• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NOT HOT: Internet phone tax coming up next month

skype is not a voip carrier so it is not affected. unlike voip carriers you use a modem that plugs into your phone line while skype uses peer to peer based
 
I think this is BS, I don't understand why if you are not using what they are charging a tax on why they have to make a new law to tax you on what you are using, some one explain that to me. Just like "oh boys, looks like our revenue is lowering, lets put a tax on that new phone service people are using" BUL*SH*T

The FCC made its move in its first meeting in months with a full slate of five commissioners. Each official emphasized that the move is merely an "interim step" intended to make up for an expected $350 million annual shortfall in the fund.

if we are not using their service and have moved on to another service why should we pay for it, wtf do they do for me anyway.

sorry, had to vent, probably wrong, but just makes me mad when I don't understand why I have to pay a certain tax.
 
I'm not mad about the tax itself, just how it is calculated. That it will cost double what a PSTN user pays is bullsh!t.
 
next up: email tax. internet usage tax. oxygen tax. and finally, wait for it... sex tax
 
Huh.

Seems like a great...and long overdue...decision to me. There's a tax on all long-distance. Because it's a new technology, VOIP wasn't and couldn't be automatically taxed. But, as other long-distance is taxed, why should VOIP be exempt?
 
Originally posted by: Gilby
Huh.

Seems like a great...and long overdue...decision to me. There's a tax on all long-distance. Because it's a new technology, VOIP wasn't and couldn't be automatically taxed. But, as other long-distance is taxed, why should VOIP be exempt?
Click to expand...

Why should anything be taxed?
 
Originally posted by: Gilby
Huh.

Seems like a great...and long overdue...decision to me. There's a tax on all long-distance. Because it's a new technology, VOIP wasn't and couldn't be automatically taxed. But, as other long-distance is taxed, why should VOIP be exempt?
Click to expand...

Is that you Al Gore?

 
I'd imagine that if you connect to regular phone lines at some point and use gov't services on 'em (911 etc). then you oughta pay tax.

I don't think that bill will effect Pc to Pc communication though
 
Originally posted by: LuNoTiCK
Originally posted by: Gilby
Huh.

Seems like a great...and long overdue...decision to me. There's a tax on all long-distance. Because it's a new technology, VOIP wasn't and couldn't be automatically taxed. But, as other long-distance is taxed, why should VOIP be exempt?
Click to expand...

Why should anything be taxed?
Click to expand...

Completely different issue, innit?

Though an easy argument with any society larger than a handful of families.

This particular tax seems to be somewhat related to the USPS having the same basic 1st class mail rate to any part of the US, no matter how remote. It's part of establishing a link and a claim to the entirety of the territory. Having phone service easily available to everyone seems to require some subsidies, and as it benefits everyone with a phone, a fee on phone users seems to be more related to this than, say, a budget item paid with income taxes or, say, import tarriffs.
 
I still haven't made the switch because of the power-outage thing (POTS aren't affected)... and I guess this doesn't really help either. 😉
 
Originally posted by: dealseaker
I think this is BS, I don't understand why if you are not using what they are charging a tax on why they have to make a new law to tax you on what you are using, some one explain that to me. Just like "oh boys, looks like our revenue is lowering, lets put a tax on that new phone service people are using" BUL*SH*T

The FCC made its move in its first meeting in months with a full slate of five commissioners. Each official emphasized that the move is merely an "interim step" intended to make up for an expected $350 million annual shortfall in the fund.

if we are not using their service and have moved on to another service why should we pay for it, wtf do they do for me anyway.

sorry, had to vent, probably wrong, but just makes me mad when I don't understand why I have to pay a certain tax.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm pretty sure you're wrong. Just think about all the things your taxes pay for. And then think about how crappy it would be if you didn't have all those sweet services (school, police, fire fighters, etc.). Not saying that the internet phone tax pays for all that, but... well, i think you get my point?
 
Originally posted by: quizzelsnatch
Originally posted by: dealseaker
I think this is BS, I don't understand why if you are not using what they are charging a tax on why they have to make a new law to tax you on what you are using, some one explain that to me. Just like "oh boys, looks like our revenue is lowering, lets put a tax on that new phone service people are using" BUL*SH*T

The FCC made its move in its first meeting in months with a full slate of five commissioners. Each official emphasized that the move is merely an "interim step" intended to make up for an expected $350 million annual shortfall in the fund.

if we are not using their service and have moved on to another service why should we pay for it, wtf do they do for me anyway.

sorry, had to vent, probably wrong, but just makes me mad when I don't understand why I have to pay a certain tax.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i'm pretty sure you're wrong. Just think about all the things your taxes pay for. And then think about how crappy it would be if you didn't have all those sweet services (school, police, fire fighters, etc.). Not saying that the internet phone tax pays for all that, but... well, i think you get my point?
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahaha funny post.
 
Originally posted by: EKKC
...and finally, wait for it... sex tax
Click to expand...

Might help some people keep it in their pants and not become mommies and daddies once or twice every year. 😉

Except you know the people that it'd aim to discourage from doing it probably don't pay taxes to begin with.
 
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: EKKC
...and finally, wait for it... sex tax
Click to expand...

Might help some people keep it in their pants and not become mommies and daddies once or twice every year. 😉

Except you know the people that it'd aim to discourage from doing it probably don't pay taxes to begin with.
Click to expand...

:Q
 
WHy the hell is the fund $7.3 billion? Shouldn't it be ZERO (i.e. tax rev comes in and goes out to pay for the USF lines)!???? It's a fvcking racket i tell ya!
 
Originally posted by: JS80
WHy the hell is the fund $7.3 billion? Shouldn't it be ZERO (i.e. tax rev comes in and goes out to pay for the USF lines)!???? It's a fvcking racket i tell ya!
Click to expand...

No sh!t. I've been bitching for years about the Universal Suck Fund. This thing is a monster of a revenue source that probably sees about 1% of it's income put twords it's chartered purpose. It's a leach that is just sucking extra money out of businesses and consumers.

Sad part is that most people don't even take the time to look at their bills to see that 5%-12% of their bill is the USF tax.

 
Originally posted by: JS80
WHy the hell is the fund $7.3 billion? Shouldn't it be ZERO (i.e. tax rev comes in and goes out to pay for the USF lines)!???? It's a fvcking racket i tell ya!
Click to expand...

money for the warchest from any source they can
 
i have no trouble paying my fair share of taxes. BUT i am getting sick of all the waste, pork barrel crap and corruption that is associated with my taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top