dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
4074
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Verizon obviously doesn't hire math whizzes

This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State

that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1

Member

said by 88615298:

This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State

that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
You're applying common sense because you have a limited budget. VZ does not care how much money it has to spend because its pockets are deeper than god's.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State

that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
But it has a deterrent effect. If the state loses once again they are LESS likely to attempt further tax increases down the line.

And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles. That is really stupid since taxes will just be passed on anyway to telco customers.

Oh wait !! I forgot. Pols always try to pass tax increases that are done on the sly where they are hidden in the cost of a company's doing business. The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Interesting logic.

Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
Of course it does: Far better to pay $2000 to ensure that you don't have to pay $1000 per year in taxes.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

1 recommendation

FFH5 to backness

Premium Member

to backness
said by backness:

Interesting logic.

Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
I don't. I don't think there should be any corporate taxes at all since they are merely passed on to customers in any case. Taxes on corporations are merely ways for cowardly & deceitful politicians to hide their money grabs.

And besides, corporate taxes are regressive because they always hit the customers and NOT the stockholders. So those least likely to be able to afford higher taxes are the ones who really pay for corporate taxes.

If politicians were honest(ROTFLMAO) they would pass more progessive income taxes and not corporate taxes. But they are bought & paid for by the richest Americans.

The fact that all these uninformed voters RANT CONSTANTLY about corporate taxes shows that the politicians have FOOLED most of the people. But believe me, the rich aren't fooled.

So, cheer on all the corporate taxes you want, because if they do that instead of raising income tax rates, I'll laugh all the way to the bank.
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

1 recommendation

nasadude to backness

Member

to backness
said by backness:

...Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
because he's a free market man and whatever business wants, business should get. business is the be-all and end-all for the U S of A and we don't want to mess with the utopian paradise the U.S. has become.
SilverSurfer1
join:2007-08-19

SilverSurfer1 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

I don't think there should be any corporate taxes at all since they are merely passed on to customers in any case.
Obviously you must mean all those taxes the rest of us pay so that corporations can collect welfare later on after 2/3rds of their profits have been safely offshored from the prying eyes of the IRS.
Yep. Consumers sure do see a ::SIGNIFICANT:: reduction in their taxes...particularly the kind that go towards bailouts for bankers and American vehicle manufacturers.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that the state wants to collect property taxes from VZ for "public" property? Also, doesn't VZ already pay franchise fees that were negotiated for use of the public property in the first place?
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
I'm not cheering anything. Being part of society has certain obligations. You don't get the benefits of protection of the American Legal system for free you know. I'll ask you why a company should be allowed to use the country for its own gain but return nothing to it.

As for the corporate taxes not affecting shareholders, do you even own any stock? I hate to say it but bottom line earnings are calculated AFTER income taxes.

Keep digging.

Sorry to feed the trolls
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by backness:

Interesting logic.

Why should some be excluded from taxation while others pay? McDonalds pays for their property to be in business. Residents pay their taxes on their property and income (and also on any improvements). Why do you set a double standard for a telco?
I don't. I don't think there should be any corporate taxes at all since they are merely passed on to customers in any case. Taxes on corporations are merely ways for cowardly & deceitful politicians to hide their money grabs.

And besides, corporate taxes are regressive because they always hit the customers and NOT the stockholders. So those least likely to be able to afford higher taxes are the ones who really pay for corporate taxes.

If politicians were honest(ROTFLMAO) they would pass more progessive income taxes and not corporate taxes. But they are bought & paid for by the richest Americans.

The fact that all these uninformed voters RANT CONSTANTLY about corporate taxes shows that the politicians have FOOLED most of the people. But believe me, the rich aren't fooled.

So, cheer on all the corporate taxes you want, because if they do that instead of raising income tax rates, I'll laugh all the way to the bank.
There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not. After all, why leave money on the table? Conversely, if they feel the consumer is already paying as much as the consumer is willing to bear, they'll be very careful about passing on any increases in their own costs, and if there are any new costs (including taxes) they'll probably absorb the bulk of them. Put another way - he who is desperate pays, and he who is more desperate pays more. If the seller's supply curve is more inelastic than the buyer's demand curve, the seller will absorb more of the taxes - even taxes on the buyer. If the buyer's demand curve is more inelastic, the buyer will absorb of taxes, including corporate taxes.
jjeffeory
jjeffeory
join:2002-12-04
Bloomington, IN

jjeffeory to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by 88615298:

This carrot and a stick approach to lobbying usually works pretty well, particularly considering that Verizon's lobbying budget well exceeds the amount they owe the State

that would be like me spending $2000 on lawyers to avoid $1000 in taxes. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
But it has a deterrent effect. If the state loses once again they are LESS likely to attempt further tax increases down the line.

And why are they trying to tax telephone poles anyway for real estate taxes? Buildings I can see, but not poles. That is really stupid since taxes will just be passed on anyway to telco customers.

Oh wait !! I forgot. Pols always try to pass tax increases that are done on the sly where they are hidden in the cost of a company's doing business. The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
Maybe if they shrank the gov't they wouldn't need more taxes? The people in NH and ME love to joke about "Taxachusetts".
jjeffeory

jjeffeory to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

said by jjeffeory:

You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
True. Those corporations go broke and go out of business or move to Asia.

Ebolla
join:2005-09-28
Dracut, MA

1 recommendation

Ebolla to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

The state needs more money. The straight forward way would be to raise income taxes or sales taxes, etc. But that makes the voters mad. By taxing businesses, they hope the voters won't notice and will be mad at the businesses for raising prices instead.
For the record they DID just raise sales tax, MA also requires all residents to have health insurance or you get a fine. They also are going to cut educational budget. MA is beginning to look like N.Korea...

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 recommendation

lakerfan82 to jjeffeory

Member

to jjeffeory
said by jjeffeory:

You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
In the world of telco's you sure can. When they only ever have one or two competitors, its easy for them to just pass on the tax to their customers. Take a look at your phone bill and look at all the taxes and fees they are passing on to you.
lakerfan82

1 recommendation

lakerfan82 to nasadude

Member

to nasadude
You say "free market" like its a bad thing. Last time I walked into a Walmart or Best buy, I could literally see thousands of products from all over the world. You can choose between cheaper products, higher quality products, products made here in the US, products made from all over, all thanks to this terrible "free market."

I work for one of these so called "evil" corporations, and I want it to have all the tax breaks it can, because the more competitive it is, the safer my job is.

Some of you people forget that these companies actually put food on the table for hundreds, even thousands of people just like you and me. Excessive taxation doesn't give them any incentive to stick around the US. In the end, they are providing a product or service to people and giving people jobs, why not allow them to do it in the most competitive way possible?
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

got two words for ya -

Wall Street
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin to lakerfan82

Member

to lakerfan82
said by lakerfan82:

You say "free market" like its a bad thing. Last time I walked into a Walmart or Best buy, I could literally see thousands of products from all over the world. You can choose between cheaper products, higher quality products, products made here in the US, products made from all over, all thanks to this terrible "free market."

I work for one of these so called "evil" corporations, and I want it to have all the tax breaks it can, because the more competitive it is, the safer my job is.

Some of you people forget that these companies actually put food on the table for hundreds, even thousands of people just like you and me. Excessive taxation doesn't give them any incentive to stick around the US. In the end, they are providing a product or service to people and giving people jobs, why not allow them to do it in the most competitive way possible?
You're obfuscating the term "free market" with what we have in the telecom industry and what you achieve in an unfettered capitalistic environment. Giant landline incumbents with franchise agreements don't have to worry about foreign competitors like China, Korea, or Japan selling their internet services for much cheaper than they do in the US. The same goes for wireless providers.

Your example of Wal-Mart is misleading, because many of their goods are manufactured and sold as part of an international economy. Telecommunications on the other hand for the most part is highly regionalized.

Indeed, regulation of the telecommunications industry is simply an attempt to fix the industry where it fails to approximate a free market. For example, whereas Wal-Mart has little to no incentive to favor one supplier over the other (besides whoever provides the cheapest prices), incumbent ISPs *do* have an incentive to favor their own provisioned content over competitors. Thus we have a Net Neutrality bill circulating Congress to prevent such anti-competitive behavior from occurring.
sonicmerlin

sonicmerlin to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by jjeffeory:

You can't alway pass on these taxes to the customers in all business if you can't set your own rates. Believe me, I know from experience. Not all corporations pass increases in tax to their customers.
True. Those corporations go broke and go out of business or move to Asia.
Considering the billions in profit Verizon makes each year, and the hundreds of millions in debt it was able to write off with its deal with Fairpoint, and considering they have duopolistic control with AT&T over special access lines through which they can charge artificially marked up prices, I doubt Verizon's going to go broke any time soon.

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

lakerfan82 to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
You're correct in your assessment that what we have in the telecom industry is not "free market." I'm not arguing that it is, I was only trying to point out that the free market is not this evil force that many make it out to be.

The reason the telecom industry is not a true free market is because the government made a conscious decision that everyone should have access to the telephone grid, whether or not you live in BFE Timbuktu or Manhattan. While the gov't helped the telecom build out their networks, they also regulated the hell out of them, and for this reason there are only a few competitors. The same goes for the cable industry and franchise agreements.

In a true free market with far less regulation, there would probably be many more competitors (more choice leads to lower prices), but there would also be a lot more people without access to these services in the most unprofitable areas. These unprofitable areas would be paying more of the true cost for any of the services they do receive.
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH

sonicmerlin

Member

said by lakerfan82:

You're correct in your assessment that what we have in the telecom industry is not "free market." I'm not arguing that it is, I was only trying to point out that the free market is not this evil force that many make it out to be.

The reason the telecom industry is not a true free market is because the government made a conscious decision that everyone should have access to the telephone grid, whether or not you live in BFE Timbuktu or Manhattan. While the gov't helped the telecom build out their networks, they also regulated the hell out of them, and for this reason there are only a few competitors. The same goes for the cable industry and franchise agreements.

In a true free market with far less regulation, there would probably be many more competitors (more choice leads to lower prices), but there would also be a lot more people without access to these services in the most unprofitable areas. These unprofitable areas would be paying more of the true cost for any of the services they do receive.
That's a complete and utter lie. Basically you've looked at the last 8 years of telecom oligopolies spurred on by a pathetically weak, corrupt, and industry-friendly FCC and concluded getting rid of even more regulation would be good for everyone.

It's the equivalent of a man hitting his head on a wall over and over again, and when it hurts deciding to simply hit harder.

The reason the telecommunications market doesn't approximate a free market is because of the huge barrier of entry to such a market. It's incredibly expensive to start a new ISP, especially when there's an incumbent already present. Not only do you need the vast initial capital to build the network, but the customers you want are already paying your competitor and will be incredibly hard to convert.

It's easy for a new competitor to attract the first 10% of the incumbent's customer base. But from then on it's a HUGE struggle for more. Educating consumers on the benefits of your service requires a giant marketing budget, and even then that's often not enough to overcome the inertia most people have when it comes to switching providers.

Your claim that without regulation "unprofitable areas" would pay for the "true cost" is ridiculous. You're making baseless assumptions about the cost of providing internet access to more remote areas. And yet for the last few years almost half of all small, rural telecoms have been building out fiber to their customers. This is without any help from their local or state governments, and they've managed to maintain profitability. Their experiences have also demonstrated that fiber to rural homes is only slightly more expensive than fiber to urban areas, in large part because almost all rural homes are situated right next to a major road.

The whole "expense" argument is tired and pathetic.

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

pnh102 to sonicmerlin

Premium Member

to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:

There seems to be relatively irrational belief among many conservatives that corporate taxes are simply passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
It is hardly irrational because it is a 100% irrefutable fact. It is the economic version of the law of gravity.

And it isn't just taxes, every business expense is recouped from the customer.
said by sonicmerlin:

It leaves out the obvious - if companies felt they could simply raise prices, they'd do it whether there were taxes or not.
You ignore the fact that a business charges the highest possible price for a given product or service already. If a business raises its prices at this point, it risks losing sales. If sales decline and profit is lost or if after paying the tax there is too little profit (or a loss), the business might decide that providing the given product or service simply isn't worth the money.

Either way, the consumer pays the bill.

lakerfan82
join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 recommendation

lakerfan82 to sonicmerlin

Member

to sonicmerlin
Your claim that without regulation "unprofitable areas" would pay for the "true cost" is ridiculous. You're making baseless assumptions about the cost of providing internet access to more remote areas. And yet for the last few years almost half of all small, rural telecoms have been building out fiber to their customers. This is without any help from their local or state governments, and they've managed to maintain profitability. Their experiences have also demonstrated that fiber to rural homes is only slightly more expensive than fiber to urban areas, in large part because almost all rural homes are situated right next to a major road.

The whole "expense" argument is tired and pathetic.
Baseless, tired, and pathetic arguments? Oh please... Look at Fairpoint and some of these other "rural" broadband providers. They are folding like crazy. Verizon can't sell their rural customers fast enough...You're going to try and convince people that rural broadband is profitable when the government is regulating (capping) how much they can charge? Maybe a few "rural telecoms" can make a small profit in few pockets here and there, but they can't make a living serving only large swaths of rural area. The only one making baseless claims is you, as there is article after article on this blog demonstrating how unprofitable and how costly it is to provide rural broadband. If it was as profitable as you claim there wouldn't be people crying for universal broadband on an almost daily basis.

bUU
join:2007-05-10
Kissimmee, FL

bUU

Member

(Sorry for the sarcasm...) Don't confuse the issue with facts! Don't you know that consumerists deserve to have the world handed to them on a platter, forcing some mythical "other" people to pay the bill for them having whatever they want, however they want it, and inexpensively?