 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Shocking? This is just another illustration of the folly of taxing businesses. They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| Yeah, especially when they're monopolists. |
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | And yet the posts above yours are from people who are claiming everyone will leave AT&T. If they can leave and still have access to the same product, then it's not a monopoly. |
|
| Your best situation in most of MO is a duopoly. I lived in StL, where the choice was AT&T or Charter. Heckuva choice there. |
|
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:This is just another illustration of the folly of taxing businesses. They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. Lol. You really do hate human beings, don`t you? When exactly did your love-fest with corporatism and fascism begin? The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you.
If corporations really could pass on all taxes down to the consumer, that would mean they would have room to raise prices. If they could raise prices, why would they wait until they were taxed? Why leave money on the table? The reality is they can`t just arbitrarily raise prices without expecting to lose customers and revenue, so they`re forced to eat the taxes.
The only reason AT&T is able to lay this tax bungle on their customers is because they`re being allowed to hide the price increase as a seperate line item, the `special municipal fee`, that they of course do not advertise when selling their product.
These kinds of hidden fees always surprise and confuse customers, making it more difficult for them to make rational choices.
If AT&T were force to include this $6 raise into their base prices and advertise the price increase when trying to sell their product, they would without a doubt experience a loss of revenue from customer dropout. In other words, they would just prefer to eat the taxes. |
|
| reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:And yet the posts above yours are from people who are claiming everyone will leave AT&T. If they can leave and still have access to the same product, then it's not a monopoly. The above posts are written by hardcore internet users who care deeply about their fair and speedy access to the internet. They are also a very tiny minority. The reality is most people don`t even realize an additional fee is added on to their bill until after they sign up. |
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | and that makes it a monopoly? Users not noticing fees?
Cable, Pots, VoIP, Cellular... is there a spec of land in this country left with an actual phone monopoly? |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Lol. You really do hate human beings, don`t you? Hardly. They taste great with ketchup.
said by sonicmerlin:The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you. I forgot. Corporations have this big magic pot of money laying around that they can pay all their bills with. Getting money from consumer in exchange for providing a product and service has zero to do with it. Since this isn't true, it pretty much negates the rest of your post entirely.
Go take an introductory economics course and try again.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:and that makes it a monopoly? Users not noticing fees? Cable, Pots, VoIP, Cellular... ....are all different products, two of which depend on the duopoly for functionality.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to markofmayhem
Sorry, but POTS is required to have 99.99% network uptime. The other products you mentioned are not, and therefore you've defeated your own "have access to the same product " argument. The other products also use external power sources and are very subject to not functioning (or malfunctioning) in the case of a disaster, overload conditions, etc. While many people would abandon their POTS line for favorable pricing, others will not because there's not another product that offers them the same reliability and piece of mind for emergency situations that POTS does. |
|
|
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | Network uptime, external power sources... are unique offerings:
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. -Blinder, Alan S; William J Baumol and Colton L Gale (June 2001). "11: Monopoly" (paperback). Microeconomics: Principles and Policy. Thomson South-Western. pp. 212. ISBN 0-324-22115-0. "A pure monopoly is an industry in which there is only one supplier of a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which is very difficult or impossible for another firm to coexist"
Pots, Cellular, Cable, VoIP... are offered from separate entities, there is no phone monopoly. You have provided excellent reasons why Pots is still a marketable offering for phone, not reasons why it is a monopoly for phone service. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southeast
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:said by pnh102:This is just another illustration of the folly of taxing businesses. They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you. Which corporation are you CFO of? |
|
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by sonicmerlin:Lol. You really do hate human beings, don`t you? Hardly. They taste great with ketchup. said by sonicmerlin:The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you. I forgot. Corporations have this big magic pot of money laying around that they can pay all their bills with. Getting money from consumer in exchange for providing a product and service has zero to do with it. Since this isn't true, it pretty much negates the rest of your post entirely. Go take an introductory economics course and try again. Ah yes, wave your hands around in dismissive ignorance, while subtly proclaiming the intellectual inferiority of your opponent. All the while completely ignoring the substance of the argument. How predictably self-serving of you.
What I see are essentially natural monopolies or oligopolies, private companies providing an infrastructure service while siphoning billions and billions every year from the economy. They conduct no research of their own, add no value to society, and exist seemingly only to leech money from the system that props up their business. |
|
| reply to NOCTech75
said by NOCTech75:said by sonicmerlin:said by pnh102:This is just another illustration of the folly of taxing businesses. They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. The fact that you`re completely wrong about corporate taxes also doesn`t seem to phase you. Which corporation are you CFO of? Oh brilliant. I must be a corporate CFO in order to understand the basic premise of corporate taxation. It all makes sense to me now. |
|
1 edit | reply to markofmayhem
said by markofmayhem:Network uptime, external power sources... are unique offerings: Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. -Blinder, Alan S; William J Baumol and Colton L Gale (June 2001). "11: Monopoly" (paperback). Microeconomics: Principles and Policy. Thomson South-Western. pp. 212. ISBN 0-324-22115-0. "A pure monopoly is an industry in which there is only one supplier of a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which is very difficult or impossible for another firm to coexist" Pots, Cellular, Cable, VoIP... are offered from separate entities, there is no phone monopoly. You have provided excellent reasons why Pots is still a marketable offering for phone, not reasons why it is a monopoly for phone service. Are you kidding? What part of `close substitutes` did you not understand in your own gosh darn definition? How is Cellular or Cable even a remotely close substitute for something with guaranteed network uptime and external power sources? It`s as if when you read these definitions you purposely twist them to fit your own view of the world. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:Ah yes, wave your hands around in dismissive ignorance, while subtly proclaiming the intellectual inferiority of your opponent. Subtle? I would say I was pretty direct when I suggested you acquaint yourself with the basic workings of business.
said by sonicmerlin: All the while completely ignoring the substance of the argument. How predictably self-serving of you. This doesn't change the irrefutable fact that all businesses pass taxes right on down to the consumer in the form of higher prices. This is just how things work in business.
If the great State of Missouri really did not want to see AT&T customers living there be subject to this fee, then it should grant a tax amnesty to AT&T instead of making its customers cough up more money.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:They have and always will simply pass those taxes down to the consumers in the form of higher prices. The short answer is is all depends, it depends on how much price elasticity there is. They have other options besides raising prices, they could improve productivity or take a profit hit.
Not to take this too far off topic, but I agree with your basic premise about taxing corporations, ultimately the end user has to foot the bill. Taxing companies in the era of multinational corporations with well funded lobbyist is a fools errand. Makes sense to limit corporation taxation to the actual demands they make on government, this is typically at a local level. Eliminate other corporate taxes, pass profits to stock holders and tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income. I see no reason why the money I earn from investments should be taxed at a lower rate then income. Doesn't seem like a very fair system to me.
/tom |
|
markofmayhemI can haz competition?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:4 | reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:said by markofmayhem:Network uptime, external power sources... are unique offerings: Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. -Blinder, Alan S; William J Baumol and Colton L Gale (June 2001). "11: Monopoly" (paperback). Microeconomics: Principles and Policy. Thomson South-Western. pp. 212. ISBN 0-324-22115-0. "A pure monopoly is an industry in which there is only one supplier of a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which is very difficult or impossible for another firm to coexist" Pots, Cellular, Cable, VoIP... are offered from separate entities, there is no phone monopoly. You have provided excellent reasons why Pots is still a marketable offering for phone, not reasons why it is a monopoly for phone service. Are you kidding? What part of `close substitutes` did you not understand in your own gosh darn definition? How is Cellular or Cable even a remotely close substitute for something with guaranteed network uptime and external power sources? It`s as if when you read these definitions you purposely twist them to fit your own view of the world. Wow, we can't get out of economics 101 to even begin an intellectual discussion. Network uptime is quality, the quality of a product does not make it unique in any market, considered by any economy, in the world. Quality is a value attribute, not a uniqueness of a product. BTW, my cable VoIP has a 99.5% uptime clause from my local PUC and must adhere to it. If Vonage and others sell to me, they must adhere to it as well. If your local PUC has chosen a company within a service instead of the service itself to adhere to this quality standard, it still has no bearing on the definition of a monopoly.
Let's simplify it, I assume it will help you?
What are we talking about? Telephone. What is "Telephone"?
"The telephone (from the Greek: τῆλε, tÄ“le, "far" and φωνή, phÅnÄ“, "voice") is a telecommunications device that transmits and receives sound, most commonly the human voice."
What services are available for this? Pots, VoIP, Cable, Cellular...
--
I can haz competition? |
|
grawksPremium
join:2009-09-11
US | i lol'ed |
|
grawksPremium
join:2009-09-11
US | reply to pnh102
i would say that if its a tax thats being passed down to comsumers it should be labeled as a tax not a fee. now if its a fee for anything ex: janitorial fee, it should be labeled as a fee. the big problem is lack of transparency for the consumer. is it legal to have fine print? yes. is it ethical? maybe, thats up for individual interpretation. all that matters is that this should not be called a fee and it should be called a tax. a tax that can and will be looked up on google for the meaning of. will some people leave yes, will some people stay yes. this argument is pointless because we cant speak for the people of MO. its there choice, not ours, deal with it. everybody get off your high horse and lets see what happens. |
|
