot of people who don't have the high-tech phone services would have thought "heck, I don't use that anyway, so it doesn't hurt me" and voted for what, to them, would appear much more easily to be a plain tax decrease.