our tax dollars at work

[dmarc117]

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

 

really?

 

[AtomicCEO]

didn't we talk about this years ago?

 

Big John?

[i_am_the_swammi]

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

 

really?

 

 

Cmon yo...I get that you bash and bash and bash, but a quick Google search would have uncovered this:

 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Lifeline program in 1984 and worked to update the service after the crises of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, as well as the tragedy of September 11th. At the dawn of the 21st century, modern universal telephone service is necessary not only to ensure that the U.S. maintains a rapid, efficient, nationwide communications network, it is important for the purpose of national defense and to promote safety of life and property. By approving the SafeLink Wireless program, the FCC took action to enhance its Lifeline program and keep the right to communicate in pace with technology.

 

The Funding and Delivery of Lifeline

 

Lifeline is part of the Low Income Program of the Universal Service Fund (USF), which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and is designed to ensure that quality telecommunications services are available to low-income customers at just, reasonable, and affordable rates. Over 1700 carriers are eligible to provide the program but TracFone is the first pre-paid company to have elevated the program to modern day communications. The Lifeline program is not funded from federal taxpayer dollars, but rather from contributions to the USF by telecommunications carriers collected in part from the Universal Service Charge billed to cell phone users.

 

By FCC design, telephone carriers deliver Lifeline assistance to low-income communities and traditionally, Lifeline customers receive a simple discount on their monthly landline telephone bill. The SafeLink program reshapes the Lifeline model by applying the USF subsidy towards a wireless minute allocation that becomes free monthly airtime for the customer. As TracFone provides the mobile handset at its own expense and does not require contracts or monthly bills, SafeLink customers now have access to a completely free offering of the Lifeline program.

 

Um, Its not funded by taxpayer dollars

[dmarc117]

Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.

 

right, its not a tax.

[i_am_the_swammi]

right, its not a tax.

 

you continue to reach for fruit that ain't there.

 

Some consumers may notice a “Universal Service” line item on their telephone bills. This line item appears when a company chooses to recover its USF contributions directly from its customers by billing them this charge. The FCC does not require this charge to be passed on to customers. Each company makes a business decision about whether and how to assess charges to recover its Universal Service costs. These charges usually appear as a percentage of the consumer’s phone bill. Companies that choose to collect Universal Service fees from their customers cannot collect an amount that exceeds their contribution to the USF. They also cannot collect any fees from a Lifeline program participant.

 

I'll bite that the governemnt taxes cell phone carriers, but its up to each carrier whether they in turn pass the cost along to their own customers.

 

Either way, it certainly doesn't qualify as a complaint toward the poor usage of "taxpayers dollars".

[AtomicCEO]

Yeah, I knew there was some BS from the last time some teabagger brought this up. I just couldn't remember what it was.

 

Have to agree here! It's so awful that Republicans never did a dang thing about it from 1994 (when they had the majority that passed it) until now! LIEBERAALLLSSSS!!!!

[dmarc117]

you continue to reach for fruit that ain't there.

 

 

 

I'll bite that the governemnt taxes cell phone carriers, but its up to each carrier whether they in turn pass the cost along to their own customers.

 

Either way, it certainly doesn't qualify as a complaint toward the poor usage of "taxpayers dollars".

 

 

let me get this straight, when the govt puts a tax on a company and they then pass it on to us, we arent paying for it? semantics my friend.

 

i get the whole idea of throwing bags of fruit over the wall to keep the masses happy, but its getting tiresome and costly.

Edited October 29, 2009 by dmarc117

[wiegie]

I'll bite that the governemnt taxes cell phone carriers, but its up to each carrier whether they in turn pass the cost along to their own customers.

call it whatever you want, but for all real purposes, it is a tax

 

for the record, who actually "pays" a tax depends upon the elasticities of supply and demand regardless of whether or not customers or fims actually have to write the check out to the government.

 

(edit to add: if contributions to the USF by telecommunications carriers are voluntary, then I agree that it is not a tax)

Edited October 29, 2009 by wiegie

[TimC]

I typed in my zip code and got this...I guess my county didn't vote Democrat in the last election to get a free Gubment cell phone. ZOBAMA!!1!

 

 

Area not Supported

 

 

We’re sorry, but SafeLink Wireless does not currently offer Lifeline Service in your area. We are currently offering service in parts of Alabama, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin with plans to begin offering service soon in the States listed below.

 

SafeLink Wireless Service is coming soon to...

Alaska Idaho Maine Nevada Rhode Island Washington

Arizona Indiana Minnesota New Mexico South Carolina Wyoming

Arkansas Iowa Mississippi North Dakota South Dakota

California Kansas Missouri Oklahoma Texas

Colorado Kentucky Montana Oregon Utah

Hawaii Louisiana Nebraska Puerto Rico Vermont

Edited October 29, 2009 by TimC

[dmarc117]

I typed in my zip code and got this...I guess my county didn't vote Democrat in the last election to get a free Gubment cell phone. ZOBAMA!!1!

 

 

Area not Supported

 

 

We’re sorry, but SafeLink Wireless does not currently offer Lifeline Service in your area. We are currently offering service in parts of Alabama, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin with plans to begin offering service soon in the States listed below.

 

SafeLink Wireless Service is coming soon to...

Alaska Idaho Maine Nevada Rhode Island Washington

Arizona Indiana Minnesota New Mexico South Carolina Wyoming

Arkansas Iowa Mississippi North Dakota South Dakota

California Kansas Missouri Oklahoma Texas

Colorado Kentucky Montana Oregon Utah

Hawaii Louisiana Nebraska Puerto Rico Vermont

 

 

so you live in a nice, safe place?

[AtomicCEO]

I typed in my zip code and got this...I guess my county didn't vote Democrat in the last election to get a free Gubment cell phone. ZOBAMA!!1!

 

 

Area not Supported

 

Tim, you can't even get cable where you are. Move out of the sticks.

[TimC]

Tim, you can't even get cable where you are. Move out of the sticks.

 

You mean they actually run a cable INTO your house? Holy smokes, you city slickers have thought of everything. Who makes a cable that long? The Chinaman??

[Perchoutofwater]

call it whatever you want, but for all real purposes, it is a tax

 

for the record, who actually "pays" a tax depends upon the elasticities of supply and demand regardless of whether or not customers or fims actually have to write the check out to the government.

 

(edit to add: if contributions to the USF by telecommunications carriers are voluntary, then I agree that it is not a tax)

 

+1

 

I'd also say that I have no objection to the program as I see this as legitimate role of government as it helps to facilitate emergency response.

[i_am_the_swammi]

call it whatever you want, but for all real purposes, it is a tax

 

So lemme get this straight...because the government charges a business a tax, and the business passes that tax along to its customers in the form of a fee/higher price, this correlates to the government taxing the end user (even though its up to the business as to whether they pass the cost along)?

 

So, if the dry cleaners in my area decided they wanted to raise the cost to clean my shirts because they are paying business taxes, I should now be mad at the governement because the dry cleaners decided to pass along their cost to me?

 

Different carriers pass along the cost...some do, some don't, some only a portion of the fee. Wouldn't it be more prudent if you blamed the businesses that are actually passing this cost along to you so they can make more money?

[wiegie]

So lemme get this straight...because the government charges a business a tax, and the business passes that tax along to its customers in the form of a fee/higher price, this correlates to the government taxing the end user (even though its up to the business as to whether they pass the cost along)?

 

So, if the dry cleaners in my area decided they wanted to raise the cost to clean my shirts because they are paying business taxes, I should now be mad at the governement because the dry cleaners decided to pass along their cost to me?

 

Different carriers pass along the cost...some do, some don't, some only a portion of the fee. Wouldn't it be more prudent if you blamed the businesses that are actually passing this cost along to you so they can make more money?

this might be helpful:

 

http://www.swlearning.com/economics/mceach...pt#265,4,Demand Elasticity and Tax Incidence

[i_am_the_swammi]

this might be helpful:

 

http://www.swlearning.com/economics/mceach...pt#265,4,Demand Elasticity and Tax Incidence

 

Understood...my example was more basic than that, though.

 

Every company in existance pays various taxes of various sizes....and obviously, they price their item so they can pay those taxes, their fixed cost, and still have enough to make a profit. Why is this any different?

 

Moreover, why do some companies charge the full amount to their customers, while others only a portion? It is totally discretionary on the part of hte cell carriers to pass the fee onto their customers. It is why you have the ability to call your carrier, as what part of percentage of the fee the charge, and comparison shop for yourself.

 

I still don't see this as "our tax dollars at work"....if you don't want to support this program, you don't have to subscribe to a carrier that passes this fee onto you. OTOH, if federal Income tax dollars were paying for this program, I'd obviously agree with your statement, DMarc.

[caddyman]

So lemme get this straight...because the government charges a business a tax, and the business passes that tax along to its customers in the form of a fee/higher price, this correlates to the government taxing the end user (even though its up to the business as to whether they pass the cost along)?

 

So, if the dry cleaners in my area decided they wanted to raise the cost to clean my shirts because they are paying business taxes, I should now be mad at the governement because the dry cleaners decided to pass along their cost to me?

 

Different carriers pass along the cost...some do, some don't, some only a portion of the fee. Wouldn't it be more prudent if you blamed the businesses that are actually passing this cost along to you so they can make more money?

Which is precisely what is going to happen with health care premiums. No it will not be a tax increase on the 100k-200k income families, but those families will pay more tomorrow for the same coverage they have today. But of course there isn't an actual tax increase on these folks, just that they will pay more money for what they already have.

 

Link

[westvirginia]

Understood...my example was more basic than that, though.

 

Every company in existance pays various taxes of various sizes....and obviously, they price their item so they can pay those taxes, their fixed cost, and still have enough to make a profit. Why is this any different?

 

Moreover, why do some companies charge the full amount to their customers, while others only a portion? It is totally discretionary on the part of hte cell carriers to pass the fee onto their customers. It is why you have the ability to call your carrier, as what part of percentage of the fee the charge, and comparison shop for yourself.

 

I still don't see this as "our tax dollars at work"....if you don't want to support this program, you don't have to subscribe to a carrier that passes this fee onto you. OTOH, if federal Income tax dollars were paying for this program, I'd obviously agree with your statement, DMarc.

 

This is why I often make the point that ONLY individuals pay taxes. Period. All businesses that pay taxes pass those taxes onto their employees (through reduced wages - i.e. FICA) or customers (rolled into the cost).

 

Someone above asked about the USF - that's the "Gore tax" that everyone was up in arms about. It IS passed on to consumers. At least we did at Cingular.

[AtomicCEO]

This is why I often make the point that ONLY individuals pay taxes. Period. All businesses that pay taxes pass those taxes onto their employees (through reduced wages - i.e. FICA) or customers (rolled into the cost).

 

Someone above asked about the USF - that's the "Gore tax" that everyone was up in arms about. It IS passed on to consumers. At least we did at Cingular.

 

As an individual when my taxes go up, I demand a higher salary to cover my day to day expenses, so I pass that cost back to my employer.

[wiegie]

All businesses that pay taxes pass those taxes onto their employees (through reduced wages - i.e. FICA) or customers (rolled into the cost).

That's not true. The taxes could be paid by a reduction in the firms' profits.

[caddyman]

That's not true. The taxes could be paid by a reduction in the firms' profits.

And how often does that occur compared to them passing it on to the consumer?

[yo mama]

That's not true. The taxes could be paid by a reduction in the firms' profits.

Yup.

[Pope Flick]

And how often does that occur compared to them passing it on to the consumer?

 

 

More often than you're willing to admit.

[bushwacked]

Corporations don't pay taxes, people who kill people without their guns do.

[yo mama]

More often than you're willing to admit.

That business owners are the most vocal opponents to business tax increases is proof that its true. If business owners could merely pass on 100% of every tax increase on to the consumer they'd be ambivalent about business tax increases. And we all know that ain't true.