California wants to tax text-messaging
mercurynews.com
mercurynews.com
I thought HN readers were better than this.
> Honestly, cell carriers are probably making tons of profit off of text messaging
And calls, for that matter.
I pay $35/month to Google Fi just for text/phone. You know how many SMS messages I send per month? Probably a couple dozen. Most of my messaging is through Facebook, and it's rare for me to actually make phone calls. It's all data.
And yeah, it's a decent deal, especially since my data bill is capped, and international data has no extra charges. I only travel internationally once a year, but it'll be really nice when I do.
I don't think taxing incomes is horrific. That doesn't absolve politicians of justifying raising taxes. This is a money grab. Given how wastefully California burns through cash, I'm not sure why (a) more money is needed or (b) this, specifically, is the way to do it. Why not a gas tax? Or a carbon tax? Or a tax on water-wasting crops?
(2015) California Revenue per capita is $10,408. Texas, the second largest state by economy in total money, is $10,204 per capita, the average is $10,234. Incidentally, California is very slightly "better" at 16.6% GSP than Texas at 17.1% GSP, and further better than the average of 18.3% GSP.
If this is a "money grab," they've got room for it, compared to other states -- say Delaware or most of the South, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_budgets
Meanwhile, California spends $4,636 per capita on the state budget, ranking 15th lowest of the 50 states. So again, not really "burning through cash."
As is mentioned every time California's or blue states' budget and spending are brought up, blue states tend to give more federal money whereas those fiscally conservative red states tend to take in more federal money.
As for if this is the way to do it; yeah, seems a little like extra taxes on faxes home phone service at this point -- diminished returns at best.
oops
of course it is passed onto consumers, all taxes are. embedded taxation is how governments are able to put large tax loads on a populace without them realizing it.
It's a surcharge (the bill is linked down-thread). It's passed on to consumers by definition. If it works the same as MTS, it would be a statutorily capped fee. "The most we can charge" is a different number from the most a consumer would willingly pay with complete information. Surcharges are not included in advertised prices, and can therefore be used to affect price obfuscation. This is why my 34.99/mo pre-paid plan cost $48.12. Because it is a fixed amout, it also makes pre-paid plans less competitive with higher margin credit based plans.
Messaging apps on the other hand are what the govt generally CAN'T break into.
I infer that media coverage calling this a "tax" might be sort of a telco lobbying submarine.
Edit: The more I look into this the less I know. I have had a lot of trouble finding details on who manages which fees. FCC has apparently designated several non-profit corporations to manage universal service fee funds, while some states have their own funds.* I can't find an authoritative answer to whether other surcharges are outside the scope of government management or not. Customer service won't talk about it (I tried once), and the legislation itself seems to describe what is _allowed_, but doesn't usefully summarize what is actually occurring. If anyone knows where to find more authoritative information about this sort of thing, I would like to know.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Adminis...
So you lied and said it was a charge to help poor people have access to phones and collected almost 25x the amount needed and used it as a slush fund. Now the slush fund is less profitable although still 11x the amount needed and you want to refill the slush fund. How about no.
The reality is that all revenue is part of giant slush bucket. Some expenses are discretionary and some not, but the bucket to pay is what it is.
This is just the way politics and false promises work.
Seeing more of that thing, whatever it's called, seems like a desirable thing. The 'pooled funds' approach to tax/spending does lead to a lot of whacky outcomes.
I also wonder the implications on messaging apps like WhatsApp / FB Messenger. Because if this did pass, as a Californian, I'd just switch to that full time
The tax "would be billed as a flat surcharge per customer — one of those irksome fees at the bottom of your wireless bill — not a fee per text".
It would "help support programs that make phone service accessible to the poor".
> MMS is a newer service a customer can use to send text, photos and other information along with the message[1].
So this (dumb) proposed law would only cover true SMS/MMS texts, and not Signal/WhatsApp/Snapchat/Viber/WeChat/Messenger/Telegram/Hangouts/KiK/Skype/or any new apps coming out daily? The things most people are using now over regular text?
[1] http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M238/K227/2...
CPUC has the ability to regulate telecoms, but all of those apps are services that run over the internet, which is outside the pervue of the CPUC afaik. Most of them aren't making revenue on messaging either, so a revenue based tax doesn't work either.
Also people pay nontrivial sums for telecommunication services. Easily $1200 -> $3000 per household. Taking a small portion of that money is still a lot of money. Facebook by contrast makes a lot less per user.
Yes, kind of shocking that such ideas are even being suggested, but I put low odds on this ever seeing a vote.
Nah, they tax TV stations and newspapers too. It's just a tax not targeted at free speech. 99.999% are "what he cheated on you again????" and "I just ate mcDonalds" type messages.
They want to tax all messages and all services so it's likely to be kosher. I pay local tax on my phone bill....free speech my @ss, just a tax.
I certainly don't and never did, this probably differs between countries.
In the U.S. we also have a constitutional right to freedom of travel but that doesn't make a gasoline tax unconstitutional.
Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating the content of speech, not the speech itself.
Things change. Remember 30 years ago where people could smoke inside a grocery store? How mind-warpingly fast things can change right?
Is that because people spend way less time making actual phone calls these days?
It's potentially unavoidable as carriers currently bundle text messaging w/ voice plans.
Good luck!
Stop encouraging them!
I prefer to call them collisions because "accident" implies nobody is at fault.
> But they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years — which they call “an alarming precedent” — and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers.
Edit: I just wanted to point out: As someone else mentioned in another thread on this article, there's an idea of "ex post facto" laws in the US constitution[1]. So considering this "an alarming precedent" when the authors of the constitution already knew of such a thing and prohibited it is a statement about our generation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
Not really. The laws still need to be passed. I believe Deepwater Horizon was largely resolved with ex post facto legislation.
FWIW, the precedent distinguishing prohibited ex post facto laws from permitted retrospective laws was established by the Supreme Court when ink on the Constitution was practically still wet, in Calder v. Bull (1798).
I think there is an applicable quote about defending scoundrels that would apply here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Doe
An interesting side note is that many state courts have continued to strike down similar provisions, and some Federal courts have apparently also concluded that certain rules about sex offenders are "punitive" and so constitutionally invalid as outside of the Smith v. Doe rule. So this example is hard to summarize in a simple way, not least because many other courts have been trying to narrow this rule.
The state has a property tax freeze on its hands that charges private country clubs pennies to the dollar on what should be their fair share.[1]
1. https://blog.simonsays.ai/a-good-walk-spoiled-with-malcolm-g...
I've had those everywhere I've lived in the country.
Some good information here.
In short, you are correct. There has never been a bill proposed that would require a surcharge or "stamp" for e-mail. The UN did suggest that a "bit tax" of 1 cent per 100 e-mails could raise over $70 billion/year, but it was never a real plan.
I mean, yeah I still get junk mail that advertisers pay for, but we're talking 0-3 items per day. E-mail can easily reach 50+ messages per day.
Do you have a source for this?
It was a hoax.