pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Why Favor a Rate Hike?
quote:
... but last year almost forced Verizon to (gasp) pay property taxes in the State (they've been exempt since 1915).
Why would anyone be in favor of a tax hike on business? They will simply pass this tax down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Well, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in a complete fiscal mess and has the highest per capita debt out of any state in the country... It's not just sheer hatred for Verizon or something. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by EPS  :Well, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is in a complete fiscal mess and has the highest per capita debt out of any state in the country... It's not just sheer hatred for Verizon or something. Then perhaps the government of Massachusetts should cut spending to match the amount of tax collected.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| That sounds just great when you put it in vague, faceless economic terms. When you start actually looking at the budget, however...
Oh, and did I mention that Massachusetts is a one-party state? The Republicans are only challenging 29% of the seats in the legislature- that's right, if every single one of them wins, they still won't have even a third of the seats... people keep voting for Democrats and calls for more spending. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by EPS :That sounds just great when you put it in vague, faceless economic terms. When you start actually looking at the budget, however... There's always plenty that can be cut in a state budget if you are willing to look hard enough. Things like welfare spending, aid for illegals, tax money for new sports stadiums (I don't know if they do this in MA but I am including it to be fair).
said by EPS :Oh, and did I mention that Massachusetts is a one-party state? ... people keep voting for Democrats and calls for more spending. Well part of the problem there is that many people have simply given up on states like that. They just pack up and move to cheaper states. Inevitably, that helps to persist one-party rule.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
And why should business be allowed to underpay, skip taxes, or offshore accounts to hide their assets. They should pay their fair share like everyone else. I don't care where you live. They should be held accountable. I don't even agree with the tax break given to them. Not only are many of these companies given said tax breaks, but are highly subsidized with tax payer money to even build in these areas. RIDICULOUS. Private business needs to be privately funded. I don't see how their profitable capital venture should fall onto tax payers. As per the tax being passed to consumers, competition usually stifles and limits the cost one can charge, pending there is some in the area. We're back to issue one in many cases of states cherry picking and giving these businesses prime deals that let them stay on top. That's not one else's fault but the governments. |
|
amarryat
Verizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
| reply to EPS
said by EPS :Oh, and did I mention that Massachusetts is a one-party state? The Republicans are only challenging 29% of the seats in the legislature And they occupy even less than that. Unbelievable, especially with the one party corruption that has gone on forever, and appears to be alive and strong if you have watched the recent news on the speaker. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :And why should business be allowed to underpay, skip taxes, or offshore accounts to hide their assets. They should pay their fair share like everyone else. Because the cost of any tax to a business is just more overhead that will get passed on down to th consumer in the form of higher prices.
said by jc100 :I don't care where you live. They should be held accountable. You can hold any business you like accountable... just don't buy from them.
said by jc100 :I don't even agree with the tax break given to them. Not only are many of these companies given said tax breaks, but are highly subsidized with tax payer money to even build in these areas. A tax break is not the same as a subsidy. I am all for tax breaks to encourage broadband deployment to unserved areas. We always hear people here whining and whining about how XYZ company doesn't serve a particular area but now we hear whining that they are serving a particular area. What is it going to be?
said by jc100 :We're back to issue one in many cases of states cherry picking and giving these businesses prime deals that let them stay on top. That's not one else's fault but the governments. There's nothing wrong with cherry picking. Why should businesses be compelled to serve areas that are not profitable? These tax breaks are one way to make more unprofitable areas profitable, and thus, have at least one broadband provider. It is a win-win for everyone involved.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
amarryat
Verizon FiOS
join:2005-05-02
Marshfield, MA
| reply to jc100
You make no sense.
I incorporated. That means that in addition to my fed, state, fica tax, I also have to pay more tax for the privilege of being a business. Businesses provide jobs, and all these people with jobs pay tons of taxes. Why should you penalize businesses. That stifles business. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to pnh102
I suck at HTML so ill just pate you line to line. Sorry
B.S. Companies can only pass the buck so much and then consumers go elsewhere. That's just an excuse for giving companies the world and expecting nothing for it. That's the same excuse these companies always use and give to their lobbyists to compel politicians to sit down and hand everything to them.
How does not buying from them hold them accountable for states giving them the world? That doesn't solve anything. Is your rationale they will then just bow down and close shop? Hah, they'll just demand more tax breaks and subsidies to stick around. Yes, states are GIVING them money FROM TAX PAYERS... IE PENNSYLVANIA and others for Verizon I think where they didnt even do the build out and kept it.
Sure it is. You are EXEMPTING them from paying their share of income to the state, which reduces the revenue they have to spend. Companies should be encouraged to enter areas but not at the expense of the community / state they are servicing. Sure one argument goes that the jobs they create will offset the tax break by having the workers pay taxes.
Yet, why should the burden ONLY fall on the workers. We're back to the same argument of the bottom percent paying the most taxes while the top 10 percent don't. How is that any bit fair? So more or less, you think that you should be covering everything in your community while the local businesses get a free ride? Is that what you're telling me? As per the subsidies, read up. They are given money directly and hand outs at tax payers expenses. You can google many times over how companies are given land, buildings, assets to come to a place beyond simple tax breaks. Hell, they are building a company where I live and the city paid for half the building.
Cherry picking is good for no one. It usually comes at the cost of the consumer who sees one company giving said service at an over inflated price. There by, they own that market and set their rate without competition. I'd rather let the natural rule of business take over where companies have to compete for a market. There's no win win about it. Trust me, companies will come in and service areas if there is a demand. While yes, some areas do get overlooked, that usually gets solved once again via the natural process. Sure it doesn't work every time. Then yes, that's when you offer help but make sure you get what you paid for and not have some company offer years of excuses as to why it cant be done. |
|
KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA | reply to pnh102
Well, if the state/town/county gets more revenue from the businesses then they might be able to lower tax rates for the citizens. |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
"There's nothing wrong with cherry picking. Why should businesses be compelled to serve areas that are not profitable? "
That is fine as Long as they don't try to stifle someone that comes in a tries too. Can we say "Lafayette" LA
Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by woody7 :That is fine as Long as they don't try to stifle someone that comes in a tries too. Can we say "Lafayette" LA I hope they succeed in stopping Lafayette or any other city from developing a taxpayer-financed broadband solution. As we've seen before, these are nothing but money pits which will end up bankrupting taxpayers.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to KraziJoe
said by KraziJoe :Well, if the state/town/county gets more revenue from the businesses then they might be able to lower tax rates for the citizens. Keep dreaming. State and local taxes never seem to go down.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to pnh102
Lafayette was not being served, and the people VOTED for it full well knowing the consequences. So far there has been nothing negative. My point being that you stated there is nothing wrong with cherry picking, which I agreed with, but also stated that when the municipal government wanted to do so, the "cherry" picking companies should get out of the way, and not try and stop it, nothing more, nothing less.My god if you don't want to serve them, then get out of the way of someone that wants to try.Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by woody7 :Lafayette was not being served, and the people VOTED for it full well knowing the consequences. The fact that people voted for it does not make it any less of a dumb thing to do. Any politician who runs on a platform of giving people everything they want "for free" is guaranteed to win on that issue.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10 | waiting on my reply =). |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| reply to jc100
said by jc100 :I suck at HTML so ill just pate you line to line. Sorry It really is not too hard to learn.
said by jc100 :B.S. Companies can only pass the buck so much and then consumers go elsewhere. So these consumers are holding companies accountable as you wanted, what is the problem with that?
said by jc100 : That's just an excuse for giving companies the world and expecting nothing for it. That's the same excuse these companies always use and give to their lobbyists to compel politicians to sit down and hand everything to them. Government tends to be very hostile to business. It only makes sense that business lobbies government to promote its concerns.
said by jc100 :How does not buying from them hold them accountable for states giving them the world? That doesn't solve anything. Huh?
said by jc100 :Is your rationale they will then just bow down and close shop? Hah, they'll just demand more tax breaks and subsidies to stick around. I demand tax breaks too. It'd be nice if I got some.
said by jc100 : Yes, states are GIVING them money FROM TAX PAYERS... IE PENNSYLVANIA and others for Verizon I think where they didnt even do the build out and kept it. Even though the situation in Penna. did not happen the way you describe, I would never advocate for a direct government subsidy of any business.
said by jc100 :Sure it is. You are EXEMPTING them from paying their share of income to the state, which reduces the revenue they have to spend. You only think this because you believe that the government is by definition entitled to a piece of your income. If I make less this year than I did last year, I pay less tax, but I certainly do not owe the government the same amount this year that I paid last year.
said by jc100 : Companies should be encouraged to enter areas but not at the expense of the community / state they are servicing. And that's exactly what tax breaks can do. But what I don't understand is how can the community be "losing" if a company isn't yet doing business there?
said by jc100 : Sure one argument goes that the jobs they create will offset the tax break by having the workers pay taxes. And that's correct.
said by jc100 :Yet, why should the burden ONLY fall on the workers. Because it is ultimately people who pay all the taxes, business or otherwise.
said by jc100 : We're back to the same argument of the bottom percent paying the most taxes while the top 10 percent don't. Which is incorrect. If you believe the IRS, the top 5% of wage earners pay 50% of all taxes. Is that fair?
said by jc100 :Cherry picking is good for no one. Except for the shareholders of the company doing the picking.
said by jc100 :It usually comes at the cost of the consumer who sees one company giving said service at an over inflated price. But these places currently have no service. How can they be overcharged for something they don't have?
said by jc100 :There by, they own that market and set their rate without competition. Why is it Verizon's fault if other companies don't take the opportunity to serve these communities?
said by jc100 :I'd rather let the natural rule of business take over where companies have to compete for a market. And the result of that is these towns have no broadband.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| reply to pnh102
well if there is no other competition in an area they can keep passing buck. now if the CATV provider was there with broadband you can bet Verizon would be rolling FiOS, especially if it was comcast.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by Kearnstd :now if the CATV provider was there with broadband you can bet Verizon would be rolling FiOS, especially if it was comcast. I am not so sure. FIOS deployments are a function of return on investment. Where I live we are "served" by Comcast and Verizon DSL but there are no immediate plans for Verizon to deploy FIOS here.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
