• 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!

74% Oppose Taxing Internet News Sites To Help Newspapers

Deuce said:
State-run newspapers. Don't worry, nobody reads the newspaper ;)
Click to expand...

Who said the, "state run media", was made up of just newspapers? The State taking over the print media is just the beginning.
 
apdst said:
Who said the, "state run media", was made up of just newspapers? The State taking over the print media is just the beginning.
Click to expand...

Hang on a second.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

Ok, continue.
 
Though I don't see taxing net sources to keep hardcopy newspapers going as even making sense, let alone being a good thing, a question remains. As there are costs involved in reporting news, where will that funding come from? From my perspective, "news" financed purely by corporate interests, isn't news at all, merely propaganda, staged to serve the interests of those same corporations and the fat cats that control them. Without independent investigative news sources our experiment in democracy is doomed to failure and we've already moved quite a ways down that road.
 
Does the FTC have any role in regulating Newspapers?

I thought it dealt mostly with broadcasting (tv, Radio etc)
 
Deuce said:
Rasmussen isn't really giving a very good depiction of what the FTC report says. (This is not at all surprising.)
http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf

So to answer your question:
"No because that's not what the FTC appears to believe."

Edit to clarify: The FTC report is extremely neutral and discusses a very wide variety of topics and ideas.
Click to expand...

FTC is under government jurisdiction. To make them fund a newspapers organization means the newspapers have to write some good stuff about the good gov't subsidizing them....

Oh sure, they are extremely neutral. It's like the Health Care Bill that Obama had to do behind-the-doors wheelin' and dealin'. I trust a 3rd party over any gov't site especially if they have direct interest in the outcome of it all....
 
MCS117 said:
FTC is under government jurisdiction. To make them fund a newspapers organization means the newspapers have to write some good stuff about the good gov't subsidizing them....

Oh sure, they are extremely neutral. It's like the Health Care Bill that Obama had to do behind-the-doors wheelin' and dealin'. I trust a 3rd party over any gov't site especially if they have direct interest in the outcome of it all....
Click to expand...

My source is the FTC report, the same source that Rasmussen is using. Their poll is just a poll, and it's not a very good representation of the report as a whole. You should read it yourself.
 
MrVicchio said:
74% Oppose Taxing Internet News Sites To Help Newspapers - Rasmussen Reports

Does anyone else have a problem with the FTC believing that the best solutions are gov't paid reporters and news organizations??

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 84% oppose a three percent (3%) tax on monthly cell phone bills to help newspapers and traditional journalism.
Click to expand...
If anyone should pay it's Not cell phone users (!) or electronics purchasers....
But the Napsters of the News.. Google, Yahoo, etc, whose content is in good measure News that Newspapers have to pay for and are losing subscribers to.

It's just like Music; someone has to be paid for content, especially copyrighted content.
Google isn't paying those reporters salaries or the Bejing or London Bureau's rent- yet they get and give that content free.
Of course Newspapers are going out of business.
Someone is stealing them and handing them out for free.
The better ones are now blocking Some content except to subscribers.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
Does anyone else have a problem with the FTC believing that the best solutions are gov't paid reporters and news organizations??
Click to expand...

Is this serious? Tax people to help newspapers stay in business? I would be enraged if this passed.
 
Deuce said:
My source is the FTC report, the same source that Rasmussen is using. Their poll is just a poll, and it's not a very good representation of the report as a whole. You should read it yourself.
Click to expand...

Thus, this speaker suggests amending the copyright laws to create a content license fee (perhaps $5.00 to $7.00) to be paid by every Internet Service Provider on each account it provides.
Click to expand...

Proposals for Increased Government Subsidies, Indirect and Direct
Click to expand...

Tax on broadcast spectrum. They argue “commercial radio and television broadcasters are given monopoly rights to extremely lucrative spectrum at no charge,” and this is a massive public subsidy. They therefore suggest the revenues generated by that spectrum be taxed at a rate of 7 percent, which should result in a fund of between $3 and $6 billion.
Click to expand...

A 5 percent tax on consumer electronics would generate approximately $4 billion annually.
Click to expand...

ISP-cell phone tax. They suggest consumers could pay a small tax on their monthly ISP-cell phone bills to fund content they access on their digital services. A tax of 3 percent on the monthly fees would generate $6 billion annually. They note, however, this is the least desirable approach because demand for these services is “elastic” and even a slight rise in price could result in people dropping the service.
Click to expand...

All quotes are from the FTC.

Yea, I read it and the whole part of taxing more things to pay for another thing is a no in my books... Our economy is still between sputtering and stalling, and new taxes will kill it all together. How about we leave the whole social reform stuff alone until we get our economy back into shape?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom