 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / April 2004How much do you pay for tax?
Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like to know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and NexTel cost with taxes included, assuming no extra minutes are used (Some of these might not have a $29.99 plan). > Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like to > know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, Verizon, > T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and NexTel cost with taxes included, assuming no > extra minutes are used (Some of these might not have a $29.99 plan). $42. >>Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like to >>know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, Verizon, >>T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and NexTel cost with taxes included, assuming no >>extra minutes are used (Some of these might not have a $29.99 plan). > > $42. Wow, my $29.99 plan has $4.50 max of bullshit Gore Taxes, then with a corporate discount credit of 15%, my total bill comes to $29.83 or thereabouts. >>>Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like to >>>know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, Verizon, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >corporate discount credit of 15%, my total bill comes to $29.83 or >thereabouts. I should say not just taxes. but surcharge and regulation fees included. I had a $39.99 attws plan, the total came to about $53 when the bills arrived. That's $13 more, 30% more. > >Wow, my $29.99 plan has $4.50 max of bullshit Gore Taxes, then with a > >corporate discount credit of 15%, my total bill comes to $29.83 or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > included. I had a $39.99 attws plan, the total came to about $53 when > the bills arrived. That's $13 more, 30% more. How do the State and City and FCC taxes and fees become Gore taxes. Bush has had three tax cuts passed into law since he became Presdent, and none reduced cell phone taxes at the Federal Level. Only the Universal Service Fee is aka "the Gore Tax" because it was Gore who pushed legislation to create a fund that's to supposedly be used to give "underpriveliged areas" internet access. Unlike a direct tax on consumers it is a tax/fee imposed on the carriers. The legislation allows the carriers to pass the fee along to their customers with a markup to cover the cost of collecting and administering the payment of the fee. The Clinton administration tried very hard to cover up this tax by calling it a fee and even going so far as to hire an independent, non-government agency to collect the tax (they keep a chunk too). The Clinton administration lobbied the carriers to raise their rates rather than itemize the charge but the carriers said "hell no!" and added it as a line item on their bills. Since the USF shown on the bill can include whatever markup a carrier chooses, it can vary by carrier. From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com >>> Wow, my $29.99 plan has $4.50 max of bullshit Gore Taxes, then with >>> a corporate discount credit of 15%, my total bill comes to $29.83 or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bush has had three tax cuts passed into law since he became Presdent, > and none reduced cell phone taxes at the Federal Level. > Only the Universal Service Fee is aka "the Gore Tax" because it was Gore > who pushed legislation to create a fund that's to supposedly be used to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a line item on their bills. Since the USF shown on the bill can include > whatever markup a carrier chooses, it can vary by carrier. NICE TRY. They Telecommunications Act of 1996 which authorized the USF, was passed when Republicans controlled Congress, and a sitting Vice President can not create legislation. Or maybe you played hookey in the 8th Grade when the rest of us learned about Congress. Notwithstanding your political sensitivities, and whether it's right or wrong, it's still known as the "Gore Tax" which is simply a fact no matter how deserving or undeserving the title is. Congress never authorized the tax. Gore lobbied the FCC to implement the fee and proudly announced it at a speech he gave. As for the Clinton Administration, through the FCC, lobbying for it to remain hidden - again, it's fact - I've seen the letters. Don't take my word for it (I know you won't anyway). Do the research... or did you sleep through "library period" in the 8th grade? For more info just Google "gore tax" or start with these: http://www.dcl.edu/lawrev/2000-1/Cherry_Nystrom.htm (a law review article) http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju59920.000/hju59920_0f.htm (congressional testimony) http://www.harleymom.com/ftr/fromthemembers/goretax.htm (one person's opinion) From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com > NICE TRY. They Telecommunications Act of 1996 which authorized the > USF, was passed when Republicans controlled Congress, and a sitting > Vice President can not create legislation. Or maybe you played hookey > in the 8th Grade when the rest of us learned about Congress. > Notwithstanding your political sensitivities, and whether it's right or > wrong, it's still known as the "Gore Tax" which is simply a fact no > matter how deserving or undeserving the title is. Congress never > authorized the tax. Gore lobbied the FCC to implement the fee and > proudly announced it at a speech he gave. Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Show me where. The articles I cited (including a law review article and congressional testimony seem to counter your assertion. But I'm always willing to learn. Show me. Or are you under a non-disclosure on this too? From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com >> Notwithstanding your political sensitivities, and whether it's right >> or wrong, it's still known as the "Gore Tax" which is simply a fact [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. > Show me where. The articles I cited (including a law review article and > congressional testimony seem to counter your assertion. But I'm always > willing to learn. Show me. Or are you under a non-disclosure on this > too? Opinion pieces are not good sources. http://www.ael.org/rel/policy/fcc97.htm Then why did you send me one? In any case it affirms what I said: The fee was implemented by the FCC - not congress. Congress only passed legislation for discounted services not a tax or a fee. From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com > Opinion pieces are not good sources. > > http://www.ael.org/rel/policy/fcc97.htm > Then why did you send me one? In any case it affirms what I said: The > fee was implemented by the FCC - not congress. But they could only implement it because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. >Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Damn you're an a.shole! There are no taxes included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. NONE ZILCH 0 NADA -- John S. e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net > >Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 0 > NADA Your insults just demonstrate how chiuldish you are about being proven wrong. USF is not a tax, but its foundation was established by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Sorry you have a problem with Al Gore. http://www.ael.org/rel/policy/fcc97.htm > > >Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. > > > >(Insult snipped.) > > > > There are no taxes included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Here are the details of the USF, authorized in 1996 by the Telecommunications Act. Read about the Rockefeller Amendment to the 1996 telecommunications act here: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docu ment=6514083483 Senator Kerrey was a consponsor, but thats the Kerrey from Kansas. Al Gore was not in the Senate in 1996. > Senator Kerrey was a consponsor, but thats the Kerrey from Kansas. > Al Gore was not in the Senate in 1996. You're right- he was overseeing a panel charged with beefing up homeland security after the first twin towers attack. You remember that commission, Phil? The one that watered down their recommendations after receiving donations to the party in excess of $300,000 from the airlines. Gore was VP and as such pushed the FCC to implement the fee. That's how it came to be known, rightly or wrongly, as the Gore Tax. Maybe he just got a bad rap for it. He's irrelevant now but the tax lingers on. Note that the carriers LOVE the USF because they take a very profitable markup on it which lets them advertise lower retail prices. The fee/tax does virtually nothing to improve internet access but the government isn't going to drop the fee. The 3% FET is a tax that was imposed to pay for the Spanish-American War - about 100 years ago. When the tax was phased out in the 70's it was dropped from 10% by 1% per year and got all the way down to 1%. Then, just before it died altogther, it was made permanent at 3%. Guess some left over bills from the Spanish-American War showed up. Government HATES to give up any source of revenue. From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com >>>> Nice try. It's part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Read about the Rockefeller Amendment to the 1996 telecommunications > act here: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docu > ment=6514083483 > > Senator Kerrey was a consponsor, but thats the Kerrey from Kansas. > Al Gore was not in the Senate in 1996. > Gore was VP and as such pushed the FCC to implement the fee. That's how > it came to be known, rightly or wrongly, as the Gore Tax. Maybe he just > got a bad rap for it. He's irrelevant now but the tax lingers on. NOPE. The 1996 Telecommunications Act authorized the fee. Maybe you dont want Libraries to have Internet Access. The cost for internet access to a library is less than the price of a few magazine subscriptions. Frankly, I don't care whether libraries have internet access or not. Many libraries are closing due to lack of interest. The 1996 legislation required discounts. It did not mandate a fee and set no amounts to be paid. Gore pushed for the FCC mandated contribution from carriers and the carriers passed it on to the consumers. This is a case of an administrative agency creating a tax. Gore was very proud to take credit for making it happen (maybe not as proud as he was of inventing the internet) so I'm not sure why you want to sweep it under the rug. From:Robert M. rmarkoff@msn.com >> Gore was VP and as such pushed the FCC to implement the fee. That's >> how it came to be known, rightly or wrongly, as the Gore Tax. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NOPE. The 1996 Telecommunications Act authorized the fee. Maybe you > dont want Libraries to have Internet Access. > The cost for internet access to a library is less than the price of a > few magazine subscriptions. Frankly, I don't care whether libraries have > internet access or not. Many libraries are closing due to lack of > interest. Spoken like a "have." Library (and school) net access is for the "have-nots." Maybe you don't use public libraries, but whenever I go in, the busiest section is the free internet access computer room. > The 1996 legislation required discounts. It did not mandate a fee and > set no amounts to be paid. Actually it set 2 1/4 billion per year. > Gore pushed for the FCC mandated contribution > from carriers and the carriers passed it on to the consumers. Actually, no. Gore had nothing to do with it. A few Rebublicans fighting the USF fee coined the term "Gore Tax" because of Gore's support of the internet and technology in general. He had nothing personaly to do with the USF fee. > This is a > case of an administrative agency creating a tax. Gore was very proud to > take credit for making it happen The telecommunications companies created the fee to raise the 2.25 billion the TCA required them to pay. > (maybe not as proud as he was of > inventing the internet) You probably know Gore actually never said that- the quote was invented by a reporter who was either too lazy or too stupid to quote what Gore really said about his committee funding the creation of the ARPAnet- the internet's military forebear. Just to burst your bubble further, Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam," nor did Cary Grant ever utter "Joo-die, Joo-dey, Joo-die." Bu never let a good story be compromised by the truth! > so I'm not sure why you want to sweep it under > the rug. Who wants it swept under the rug? I'm happy to pay the equivalent of two lousy overpriced Starbuck's venti lattes a YEAR out of my Celphone bill to fund telecommunications equipment and services for schools and libraries. I can afford things like cellphones and internet access. Why shouldn't people who don't have access to them. Back to the orignal topic- my T-Mobile bill in Colorado is $54.45/month for a $49.99 rate plan, or just under 10% for all fees and taxes combined. When I lived in Missouri last year, my fees and taxes were even lower- my $59.99 rate plan was $64 and some change- about 8%. (It'll be higher this month- T-Mo is adding the "regulatory fee" everyone else has been adding at 85-cents per line, IIRC.) Spoken like a Democrat. From:Todd Allcock elecconnec@aol.com >> The cost for internet access to a library is less than the price of a >> few magazine subscriptions. Frankly, I don't care whether libraries [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > about 8%. (It'll be higher this month- T-Mo is adding the "regulatory > fee" everyone else has been adding at 85-cents per line, IIRC.) > Spoken like a Democrat. Actually spoken like a liberal libertarian tired of both parties' bulls--t. The majority of voters are stupid enough to base their decisions on things like "read my lips...", "I never had sex..." or crap like "Gore tax" instead of a candidate's record or positions. It's getting to where both major parties look alike......Once they get into Washington D.C........all they do is anything to get reelected. Instead of doing what is RIGHT and LEGAL for our country, they do (or spend tax money) to get them back into office. Vouchers.......forget it....but, do any of the politicians who live in DC send their kids to government (public) schools? nope.....do we have the choice to opt out of social security? Nope, but the politicians do. Do they free healthcare for LIFE......yep, does the public....nope Do you know any other profession, that you make less than 200K per year (I'm not talking about all the free handouts, bribes etc), stay in the job for 10 years, and come out set for life? >> Spoken like a Democrat. > >Actually spoken like a liberal libertarian tired of both parties' >bulls--t. The majority of voters are stupid enough to base their >decisions on things like "read my lips...", "I never had sex..." or >crap like "Gore tax" instead of a candidate's record or positions. > It's getting to where both major parties look alike Spoken like Ralph Nadar. One party wants to protect the environment, increase Federal Aid to Education, rejoin the world community, create jobs; and the other doesn't or hasn't. >> It's getting to where both major parties look alike > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Education, rejoin the world community, create jobs; and the other >doesn't or hasn't. Spoken like a true liberal.......one wants to take everyones property away, tax me to death to give it to people who are too lazy to work. The other doesn't..... >>>>Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like to >>>>know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, Verizon, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > included. I had a $39.99 attws plan, the total came to about $53 when > the bills arrived. That's $13 more, 30% more. You're getting ripped. Could you itemize the $13 extras? In Feb I made no long distance calls, strange, so my total bill was $29.99 + .02 Federal Tax, .80 911 Service "Fee", .11 TRS Surchage, les $4.50 15% National Account Discount = $26.42. If I make 1 long distance call I get reamed for another $3-4. January's bill was for $29.78 Oh yeah, I got $30 Credit too for agreeing to sign up for another year, why not? I get: - 2000 nite/weekend minutes - 300 more nite/weekend minutes thru National Discount Plan - 200 anytime minutes - 30 more anytime minutes thru National Discount Plan - 15% discount on the $29.99 = $4.50 - 3 way calling - call waiting - caller id - intl dialing - voice mail - detail billing (whoppee) - 2 way text msg For daytime local calls I just use my work phone so I hardly use my cell daytime minutes at all. > You're getting ripped. Could you itemize the $13 extras? DEPENDS. Different polotical jurisdictioons have taxes, and depending on how many of those one gets socked with: State: County: City all may or may not be charging a low or high tax. AT&T Wireless. $29.99 National Plan- Suburban Maryland. $4.17 Taxes, Surcharges, & Regulatory Fees. $1.75 Regulatory Programs Fee=$35.91 per line. Beth > Since tax is a big trunk of what we pay for services. I'd like > to know how much the $29.99 plans from ATTWS, Cingular, > Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint PCS and NexTel cost with taxes > included, assuming no extra minutes are used (Some of these > might not have a $29.99 plan). In southeastern Ohio I pay: $29.99 monthly service + 0.92 Federal tax + 0.74 universal connectivity charge + 2.31 state tax - service $33.96 total |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.