Author Topic: Scheme to charge a fee for text messaging (Read 29714 times)

Wrightwood · « **on:** Dec 12, 18, 08:38:21 AM »

December 12, 2018 - 8:23 am
Categories: Local News

(KNX 1070) - There's an income tax, a sales tax and homeowners pay a property tax.

And now, California regulators are looking to hit people up again with a text tax.

That's right, a tax on your messages.

California may soon charge you for that. This is no LOL matter, critics say.

State regulators have been cooking up a scheme to charge a fee for text messaging on mobile phones to help support programs that make phone service accessible to the poor.

The wireless industry and business groups have been working to defeat the proposal, now scheduled for a vote next month by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Moose · « **Reply #1 on:** Dec 12, 18, 09:15:40 AM »

Just when you think that California lawmakers and politicians can not do anything any more bizarre or outrageous, they come up with something more bizarre or outrageous.

Toilet paper sheets can not be far behind.

ForestGal · « **Reply #2 on:** Dec 12, 18, 09:34:34 AM »

This is obscene! We already pay for text messaging through our cell phone plans. How in the world would they monitor everyones phones to determine if someone is texting?

Jim Wilkins · « **Reply #3 on:** Dec 12, 18, 09:45:00 AM »

It would be a flat fee that would appear on your phone bill. The upside is that poor people would get more free phones so they can text too..

KW · « **Reply #4 on:** Dec 12, 18, 11:54:41 AM »

The downside is that I already pay a boat load of taxes to support the poor. And this could be retroactive five years. No wonder so many people are leaving California.

Jim Wilkins · « **Reply #5 on:** Dec 12, 18, 01:13:55 PM »

Everyone always says that but "someone" keeps voting in these liberal legislators who love to make rules and taxes.

Bob C · « **Reply #6 on:** Dec 12, 18, 01:23:28 PM »

Yea! What Jim said!

Jeremy · « **Reply #7 on:** Dec 12, 18, 02:05:35 PM »

Giving the poor free crap doesn't help them.

Forester · « **Reply #8 on:** Dec 12, 18, 08:57:11 PM »

Quote from: KW on Dec 12, 18, 11:54:41 AM

The downside is that I already pay a boat load of taxes to support the poor. And this could be retroactive five years. No wonder so many people are leaving California.

Yeah the taxes are high, but so is the cost of living, i would say it's a combination of both of why people are leaving. Don't just blame the taxes, in fact some of those taxes are making it more affordable for others to stay here.

Leftfield · « **Reply #9 on:** Dec 13, 18, 07:39:24 AM »

So what is the proposed tax? Is it a $1 per text or what? Of course those of us with teenagers will be hit the hardest. I beg to differ about giving the poor a free phone. How many public phones do you see these days? A lot of the poor are living on the street and good number of them do want to work but without a phone or address, how can an employer contact them? A lot of legislators would pay attention to a better cheaper idea.

KW · « **Reply #10 on:** Dec 13, 18, 09:41:34 AM »

It's supposed to be a flat tax but the amount hasn't been publicized yet. I hate to sound like a hard ass, but the longer I've worked and paid into the system and seen others that can afford tattoos but not food, I do have an issue giving so much to the "poor". I'm not against tattoos, that was just an example. There are so many public programs out there now, especially in California, that I just don't see a reason for the able bodied to not be working right now in this economy. I totally get folks with mental illness, physical illness and disabilities, etc - yes they should have assistance. But people who are lazy and work the system, and I've seen a lot of it, frustrate the heck out of me. The system is meant to help people get back on their feet, not be a generation to generation hand out.

Leftfield · « **Reply #11 on:** Dec 13, 18, 10:05:46 AM »

Game players get me upset too because they are bleeding the system for those who really need it. I wish I had an answer to fix this problem other than hiring more investigators.

Jeremy · « **Reply #12 on:** Dec 13, 18, 02:04:24 PM »

Quote from: Leftfield on Dec 13, 18, 07:39:24 AM

So what is the proposed tax? Is it a $1 per text or what? Of course those of us with teenagers will be hit the hardest. I beg to differ about giving the poor a free phone. How many public phones do you see these days? A lot of the poor are living on the street and good number of them do want to work but without a phone or address, how can an employer contact them? A lot of legislators would pay attention to a better cheaper idea.

Cant get a job without a free cellphone?

Hang out at home depot or uhaul, work for a day, you have enough for a phone with some left over.

The hardest hit will be the poor that actually work and support themselves, as taxes like this and the gas tax are a burden that these people face daily, (unlike the people who push for these taxes).

Cheapskate · « **Reply #13 on:** Dec 13, 18, 04:56:54 PM »

For a bunch of Dem Socialists, CA's elected lawmakers are weird...they pass the regressive taxes (gas tax, vehicle license fee increase, and this cell phone surcharge) in the legislature but make us vote to approve the taxes on the rich (the so-called "progressive taxes"). I'm an optimist, I think the working poor and middle class will see through this scam eventually, but the Repubs do themselves no favors with their stale message and uninspiring candidates.

Leftfield · « **Reply #14 on:** Dec 13, 18, 05:52:42 PM »

I never seen ladies hanging out by Uhaul or Home Depot looking for work. They might even get arrested trying to do that.

Wrightwood · « **Reply #15 on:** Dec 13, 18, 05:58:53 PM »

California text tax: New FCC ruling could block proposed text messaging tax

Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:06PM
SAN FRANCISCO --
A new FCC ruling may block a proposal to tax text messages in California. The way it classifies texts could kill the tax.

Wednesday night, the FCC classified text messaging services as "information services" rather than "telecommunications services."

According to KABC's sister station KGO-TV's media partner The Mercury News, that's important because critics say the commission cannot impose the tax without federal officials classifying text messaging as a "telecommunications service."

The California Public Utilities Commission has proposed extending an existing tax to text messages to fund programs which help the poor.

https://abc7.com/technology/new-fcc-ruling-could-block-proposed-text-tax-in-ca/4892345/?fbclid=IwAR3GN71-XDoKdwiHkttmQ1aEpAA3YPStFqD8qSuZq72CdNkOM2TAPTKfKAQ

tcaarabians · « **Reply #16 on:** Dec 14, 18, 09:48:30 AM »

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-text-tax-california-considers-a-tax-on-text-messages/

This piece has a bit more on the proposal. Lifeline services for the poor for both landline and cell services already exist. If you go to the CPUC site you can see what the qualifications are for the discount. This proposal is likely going nowhere. My guess. Given the rising costs of the Lifeline program - it will likely come back in another form. Another guess. The CPUC spokesperson stated that this fee could result in reduced fees for voice messages. How? I do not know.

The redefining of telecommunications/internet/cell-text at the FCC level is a much larger issue than this proposal. Someday, our entire taxing structure will be overhauled. I do not expect to see that I my lifetime. I also do not believe in "retroactive" tax plans.

Jeremy · « **Reply #17 on:** Dec 14, 18, 01:28:32 PM »

Quote from: Leftfield on Dec 13, 18, 05:52:42 PM

I never seen ladies hanging out by Uhaul or Home Depot looking for work. They might even get arrested trying to do that.

Are you purposefully being obtuse, or are you always this condescending towards woman?

in my dreams · « **Reply #18 on:** Dec 15, 18, 08:14:43 AM »

I think we can all agree landlines are obsolete. We all pay(d) a fee on our monthly bill to pay for the FCC's Lifeline Assistance program started in the Reagan years. Expanded under Clinton, Bush handed out the first free cell phones at the end of his administration, Obama continued the shift into cell phones/service.
Have wireless providers not been part of this tax--uh--I mean, fee?

lwt42 · « **Reply #19 on:** Dec 15, 18, 12:02:48 PM »

Quote from: in my dreams on Dec 15, 18, 08:14:43 AM

I think we can all agree landlines are obsolete. We all pay(d) a fee on our monthly bill to pay for the FCC's Lifeline Assistance program started in the Reagan years. Expanded under Clinton, Bush handed out the first free cell phones at the end of his administration, Obama continued the shift into cell phones/service.
Have wireless providers not been part of this tax--uh--I mean, fee?

From my current wireless bill (2 lines):

Taxes and regulatory fees Federal, state and local taxes and regulatory fees we are required to collect.    $6.43
CA TRS (Wireless)
   $0.16
Universal Lifeline Telephone Svc Charge (Wireless)
   $1.52
PUC Fee (Wireless)
   $0.11
CASF (Wireless)
   $0.18
CA Teleconnect Fund (Wireless)
   $0.25
CA High Cost Fund A (Wireless)
   $0.11
E911 (Wireless)
   $0.24
Fed USF Cellular
   $3.36
FCC Regulatory Fee (Wireless)
   $0.03
Federal Telecommunications Relay Services Fund
   $0.47

These are California fees: CA TRS, PUC, CASF, CA Teleconnect and CA High Cost. Others may be. USF stands for Universal Service Fund, and is federal.

Author Topic: Scheme to charge a fee for text messaging (Read 29714 times)

Forester