Posted on 12/16/2018 7:30:56 PM PST by aquila48
Following a new FCC ruling, the California Public Utilities Commission has ditched its planned 2019 vote on taxing text messaging.
The CPUC revealed on Twitter Friday that it has decided not to go forward with a scheduled January 2019 vote to levy a 'text tax' following the FCC's ruling that text messages were an 'information service' — as opposed to a telecommunications service — meaning that texts aren't eligible for taxation under California state law.
The commission's controversial 'text tax' plans involved a per-text surcharge which would help fund programs that provide cell phone services for low-income and disabled people, as well as those in rural areas, according to Fox News.
The proposed text message tax was apparently being considered because, prior to the FCC's declaratory ruling on December 12, text messaging had not been classified as any kind of specific service under federal law.
But, 'In light of the FCC’s action,' CPUC tweeted Friday, its commissioner, Carla J. Peterman, decided to withdraw the January vote which 'proposed to clarify that text messaging service should be subject to the statutory surcharge requirement.'
California Republican state assemblyman Jim Patterson took to Twitter to rejoice over the commission's statement.
'BREAKING NEWS: The CPUC has cancelled the January vote on the #TextTax! You can bet I’ll keep a watchful eye on them for future shenanigans. For now...consider the Text Tax cancelled,' Patterson tweeted Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
This is almost funny.
It's not gone. Be suspicious, my good FRiends, that the Dems in the legislature might already drafting the wording for a sneaky text tax. They could name it something different, say...
The "communication fairness fund", or something similarly deceitful...
and, it could be a tax on the providers, so the easily fooled Dem voters somehow won't connect the two, simple dots on why their service costs went way up.
.
“...it serves the majority of Californians right to be taxed out of sight, for voting for these whackjobs.”
Yeah, smartass?? You’re so damned smug in your self-righteousness...
Well, what about the Conservative minority in California who NEVER voted for this crap; millions who doggedly keep voting to do the right thing, trying to mount sane opposition to the leftist moonbats, who refuse to yield political ground without putting up a fight, and who don’t want to flee their gorgeous State and their homes behind, abandoning it all to the desecrations of the left, but cannot be heard above the liberal din because they’re outnumbered 53 to 47?
Exactly!
BS you all bring your half assed liberal ideas to Montana and Idaho.
Did you even read my whole post? I specifically said I feel sorry for those Californians who suffer, even though they DIDN’T vote for the jerks. I know EXACTLY how conservatives there, feel. I had the misfortune to have to pay the same crappy taxes, etc., as the idiots who voted in democrats, for the 50 years I lived in Illinois.
If I'd a wanted to pay mileage I would be renting.
I wonder how many of those forty million messages started with F and ended with U?
Not true. There is a huge difference.
In order to listen to phone calls law enforcement must have a warrant, which requires a Judge's signature and "probable cause".
Text messages require only a subpoena, which does not require probable cause, and an administrative subpoena can be obtained without any Judge ever seeing it. Phone companies are happy to oblige with a complete transcript of your texts.
If a matter is at all delicate, call, don't text. Don't have any "delicate" matters? Think again. Have you ever sent a text to your tax preparer? How about an attorney? Or maybe just a nastygram you later wish you had not sent?
I suspect someone in federal law enforcement told the state that if they taxed texts as telecommunications, they would open the door to the argument that they need a warrant to obtain texts.
>> Even the CA libtards would have gone yellow jackets over this.
Nah, they’re conforming a-holes.
Thank you.
Thinking same thing. “Info svc” was probably originally put in to keep the press from being taxed.
I thought we paid taxes for mileage on our cars through the gasoline tax.
Expect these schemes to pop up here and there as governments deal with the disappearing white middle class, a source of property, income, and sales taxes. The focus is shifting to taxing the money passed down to their (often) childless children, who opt out of many (if not all) sources of taxation (home ownership, working, etc.). Taxing the “replacement Americans” (the foreigners trafficked here to replace the lost/non-existent generations of Americans) only goes so far; many of them also have no interest in contributing anything - yet they have voracious appetites for public services/benefits.
They don't. That excuse was concocted by California's INGSOC for distribution to the Proles.
Legally, as I understand it, telecommunications are subject to lots of different taxes and fees, etc. Information services are not.
I am not a lawyer, but this is what I think the major legal difference is.
That is what I thought.
If the matter is delicate, meet in person with music playing and leave your cellphones out in the car.
“The commission’s controversial ‘text tax’ plans involved a per-text surcharge which would help fund programs that provide cell phone services for low-income and disabled people, as well as those in rural areas, according to Fox News.”
Providers of ObummerPhones hardest hit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.