what is a "fair" tax
- Thread starter trapperjohn
- Start date
- Status
There’s great info on the FCC’s website.
Since the 1940’s, for example, telephone costs have decreased by 60% in real dollars. Long distance by 99% since the 20’s. They show that in the 22 year period between (and inclusive of) 1980 and 2001, inflation-adjusted telephone costs dropped during 16 years, mostly due to decreased cost of long distance calls (which dropped in 18 of those 22 years). Local service costs decreased or stayed flat during 12 yrs between 1980 and 2001. Things would be better, but state and federal taxes increased significantly. According to the FCC, state and federal taxes alone added 38% to basic phone service in 2002. In 1986 it was under 29% and it was only 30% into the mid-90’s. And this is not counting any local tax or other surcharges. And those can be substantial. Check out this for southern California (2002):
http://classes.lls.edu/spring2002/telecom-manheim/telcharges4.pdf
And let’s not forget that Federal gov’t phones are immune from any taxes or surcharges imposed by another gov’t entity, and most states exempt themselves and local gov’t as well, leaving us to pay. And the fact that virtually all of these fees are regulated and/or imposed by gov’t entities hardly speaks of real deregulation.
Competition in the private sector has done phenomenal things. And corporate profits show how competition has impacted the phone companies – between 1992 and 2000 per-minute revenue dropped by 47% from $0.15 to $0.08. This clearly does not support the notion that we’re somehow worse off w/out the gov’t controlling things.
Since the 1940’s, for example, telephone costs have decreased by 60% in real dollars. Long distance by 99% since the 20’s. They show that in the 22 year period between (and inclusive of) 1980 and 2001, inflation-adjusted telephone costs dropped during 16 years, mostly due to decreased cost of long distance calls (which dropped in 18 of those 22 years). Local service costs decreased or stayed flat during 12 yrs between 1980 and 2001. Things would be better, but state and federal taxes increased significantly. According to the FCC, state and federal taxes alone added 38% to basic phone service in 2002. In 1986 it was under 29% and it was only 30% into the mid-90’s. And this is not counting any local tax or other surcharges. And those can be substantial. Check out this for southern California (2002):
http://classes.lls.edu/spring2002/telecom-manheim/telcharges4.pdf
And let’s not forget that Federal gov’t phones are immune from any taxes or surcharges imposed by another gov’t entity, and most states exempt themselves and local gov’t as well, leaving us to pay. And the fact that virtually all of these fees are regulated and/or imposed by gov’t entities hardly speaks of real deregulation.
Competition in the private sector has done phenomenal things. And corporate profits show how competition has impacted the phone companies – between 1992 and 2000 per-minute revenue dropped by 47% from $0.15 to $0.08. This clearly does not support the notion that we’re somehow worse off w/out the gov’t controlling things.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Good analysis TreeProf.
All the bedwetters can go to sleep now. The government IS NOT ON THE CASE.
Private enterprise always means better and cheaper.
All the bedwetters can go to sleep now. The government IS NOT ON THE CASE.
Private enterprise always means better and cheaper.Also, one of the reasons that the local telephone service's customer service stinks in some places (and I do not question that it does) is that, for the most part, local providers are still monopolies with full knowledge that if you don't like their service, too bad. Long distance and wireless companies have no such hold over their subscribers.
Glock Glockler
Member
We should also keep in mind that a govt monopoly does not have to pay tax like private companies do.
Grampster,
My phone bill for my land line is $27/month with approx. $13 in various taxes. Now we're left with $14 in actual service charge, so if we adjust your 1970's bill for inflation how much of a difference are we actually talking about? One more thing that we should keep in mind is that govt "services" often have a blind discount built into them. What I mean by that is that the cost of those services is subsidized through other taxes so that the consumer doesnt see the true cost, though they pay it just the same.
A good example of the is the US Postal Service; it actually costs a heck of a lot more than the 34 cents to send a letter, but you dont see that at the counter becausethe govt doles out a lot of extra money to the USPS to keep it a float. If that was not the case and you had to pay the true cost of send a letter and companies like UPS and FedEx were not legally prevented from delivering mail, you'd soon see the USPS go out of business from market competition.
Grampster,
My phone bill for my land line is $27/month with approx. $13 in various taxes. Now we're left with $14 in actual service charge, so if we adjust your 1970's bill for inflation how much of a difference are we actually talking about? One more thing that we should keep in mind is that govt "services" often have a blind discount built into them. What I mean by that is that the cost of those services is subsidized through other taxes so that the consumer doesnt see the true cost, though they pay it just the same.
A good example of the is the US Postal Service; it actually costs a heck of a lot more than the 34 cents to send a letter, but you dont see that at the counter becausethe govt doles out a lot of extra money to the USPS to keep it a float. If that was not the case and you had to pay the true cost of send a letter and companies like UPS and FedEx were not legally prevented from delivering mail, you'd soon see the USPS go out of business from market competition.
trapperjohn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 567
Grampster:
the local phone companies still have a monopoly and our operated as a public utility. Look at long distance, That is what has been de-regulated. now you can call anywhere for a tenth what you could when we had ma bell. If the government gave us the choices in local service that they do in long distance we would see a drop in prices for local service as well.
the local phone companies still have a monopoly and our operated as a public utility. Look at long distance, That is what has been de-regulated. now you can call anywhere for a tenth what you could when we had ma bell. If the government gave us the choices in local service that they do in long distance we would see a drop in prices for local service as well.
- Status