• 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!

California State Regulators Want a Surcharge on Text Messages

Brown has always been a tightfisted governor. It had nothing to do with taxing people beyond our needs. Newsome isn't doing that.

You can thank the ultra-conservative Prop 13. The 'old' Californians are still here. My family got here before 1870 and are all still around. The state is completely blue and likes being that way.

Irrelevant. Life here is great. Some people are just too damned lazy to take advantage of what we have here.

I'll keep prop 13. My entry in to real estate was due to my aged, widowed mother being forced out of her house due to skyrocketing property taxes, pre Prop 13. I "rented" the house from her and bunked her up in a nice senior center in downtown Sacramento. So not everyone is as lucky as you and I. But even you have to admit that energy, insurance, and services are overpriced, and it's expensive to own a home and live in the nicer areas. And people from LA and the Bay Area are cashing out and buying in my area, and because we are a "red" area, the state is stingy with road funds. California is a ponzi game.
 
I'll keep prop 13. My entry in to real estate was due to my aged, widowed mother being forced out of her house due to skyrocketing property taxes. I "rented" the house from here and bunked her up in a nice senior center in downtown Sacramento. So not everyone is as lucky as you and I. But even you have to admit that energy, insurance, and services are overpriced. And people from LA and the Bay Area are cashing out and buying in my area, and because we are a "red" area, the state is stingy with road funds. California is a ponzi game.

It's turned our once best in the world educational system into a shadow of its former self. I'd happily pay more property tax for better educated citizens.
 
Wait. He didn't tax rain?

Various cities here in Colorado did that for a while. They charged people...and businesses at a higher rate...for the rain that fell on their property. They also made it illegal for property owners to collect that rain.

Nope, no rain tax yet. However, my mother lives in Portland Oregon, a frugal woman on a fixed income, and fumes about their rain tax - I fell outa my chair when she told me, first I'd heard of such a thing.
 
My eyes have been opened for years and don't see through any such googles. I've been all over this state, unlike you, and know it from top to bottom, also unlike you.

I live in Northern California FYI
 
Maybe they can use the money raised from this latest tax to hire people to clean up the ****-covered sidewalks and the used needles in San Franpsycho.
 
It's turned our once best in the world educational system into a shadow of its former self. I'd happily pay more property tax for better educated citizens.

Yes it is. Then they move to lower crime states with more jobs and lower cost of living.
 
Brown has always been a tightfisted governor. It had nothing to do with taxing people beyond our needs. Newsome isn't doing that.

You can thank the ultra-conservative Prop 13. The 'old' Californians are still here. My family got here before 1870 and are all still around. The state is completely blue and likes being that way.

Irrelevant. Life here is great. Some people are just too damned lazy to take advantage of what we have here.

So California likes going from "The Golden State" to "The S**t Brown State"?

And don't waste our time by trying to claim that is not what the State has become.
 
It's turned our once best in the world educational system into a shadow of its former self. I'd happily pay more property tax for better educated citizens.

For the last 50 years Leftist Democrats have had almost 100% control over US public education. During that time it has gone from one of the best to one of the worst.

Given the fact that we spend more per student on average than any other country (some years Switzerland occasionally beats us) , more money wont fix it.
 
For the last 50 years Leftist Democrats have had almost 100% control over US public education. During that time it has gone from one of the best to one of the worst.

Given the fact that we spend more per student on average than any other country (some years Switzerland occasionally beats us) , more money wont fix it.

Yawn. Prop 13, created and pushed by conservative republicans, lies at the heart of the issue. It's got nothing to do with 'leftist democrats' as you're describing.
 
Yawn. Prop 13, created and pushed by conservative republicans, lies at the heart of the issue. It's got nothing to do with 'leftist democrats' as you're describing.

nice try. the average spent per student nation wide per year is $11,700. Cali is within $150 per year of that.
 
Nationwide highest poverty rate is "decent shape," well Ok if you say.

Yep. The easily misled and intellectually lazy will always focus on one single issue and reject the overall picture.

But you'd never do that, would you?
 
Nice try, Prop 13 was in 1978. up until about 2000 Cali was the nations most prosperous state, and then Leftist Democrats took firm control. your assertion and sources are garbage.

Yes, I'm aware of that.

It's also completely irrelevant and CA is in great financial shape now because of a liberal Dem.

Yet again you prove you know absolutely nothing about the subject matter and choose to bray anyhow.

Bray on, but you'll have to do it alone.
 
Just as I'd expected, this thread drew zero interest from anyone on the Democratic side. Maybe they support such repressive measures as taxing text messages? Can't tell, they'll only comment when a thread includes Trump, or makes some group they hate look bad.

LOL. They cant find commonground with common sense.
 
Nice try, Prop 13 was in 1978. up until about 2000 Cali was the nations most prosperous state, and then Leftist Democrats took firm control. your assertion and sources are garbage.

Wrong, by 2000 California was trying to sell off state owned buildings and properties, firing law enforcement, closing facilities and considering cutting back school days because the state didn't have enough tax revenue to operate.
That's why they were edging towards bankruptcy. California WAS in the same situation Sam Brownback's KANSAS is in now.
Once the Democrats took over - - which happened because they WERE VOTED IN, by the way, California began to go back into the black again.

It has nothing to do with how prosperous the state is, it has to do with whether the state itself had sufficient revenue to operate, in spite of private wealth. A state can be filled with prosperous citizens but if their state coffers are bone dry, you wind up with a lot of wealthy people, but roads with potholes, schools with no textbooks or enough teachers, police departments operating on skeleton crew and essential services cut to the core.

Proposition 13 was a radical salvo at property tax revenues.
And by the way, it also decimated the residential construction industry because millions of people didn't dare do any remodeling for fear of being pushed out of the Prop 13 bracket, so residential construction plummeted. Prop 13 side effect: a JOB KILLER.
Another side effect, hundreds of thousands of homes which steadily became so out of code that they were becoming unsafe.

An old girlfriend who wound up marrying an entertainment director at a well known L.A. celebrity venue inherited his mother's sumptuous mansion in the West Adams District in downtown L.A.
The 1906 home was originally built for one of the early former CEO's of General Motors, but by the time his mother got it, Prop 13 had made it impossible for her to modernize, thus when my former GF wound up in it, her and her new hubby discovered that half of the mansion still had ancient knob and tube wiring in the attic and 10 amp two blade non-polarized service outlets.
She had begun to modernize the home but decided to halt the job halfway through.

It was almost impossible to make a piece of toast, run a vacuum cleaner, a coffeepot or dry your hair in that half of the house, because anything more imposing than a table radio or an electric light or a small TV would blow the ancient glass fuses.

And they lived in fear of the crumbling cloth covered wires sparking a fire because every so often they would discover another ceramic insulator had given up the ghost by virtue of the rusty nail holding in place working itself loose.
 
By the way, the proposed tax would have been about five bucks as a surcharge tacked onto the monthly bill, and it was aimed at helping support expansion of so called "lifeline" telephone and data services.

It is likely that proposal will be ruled out anyway, but that's what the purpose of the surcharge was for.
Texting is being ruled as an "information service" so it is unlikely that the Public Utilities Commission can levy a tax surcharge on it.
 
Up here the street people have been pissing in and ****ting in very nice flower boxes that had been set up on sidewalks over the years, which is expensive to clean up, so they are removing them.

America, a nation going in reverse.

Sup Hawk. I see the same kind of thing repeatedly, where bushes, flowerbeds, and even trees are removed because the homeless use them to sleep in, or defecate behind. What often replaces them are wrought iron gates, barb wire fences, or just dirt. The amount of fencing that's gone up in the last several years is amazing to see. Entire neighborhoods which used to be open now appear gated off, fenced off, like they're warding off the zombie apocalypse.
 
By the way, the proposed tax would have been about five bucks as a surcharge tacked onto the monthly bill, and it was aimed at helping support expansion of so called "lifeline" telephone and data services.

It is likely that proposal will be ruled out anyway, but that's what the purpose of the surcharge was for.
Texting is being ruled as an "information service" so it is unlikely that the Public Utilities Commission can levy a tax surcharge on it.

So an extra $60 per year money grab on the people who actually work for a living in this state, to subsidize phone service for those who don't. Brilliant. I've heard of people going around collecting Obama phones, some have a dozen or more. You've probably seen the little tents all around town offering free phones to anybody who fills out the paperwork. That's been going on for years.
 
So an extra $60 per year money grab on the people who actually work for a living in this state, to subsidize phone service for those who don't. Brilliant. I've heard of people going around collecting Obama phones, some have a dozen or more. You've probably seen the little tents all around town offering free phones to anybody who fills out the paperwork. That's been going on for years.

And ninety percent of these phones are used to either look for work or are used by elderly and disabled.
So called "Obamaphones" aren't, because this is nothing more than the old Lifeline service, which was started in 1985 under Ronald Reagan.

Since 1985, the Lifeline program has helped low-income people pay for phone service; first landlines, then cellphones, and as of 2016 it also offers the option of Internet connectivity. It provides a subsidy of up to $10.00 a month for Americans below 135% of the poverty line for this service.

The Lifeline program is limited to one discount per household. A "household" includes anyone living at the same address who shares incomes and household expenses.

Last year the FCC canceled some two million subscribers because of abuse.

Mr. Rosales,

Following is CPUC response to your inquiry.
The California LifeLine Program is a state program that subsidizes residential telephone service, not cell phone devices. Participating companies may choose based upon their own business models to give cell phones to consumers at no cost. Consequently, phone companies establish their own terms and conditions for receipt of their free cell phones. California LifeLine discounts are only for the actual telephone service, and not the device.

Prior to receiving discounts, the California LifeLine Program requires identification documents consistent
with the federal government’s rules. If a person’s identity cannot be authenticated using the submitted
personal information (e.g., name, service address, date of birth, and last four of the social security numbers), then the consumer must submit identification documents. For more information about the
program’s ID Check, go to https://www.californialifeline.com/en/id_check.

Consistent with the state and federal rules, applicants may provide proof of eligibility with a name that is
different than the applicant’s name. However, if they are different, then the applicant and the person
whose name appears on the proof of eligibility must be in the same household. A household includes adults and children who are living together at the same address as one economic unit. An economic unit consists of all adults (persons at least 18 years old unless emancipated) contributing to and sharing the household's income and expenses. Only one discount is provided per household. Applicants provide supporting documentation and information under penalty of perjury. Phone companies do not determine the eligibility of consumers for the California LifeLine Program. The California LifeLin
e Administrator (Administrator), under the CPUC’s supervision, handles the enrollment
process and has the sole responsibility for determining eligibility, including whether applicants demonstrated with acceptable documentation that they qualify. Accordingly, even if the vendors may refer questionable applicants and documentation to the Administrator, it is the Administrator that is the gatekeeper for the program. The Administrator protects the program from fraud and abuse by executing validation checks such as the duplicate check, address standardization method, and identity check. The
key aspect of the Administrator’s validation checks is that the nature of its gatekeeping system is proactive and recurring. The Administrator’s gatekeeping system helps to stop waste, fraud, and abuse of California LifeLine funds in the first place.

Moreover, the California LifeLine Program periodically audits phone companies and works with State and Federal agencies to investigate alleged instances of waste, fraud, and abuse.

Christopher Chow, Information Officer

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102

415-703-2234 (desk) 415-238-9940 (cell)

crs@cpuc.ca.gov


It's not surprising that you're running around with your hair on fire, screaming about something like the LifeLine service.
 
Back
Top Bottom