• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

JasperL said:
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....
Click to expand...
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:
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
JasperL said:
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!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
*sigh* we can start with a bill being called "net neutrality" that is anything but.
Click to expand...

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?
 
How could anyone trust these lying bunch of thugs in this government? They lie about everything. Keep your filthy Marxist hands off my Internet!
 
No, we can't trust the FCC or it's plan for the internet

We know this because FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says so
 
sangha said:
No, we can't trust the FCC or it's plan for the internet

We know this because FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says so
Click to expand...

Naw this government never lies , do I have that about right? :roll:
 
sangha said:
You can't believe anything the govt says

Just ask FCC commish Ajit Pai
Click to expand...
I dont have too, I can see it with my own two eyes with just about everything else they do.

Besides who do you think is really calling the shots here, i think you know
 
sangha said:
So you agree that we should not believe what Ajit Pai says?
Click to expand...
Why havent they released the 332 page report then? Another blind follower that denies what is really going on with this administration.
 
sangha said:
You're right. We shouldn't blindly believe what Ajit Pai says, right?
Click to expand...
Considering the lying POS in the oval office ...if i was a gambling man and had to choose between the two, yes we should. But you would rather believe the lying POS even though we all know he lies about everything.
You totally ignore his track record of proven lies.
 
sangha said:
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?
Click to expand...




*sigh*
 
sangha said:
No need to surrender a 2nd time.
Click to expand...


My bad, you can have the last word. Do you even know what the topic is about? or what net neurtrality actually is, or are you limited in skills to this sort of behavior?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
My bad, you can have the last word. Do you even know what the topic is about? or what net neurtrality actually is, or are you limited in skills to this sort of behavior?
Click to expand...

Oooh look! Suddenly you want to discuss the issue? OK

Tell me again about this secret bill you mentioned in this thread. 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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom