oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure
So claimed the telco shills.
said by article:
It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years wound up clocking in at somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars.
Out of the 2.1 billion dollars received in the deal, $1.5 billion of it consisted of extra tax deductions.
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
If telcos don't want gov't and consumers having a say or don't intend to live up to their end of the deal shouldn't be taking the billions in taxpayer money. And when they fail or refuse to deploy technology in a manner previously agreed to they shouldn't be let off the hook but rather be ordered to return the taxpayer's money.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 14:34:35] |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by oliphant5  :
So claimed the telco shills.
said by article:
It's estimated that those financial incentives over the years wound up clocking in at somewhere around $2.1 billion dollars.
Out of the 2.1 billion dollars received in the deal, $1.5 billion of it consisted of extra tax deductions.
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
Wow, do I have to disagree with that! A tax break equals taxpayer funding? That sounds like you believe all money belongs to the government and they let us take back only our 'fair portion'. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| No, a tax break to a single company or industry is taxpayer funding. If EVERYONE were to be able to get the "break" as I said clearly before (with the mortgage interest example) then I would agree with you. But when it's gov't negotiating with a particular company, bartering tax money in exchange for something, then it's taxpayer funded...especially when the gov't isn't owning what it's paying for.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 15:32:56] |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by oliphant5 :
No, a tax break to a single company or industry is taxpayer funding. If EVERYONE were to be able to get the "break" as I said clearly before (with the mortgage interest example) then I would agree with you. But when it's gov't negotiating with a particular company, bartering tax money in exchange for something, then it's taxpayer funded...especially when the gov't isn't owning what it's paying for.
Sorry, I still can't go there with you. If only one company was getting some kind of break then the argument solidifies a little but when an entire industry is qualifying, it's just another tax break. Since there's a couple of million lines of tax code it blends in. Even then, when the government neglects to collect taxes, that just doesn't equal a government payout. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| This isn't the gov't neglecting to cut taxes. This is an agreement that the gov't would pay billions to a particular company in exchange for minimum deployment numbers.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| reply to oliphant5
quote:
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
So would you then say that since people that have children get a tax credit (whereas those without children DON'T get a tax credit), those that don't have children are PAYING for other people to have kids?
If you equate a tax break with taxpayers funding those getting the tax break, then you are saying that if you don't have kids, you are paying child support to those that do. If you don't own a house, you are paying money to those that DO own a house.
Boogie |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| No because anyone with a child who paid taxes get's the credit.
Giving a tax break to only Joe Smith on 123 Main St is subsidizing as is when the state makes a deal and gives a single company like BellAtlantic billions to deploy.
Now if you were to have a sweeping Federal tax law stating that ANYONE deploying telecom technology can apply for the same money...that's a tax break.
And again (since I guess you didn't read the thread) mortgage interest isn't a subsidy since ANYONE paying mortgage interest can take a deduction under the guidelines of the law. With this telco crap, your name had to be BellAtlantic to get the taxpayer money.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-28 23:51:20] |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
quote:
When a specific company or industry gets tax money in this fashion when others don't get this break (like everyone does with say the mortgage interest deduction) this is taxpayers funding deployment. Plain and simple.
So would you then say that since people that have children get a tax credit (whereas those without children DON'T get a tax credit), those that don't have children are PAYING for other people to have kids?
If you equate a tax break with taxpayers funding those getting the tax break, then you are saying that if you don't have kids, you are paying child support to those that do. If you don't own a house, you are paying money to those that DO own a house. Boogie
Regardless of how you characterize it, the fact remains that a deal was struck, money was paid, BA and later, Verizon took the money, but did not provide the agreed-upon service. I call that fraud, theft, lying, and a number of other things that I can't print here on this board...
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | Yep, it's crap and Verizon should be ordered to return the taxpayers' money. |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| reply to oliphant5
Meanwhile.......
Pittsburgh (just north of my town) is experiencing a $60 million budget shortfall and is (among other reductions) laying off city workers, closing a police Zone station, and cutting back of badly needed services.
Part of this mess is due to a reduction in State funding - the $$ just aren't there (or so they say). Yet our PA State PUC lets Verizon off the hook with what amounts to $1.5 billion of extra tax deductions for agreed upon investment in infrastructure that was never done.
And Verizon is only one of the companies who have gotten large tax deductions at the local level and state level, and have failed to keep their end of the bargain or failed to meet fallacious expectations which our gullible legislators accepted as "reasonable".
Ahhhhh.........I got it! Since our State helped out Verizon to the tune of $1.5 billion, maybe the City of Pittsburgh could get a little help from Verizon to reduce the current budget shortfall! Yah, that's it!
|
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| quote:
And Verizon is only one of the companies who have gotten large tax deductions at the local level and state level, and have failed to keep their end of the bargain or failed to meet fallacious expectations which our gullible legislators accepted as "reasonable".
Don't say THAT! That would mean that Verizon WASN'T the only company that got any kind of tax break- hence proving Oliphant's point WRONG!
Of course, what do you expect from someone who thinks that being relieved from paying a certain amount in taxes is the same as getting PAID that amount in the form of a government check...
Boogie |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| What company other than BellAtlantic got money under this 1994-1995 tax deal Boogie? What other companies than BellAtlantic got 2.1 billion (or any money for that matter) to deploy 45mb service under this exclusive agreement?
I await your answer to these very simple straightforward questions. It shouldn't be so hard seeing as your post seems so confident about me being wrong. Show me a link to the broad tax package under which all of these phantom telcos got equal consideration in getting government money back.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 01:12:27] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by oliphant5 :
What company other than BellAtlantic got money under this 1994-1995 tax deal Boogie? What other companies than BellAtlantic got 2.1 billion (or any money for that matter) to deploy 45mb service under this exclusive agreement?
I await your answer to these very simple straightforward questions. It shouldn't be so hard seeing as your post seems so confident about me being wrong. Show me a link to the broad tax package under which all of these phantom telcos got equal consideration in getting government money back.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 01:12:27]
Show me a single CLEC that existed in 1994. Show me a the clause in this agreement that states that Bell Atlantic would be exempt from Sec 271 of TA1996. Has it even occured to you that TA1996 made the entire agreement null and void? Gee... build a fiber to the curb infrastructure... Now, 2 years after the agreement, you're also required to share your new investments with any company that wants access to it... OOOPS... perhaps TA1996 caused some problems with this document??
Or were you just thinking that Bruce Kushnick would tell you EVERYTHING about this agreement? Remember, this is the same guy that claims that he became upset when his "Aunt Ethel" was being charged LNP and USF charges in 1992- even though those surcharges started in 1998!
Boogie |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| So I guess you don't have an answer. Not surprising. We've all come to expect this from you.
It was really a simple question.
said by You Said:
Don't say THAT! That would mean that Verizon WASN'T the only company that got any kind of tax break- hence proving Oliphant's point WRONG!
So I'll ask it again, slower this time.
What other companies got this same deal Boogie? A simple list with a few hyperlinks will do.
Enough with your typical telco shill deflections. Your comment had nothing to do with the TA1996. It's truly a simple question that you seemed so confident in being able to answer just a few posts ago.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 01:31:10] |
|
boogie74
join:2001-06-19
Neenah, WI
clubs:
| said by oliphant5 :
So I guess you don't have an answer. Not surprising. We've all come to expect this from you.
It was really a simple question.
said by You Said:
Don't say THAT! That would mean that Verizon WASN'T the only company that got any kind of tax break- hence proving Oliphant's point WRONG!
So I'll ask it again, slower this time.
What other companies got this same deal Boogie? A simple list with a few hyperlinks will do.
Enough with your typical telco shill deflections. Your comment had nothing to do with the TA1996. It's truly a simple question that you seemed so confident in being able to answer just a few posts ago.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-29 01:31:10]
It might be better answered by the person who originally POSTED IT. Try Cheetah. I simply quoted him. If you take the time to READ my posts for content rather than try to find them so you can show how you AREN'T reading them, you'd actually realize the sources of the data included in them.
Boogie |
|
Teletruth
join:2001-12-25
New York, NY
| reply to footballdude
Re: Oh, no taxpayer money funds infrastructure
The situation is alot more pathetic than just the $2.1 billion dollars collected. That money came directly from rate payers in the form of higher profits on phone charges -- the money supposed to be used for new construction.
But there are two other things that are really annoying. First, Verizon and the other Bell companies from 1993-1995 took a total of $21 billion dollar dollars in taxe write-offs of the older copper networks, stating that they were replacing them-- which didn't happen.
New Networks has an active IRS case on this topic because according to a tax you can't tell the IRS that you are depreciating/writing off the equipment and still use it as nothing has happened.
In PA alone, the tax was over almost $1 billion dollars in Tax write-offs.
Secondly, Verizon funded the deployment of DSL, and the company got at leat $60 million dollars from customers in the form of higher rates --- it was a clear bait-and-switch -- Tell them you're giving them fiber, then use the money for the old copper networks. This of course is anti-competitive, since it cross-subsidizes an "interstate, Information service", that should not be funded by local phone rates.
Anyone interested in this topic should know this same scam happened throughout the US. We filed a complaint in MA over the failed deployment in that state (they were supposed to start rewiring various parts of Boston -- 330,000 lines by 1995. »newnetworks.com/Masscomplaintsummary.html
And in New Jersey, the Ratepayer Advocate wrote a scathing review of the same scam ----
»www.rpa.state.nj.us/onj.htm
California, Texas, All of the Ameritech states, including Ohio, Il, Indiana, Michigan had similar promised fiber deployments, though each state is different. Ohio was supposed to have wired all the schools.
A report published "How the Bell Stole America's Digital Future", published by NetAction, 2000, gives some of the details.
»www.netaction.org/broadband/bells/
Finally, we would like to point out the FCC's broadband reports never included any of the state information, including PA, NJ, etc, even though we've been filing and supplying data on this (and reports by other sources) since 1998.
Therefore, the Triennial Review's decision to block competitors from using Bell broadband networks ignores the fact that monies were collected in the majority of states. It is a 'customer' takings because monies have been collected from customers for new networks, and they should therefore, not be given to some private company for their own use.
Bruce Kushnick, Teletruth |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| reply to oliphant5
Re: Meanwhile.......
said by oliphant5 :
What company other than BellAtlantic got money under this 1994-1995 tax deal Boogie .....
Seems you all took my point on tax breaks wrong....I didn't mean any other CO was involved in that SAME tax deal that Verizon got.
An example of what I meant:
The City of Pittsburgh gave a tax break and other incentives to Lord and Taylor, to open a new department store down town. Now, Lord and Taylor says they can't make a profit in Pittsburgh and want to close that store.
USAir is another one. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't close their Hub at Pittsburgh International.
Financing new Stadiums, that the voters actually turned down, is another.
I'm sure there are stories like this all over the country. But, in our area, I sure have to wonder if all these give-aways and incentives aren't part of what's coming back to haunt us now. |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
..... Of course, what do you expect from someone who thinks that being relieved from paying a certain amount in taxes is the same as getting PAID that amount in the form of a government check...
Boogie
As a PA tax payer, the PUC relieving Verizon of any obligation to perform (and basically wiping the slate clean) in this matter, affects me no different than if they gave that revenue away.
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Cheetah9
said by Cheetah9 :
Pittsburgh (just north of my town) is experiencing a $60 million budget shortfall and is (among other reductions) laying off city workers, closing a police Zone station, and cutting back of badly needed services.
Of course, there was plenty of money for new stadiums for the Steelers and Pirates. Same thing is happening on my side of the commonwealth, Philadelphia is complaining that there isn't enough money to fart while they had no problem forking over nearly 30% of the costs of new stadiums for the Eagles and the Losers Phillies.
--
Jewel got Britney-fied! There is hope for the world yet! |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to boogie74
said by boogie74 :
Don't say THAT! That would mean that Verizon WASN'T the only company that got any kind of tax break- hence proving Oliphant's point WRONG!
So now you are no longer supporting this assertion YOU MADE Boogie?
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports |
|
