Wednesday, January 25, 2006

This ain't no satellite of love

What were the GOPers who voted for this tax thinkin'? First that turncoat Chichester says its okay for Virginia to raise its tax burden to the level in Maryland and now some GOPers want to tax my DirecTV? Pretty soon, we'll have the nickname of Taxrginia.


At 1/25/2006 10:34:00 AM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

Who voted for it?

At 1/25/2006 11:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(HB568) 01/23/06 House: Reported from Finance with amendments (15-Y 7-N)


YEAS--Parrish, Orrock, Ware, R.L., Welch, Nixon, Lingamfelter, O'Bannon, Janis, Hugo, Johnson, Melvin, Watts, Hall, Shannon, Caputo--15.

NAYS--Purkey, Byron, Cole, Cline, Frederick, Hull, Lewis--7.

At 1/25/2006 01:15:00 PM, Blogger GOPHokie said...

It seems like a good bill to me. It makes the tax more fair to everyone. Thats how I read it anyway.

At 1/25/2006 01:26:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

Lingamfelter - so much for the "No Tax Pledge". Will Scott become a "Virginia's Most Wanted" in '07?

At 1/25/2006 01:50:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

I agree taxes go, I don't see much but a housekeeping bill attempting to simplify and equify (I know it's not a word, but it says it so well) a communications tax. We have satellite and I say, oh well...guess they caught up with us.

If we keep nitpicking things like this, opposition to genuine tax increase outrages will lose credibility.

At 1/25/2006 02:01:00 PM, Blogger Hirons said...

taxation of VOIP service is the first step towards complete taxation of consumables on the Internet. Most people now have a choice to use traditional telephone and cable services and get taxed, or use satellite and VOIP and avoid the tax man. This does nothing, but eliminates choice. I also don't find it favorable to tax emerging technology which is what else this is doing. It will hamper development the more you tax it.

At 1/25/2006 02:08:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

BINGO, Hirons. New taxes on VOIP and satellite are further encroachments into areas where they have not traditionally interfered and could be ill omens for other areas. Can you say killing the goose that laid the golden egg?

AWC, the "oh well...guess they caught up with us" attitude is what these pols are (literally) banking on people to have.

Simplification of the other taxes, okay, I MIGHT buy that. Imposition of new ones with no rationale for doing so when we have a $1 billion surplus is just plain wrong.

At 1/25/2006 02:29:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

If there are no equivalent reductions in the taxes elsewhere, I must say I am disappointed with the actions of Lingamfelter and Hugo. Others I probably would have expected it from. My delegete (Cole) voted against it. Thanks Mr. Cole.

The real equity question to me would be, why are they not reducing the taxes on standard phone and cable instead of increasing it on satellite and VOIP?

At 1/25/2006 02:38:00 PM, Blogger AWCheney said...

"Imposition of new ones with no rationale for doing so when we have a $1 billion surplus is just plain wrong."

I agree Riley...and in so saying suggest that the real fight should be eliminating that 5% across the board communications tax altogether. Opposing an equitable burden of the tax is unreasonable...opposing the tax itself in a time of revenue glutony I would think is something that would make a lot of sense. Maybe one of our "no tax" legislators down there should offer a bill with that alternative, but I won't hold my breath.

At 1/25/2006 04:10:00 PM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Good idea, AWC. I'd back that!

At 1/25/2006 09:23:00 PM, Blogger DcD said...

My understanding of the bill is that it actually reduces other telecommunications taxes (some as high as 30%??) and results in the same amount of tax revenue- just more equified (I like the word).

Also, it apparently lowers taxes for those in suburban areas, but it can raise taxes on those in more rural areas...

It's a hard call, because you definitely don't want to justify new taxes.

At 1/26/2006 12:52:00 AM, Blogger criticallythinking said...

A lot of people don't mind taxes, so long as they are on OTHER people.

Why should one person pay taxes on cable, while another person gets satellite without tax?

I think the tax is too high, but let's tax everything evenly, so EVERY virginian has a reason to stand up and complain.

The founding fathers understood well how a democracy, and even a republic, could become tyrannical -- if the people were allowed to elect representatives who would then tax the OTHER people who didn't vote for them. They believed that only by having the legislature and ALL the people be subject to the same taxes, could the government be kept from unfair taxation.

So I support eliminating the multiple hidden taxes and fees running around, and replacing them with a single, easy-to-understand tax on EVERY communication medium.

At 1/26/2006 09:19:00 AM, Blogger Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

"Why should one person pay taxes on cable, while another person gets satellite without tax?"

Well, almost every consumer now has the choice to go to tax-free satellite. I've seen the dishes on many balconies of highrises and atop townhouses within the Beltway.

I don't see a rationale for the government to tax either, though. If the government would convert taxes to user fees that went to fund specific budget items, I think you'd have a lot less complaining about the source of revenues. At least with the federal gas tax, it goes into an actual trust fund that is firewalled and spent only on transportation projects (essentially what Kaine wants to do in VA, but Chichester opposes.) Converting the revenue stream to user fees from taxes will never happen, though, since it takes away politicians' power.

At 1/26/2006 10:46:00 PM, Anonymous Rtwng Extrmst said...

I've read twice now in two different places that this bill is revenue neutral. I take back my earlier disappointment to those who voted in favor.


Post a Comment

<< Home