Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 146

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

  1. #71
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,744

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wrong.
    The fee/tax is currently set at 16.1.
    That means that is what currently would be charged.
    If you can find where the FCC currently levies a tax of 16.1%, you're a better researcher than I am. This article summarizes tax on wireless services and the total is about 17%, with 12% state and local charges. And that varies from state to state, city to city. It also includes charges unique to phones, such as 911 charges. Whatever the case, each government, Feds, FCC, state and local, would vote to extend those taxes to internet and what they decide could be 0% or 40% or any value imaginable.

    Bottom line is this is the kind of dishonesty in evaluating the proposal I expect from the right wing, which is why I have to look elsewhere.

  2. #72
    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
    If you can find where the FCC currently levies a tax of 16.1%, you're a better researcher than I am. This article summarizes tax on wireless services and the total is about 17%, with 12% state and local charges. And that varies from state to state, city to city. It also includes charges unique to phones, such as 911 charges. Whatever the case, each government, Feds, FCC, state and local, would vote to extend those taxes to internet and what they decide could be 0% or 40% or any value imaginable.

    Bottom line is this is the kind of dishonesty in evaluating the proposal I expect from the right wing, which is why I have to look elsewhere.
    Already provided it.
    Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #73
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,744

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Already provided it.
    Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
    No you didn't - you quoted opinion writers who didn't link to source documents. But if you look at my link, you'll see the calculation and the actual USF charge, which is on phone services, phone calls, is 5.8%. Think what you want, but the 16.1% number is a red herring - irrelevant to the subject of net neutrality and whether the current proposal makes sense or not.

  4. #74
    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
    No you didn't - you quoted opinion writers who didn't link to source documents. But if you look at my link, you'll see the calculation and the actual USF charge, which is on phone services, phone calls, is 5.8%. Think what you want, but the 16.1% number is a red herring - irrelevant to the subject of net neutrality and whether the current proposal makes sense or not.
    Wrong.
    Again.

    I already provided it.
    Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  5. #75
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,744

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Wrong.
    Again.

    I already provided it.
    Read the multiple threads on this subject to find it.
    Okee dokee. This has been fun.

    BTW, LMAO at the "read multiple threads to find some link I can't bother to spend 5 seconds to provide."

  6. #76
    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
    Okee dokee. This has been fun.

    BTW, LMAO at the "read multiple threads to find some link I can't bother to spend 5 seconds to provide."

    As I said. It has already been provided.
    I have no need to continually provided that which has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue.

    But what you don't get to do is jump to making false allegations and say it hasn't been provided when it already has.
    All you can honestly say is that I had not provided it in this thread.
    Had you been civil and and not made a false allegations starting with your dishonesty claim I would have either quoted it for you or directed you to it.
    But as it is, no. It has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue. Go find it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  7. #77
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,999

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

    This got me wondering: what is the tax on a title II utility? I can't find it online, so I just simply pulled out one of my phone bills. Phone service is a Common Carrier and therefore a title II utility. Anyway, the total tax was $3.50 on a $140.00 bill. That's a 2.5% tax. So not 16.1%, not 140%...it's 2.5%. If that same tax were applied to my internet bill, I would end up shelling out an additional $1.50/month.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 02-11-15 at 01:40 PM.

  8. #78
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,744

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    As I said. It has already been provided.
    I have no need to continually provided that which has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue.

    But what you don't get to do is jump to making false allegations and say it hasn't been provided when it already has.
    All you can honestly say is that I had not provided it in this thread.
    I looked and found you had cited a Forbes article and that article didn't link to anything to support the 16.1% charge. It's possible you linked to something else, but I have no idea which of the multiple threads this link might be in and so I looked elsewhere, and found there is a now over 17% nominal tax on the amount companies charge for interstate and international PHONE CALLS, but that in practice it works out to a tax of 5.8%. With a link. I also pointed out that state/local government charge another 12%, with a link. And that these taxes are phone services specific and wouldn't apply to internet services unless the FCC and/or state and/or local governments voted to apply taxes to internet services, so the tax on the internet could range from 0.00% to 9,271% or any other number one could imagine between 0 and infinity.

    And all you can do is say - see some link in some other thread.....

    Had you been civil and and not made a false allegations starting with your dishonesty claim I would have either quoted it for you or directed you to it.
    But as it is, no. It has already been provided in one of the multiple threads concerning this issue. Go find it.
    If I made a false accusation, which one? I backed up my 'accusations' with links, and with the common sense proposition that even if there was a 16.1% tax on interstate phone services, that is no basis to conclude that the tax on something else entirely, the internet or data services, would be equal to 16.1%. The tax if any on this different service, the internet, will require a separate vote, at the Federal, state and local levels.

  9. #79
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,744

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    This got me wondering: what is the tax on a title II utility? I can't find it online, so I just simply pulled out one of my phone bills. Phone service is a Common Carrier and therefore a title II utility. Anyway, the total tax was $3.50 on a $140.00 bill. That's a 2.5% tax. So not 16.1%, not 140%...it's 2.5%. If that same tax were applied to my internet bill, I would end up shelling out an additional $1.50/month.
    But some guy writing for Forbes said it's 16.1% with no link, so you're wrong, obviously. Why are you lying to us?

    /sarcasm

  10. #80
    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
    But some guy writing for Forbes said it's 16.1% with no link, so you're wrong, obviously. Why are you lying to us?

    /sarcasm
    Can your nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    If I made a false accusation, which one? I backed up my 'accusations' with links, and with the common sense proposition that even if there was a 16.1% tax on interstate phone services, that is no basis to conclude that the tax on something else entirely, the internet or data services, would be equal to 16.1%. The tax if any on this different service, the internet, will require a separate vote, at the Federal, state and local levels.
    Wtf do you mean which one?
    I pointed out your assertions about me were false. I even pointed out that you started that crap with your assertion of dishonesty.
    Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything you linked to.

    And you will not get me to repost the information or direct you to the post. It isn't going to happen.
    But I will give you a clue.
    Use the article and wiki the specific fund he is talking about.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •