Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 146

Thread: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

  1. #101
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Wrong. See Universal Service Support Mechanisms | FCC.gov for example.



    So let's assume that regulating the internet under Title II REQUIRES that the FCC charges an identical tax on internet services as it does now on phone services. That's false, of course, but we can assume it.

    In any case, the FCC has a budget and needs to collect $X.XX dollars to fund USF activities, and it sets the percentage each quarter to the amount needed to meet those revenue goals. If we added internet charges to the tax base, the tax rate necessary to collect $X.XX in revenues would fall dramatically because the tax base would expand dramatically. So with a larger base, the rate wouldn't be 16.1% but some rate far smaller.



    I keep doing that and keep proving you wrong....
    And you are wrong, again!

    The fund "required" contribution fee/tax, while it has been reduced at times, has steadily increased overall.
    It was 3.9% in 1999. Now it is 16.8%

    16.1% is what it was set at, making the previous article correct. That is what would have been charged had the new rate not gone into effect (making the claim correct) until adjusted again.
    Do you really not get that?

    It is now at 16.8%.
    Your contention that it would not be left where it is and be a smaller rate instead is baseless.
    There is no evidence that that will happen. None.
    And as the article suggested, those increase in funds will be used for other projects.
    Last edited by Excon; 02-11-15 at 06:56 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #102
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    And you are wrong, again!

    The fund "required" contribution fee/tax, while it has been reduced at times, has steadily increased overall.
    It was 3.9% in 1999. Now it is 16.8%

    16.1% is what it was set at, making the previous article correct. That is what would have been charged had the new rate not gone into effect (making the claim correct) until adjusted again.
    Do you really not get that?

    It is now at 16.8%.
    Your contention that it would not be left where it is and be a smaller rate instead is baseless.
    There is no evidence that that will happen. None.
    And as the article suggested, those increase in funds will be used for other projects.
    Let's do an example. FCC needs to collect $17. The tax base is $100. Those are the independent variable. So the rate, the dependent variable, is set so that FCC collects the needed $17. In this example the required rate for that quarter is 17%. If we add charges for the internet, assume the base increases to $300. Now we only need a rate of 5.67% to collect the required $17. That's how the rate is set.

    And there is no evidence, none, that FCC will apply a 16.8% tax rate to internet services. There is wild a$$ guess, groundless speculation by right wing authors who love to scare their readers with TAX INCREASE!!!! to gin up opposition to this regulatory move which really has nothing at all to do with taxes or tax rates.

    If you want to oppose the Title II regs because of worries that your internet bill go up by 17%, that's fine, but irrational. I'll try to find some other legitimate reason to support or oppose it. And writers who play the "16.1% tax will apply to your internet!!" card provide a public service by identifying themselves as writers who can be safely IGNORED. So good on them for saving me time! Thanks wingnuts!

  3. #103
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    Let's do an example. FCC needs to collect $17. The tax base is $100. Those are the independent variable. So the rate, the dependent variable, is set so that FCC collects the needed $17. In this example the required rate for that quarter is 17%. If we add charges for the internet, assume the base increases to $300. Now we only need a rate of 5.67% to collect the required $17. That's how the rate is set.

    And there is no evidence, none, that FCC will apply a 16.8% tax rate to internet services. There is wild a$$ guess, groundless speculation by right wing authors who love to scare their readers with TAX INCREASE!!!! to gin up opposition to this regulatory move which really has nothing at all to do with taxes or tax rates.

    If you want to oppose the Title II regs because of worries that your internet bill go up by 17%, that's fine, but irrational. I'll try to find some other legitimate reason to support or oppose it. And writers who play the "16.1% tax will apply to your internet!!" card provide a public service by identifying themselves as writers who can be safely IGNORED. So good on them for saving me time! Thanks wingnuts!
    Wrong again.
    The only irrationality here is yours.

    If this proposal is passed, that is the rate that will be charged if the designation goes into effect while that rate is in effect.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #104
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,719

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wrong again.
    The only irrationality here is yours.

    If this proposal is passed, that is the rate that will be charged if the designation goes into effect while that rate is in effect.
    1) you have no evidence that's the case
    2) you're ignoring the evidence I linked to explaining how the rate is set, and it's exactly consistent with my example.
    3) repeating a baseless assertion over and over doesn't prove the baseless assertion. I've provided my evidence - it's your turn.

  5. #105
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und View Post
    *sigh* we can start with a bill being called "net neutrality" that is anything but.
    What bill? In the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

    Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #106
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    What bill? In the Senate or the House? Who introduced it and who is co-sponsoring it? Do you have any links?

    Or are you just full of **** and there is no bill yet? Just a proposal the FCC is considering?
    One from January: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...BO_333_xml.pdf
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  7. #107
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    That can't be what the OP is talking about. It's only 7 pages long and does not include any of the provisions that are claimed to be a part of this that isn't being released.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  8. #108
    Advisor Iron Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    12-21-16 @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    317

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    How could anyone trust these lying bunch of thugs in this government? They lie about everything. Keep your filthy Marxist hands off my Internet!

  9. #109
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    No, we can't trust the FCC or it's plan for the internet

    We know this because FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says so
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #110
    Advisor Iron Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    12-21-16 @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    317

    Re: Congress probing White House role in FCC chief's net-neutrality plan

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    No, we can't trust the FCC or it's plan for the internet

    We know this because FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says so
    Naw this government never lies , do I have that about right?

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •