But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years —
Posted on 12/12/2018 9:52:00 AM PST by SeekAndFind
California is LITERALLY, Not FIGURATIVELY a Socialist State, this is the definition of it.
I did not see exactly what the tax might be. Are they talking so much per text, like a penny a text? Something like the Post Office wanted to do with e-mail?
Well, don’t get too deep into that argument.
Our phones are taxed out the ying-yang already.
A job would do the same.
I don't need an article to tell me why. The "why" is simply because the political scum in CA, and most of the rest of the country, believe that anything and everything that anyone does, should be taxed. And it is because the political scum believe that all money is THEIR money, and that what you earn and have, is not really yours to begin with, and besides, they know what are the "right" things to do with your money.
IF they set it up as a ‘Tax on the Service’, IOW, a stated value, like $1 or 1%, it will pass.
BUT if it’s a tax on the number of texts, or a ‘per text’ tax, then it will not.............
***Tax the oxygen you inhale. Tax the CO2 you exhale. ***
I saw an old Mexican movie years ago in which some politicians in the mid 1800s want to raise taxes. One says “I wish we could tax the air they breathe!”
It was such a good idea a tax was then placed on all windows and doors in a house. So the people blocked up their windows and doors, except one in which they climbed in and out.
“Applied retroactively” is something that legislators should never dare to think, let alone propose.
So is California going to turn this tax over the USPS? After all California gets nothing for mailing letters.
State regulators say surcharge on text messaging would help fund programs that make phone service accessible to the poor ...
And who are the ‘”poor”? the homeless? the hordes of cellphone totting illegals?
When I was in grade school there was a girl whose family had no telephone. When asked about it she said that they could not afford one. Yet somehow they got along OK. Now this was 55-60 years ago but no one suggested that she and her folks should get a “free”phone. A different time it was.....*sigh*
must have been really really poor as 70 years ago every one I knew had a phone except one family who lived back in the woods far from any phone lines
But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years —
You may be right, but I sure wouldn’t bet on it.
In California the voters never met a tax they didn’t like.
Okay, property tax...
That’s about it.
Meanwhile...
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/12/12/fcc-decision-deals-blow-to-california-text-tax-plan/
Thanks Mewzilla.
I’d like to think it was blocked.
Well, in this case I think those idjits in CA owe Trump bigly for saving them from themselves. But I know the POTUS won’t hold his breath waiting for a thank you from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.