Post a New Topic
Original post made
on May 10, 2010
Two-thirds of those polled support the proposed phone tax? Clearly the TEA party has some grassroots work to do in Mountain View. People here sure love their taxes.
I get it: our government makes commitments (including ones to us) based on expected tax revenue, which in turn is based on prior tax revenue. In a recession, that goes down, and government has to trim expenses where possible and raise new taxes to make up any remaining difference. However, taxes should be related to the services they pay for. For example, people with property benefit from schools, which property taxes pay for. However, how does my use of the phone rely on benefits that the city of Mountain View provides? It seems like taxation without compensation.
The real culprit is Prop13. By reducing revenues below those necessary to maintain minimal services, it ensured that we'd be nickel and dimed to death with supplemental taxes just to fund the things that Prop 13 defunded.
This is where I part ways with the TEA Party folks. I don't think they have studied what the appropriate amount of taxation really is to guarantee the services they want. They throw their weight around behind lowering taxes more and more, yet in fact with Prop 13 many businesses and homeowners are essentially getting many tax-funded services at an inappropriate discount. I have a neighbor across the street who pays 1/4 the taxes I do and gets the same services. Does the TEA Party want to lower her taxes too? Which of the services would they be willing to give up? What would Mountain View be like with no roads, water, sewer, garbage, parks, fire and police protection, etc?
Skype won't let you bypass this tax - they'll just be required to report their revenue to the City for taxation, and they do charge revenue for business and residential-type phone calls to land lines. However, there are other alternatives that would bypass the tax, since the City can't know every avenue for getting VOIP service. In any event, taxing something that costs less every year seems a bit brain-damaged.
Are taxes the only way for the city to fund services? How about exploring other ideas?how about trying to fund schools in many different ways? That way when one part of the economy changes any negative impact is lessened.
"It seems like taxation without compensation." That's pretty much sums up the core value of the DNC platform. Taxation is done via the paths of least resistance for "raising revenue" for use where ever.
The real culprit is is not Prop 13 nor is it the 2/3 majority needed to raise taxes. The real culprit is an out of control government that spends on what it sees like a child in a candy store. Prop 13 and the 2/3 majority rule were put in place to curtail the spending. You can argue that those rules are ham-fisted or simply not working, but at least acknowledge why they came into being.
4G and high-speed frequency WiFi is coming within a couple-few years. These developments plus skype or other VoIP apps means that we are not going to pay this tax.
So then only the poor and non-tech savvy (increasingly one in the same) will pay this tax if you are correct.
Actually, VOIP is already covered under the UUT.
How is this UUT tax collected? Is it really per-phone call or is it just a surcharge on monthly phone service? Because I'm wondering how any tax collection agency would be able to track VOIP calls to charge per-call.
Based on the article, it sounds like 68 percent of the voters would rather keep their heads where the sun never shines and not tell the MV government to just pull back a bit on all of the stuff they'd like to give away if money were no object. Just cut spending.
Just a "point of fact" for everyone reading the comments: Mountain View city taxes do NOT pay for schools. Those are funded entirely from property taxes, although only a PORTION of property taxes go to schools and the rest are divided up into many pies and sent off to Sacto or kept locally.
I too oppose the phone tax. The city overpays its firefighters and police; the unions have lock-step raises and guaranteed pensions that many of you would beg for in the private sector. It's as if the recession never happened in Union-happy-land. This has nothing to do w/the schools. Not a dime goes to them. The city needs to re-negotiate union contracts, as well as reassess what it pays its OWN employees (also union) and contractors, and so on. CUT SPENDING.
Tried to answer my own question about how they would be able to tax VOIP, but the explanations I could find were thin. As far as I can puzzle out, they would try to get companies like Skype to track the calls and apply the charges, but perhaps only for paying customers. Sounds like anybody who uses Skype for free would not be taxed.
Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax. It seems that ls always the answer to shortfalls. But increasing the tax burden on most MV residents will only further curtail their discretionary spending which in turn will further reduce the cities tax revenues. Eventually the cycle will have to be broken. I agree that the better answer is to cut spending now rather than later when cuts will be forced.
In my opinion I believe Daniel Debolts article was very bias. The article begins indicating how the majority would support this measure in November. He goes on informing readers that the city council appears to support the proposed ballot measure in an April 27 study session. What does this mean? Either they support it or they do not. The article indicates the city-hired a consultant which claims 68 percent of local voters supported the ballot measure in a recent survey. What survey? Why is the city spending money they do not have to hire a consultant? It seems evident those running our city government is out of touch with the people they represent. If our city council members were to read the comments left by voters in the Views comment section they would quickly see it's more like 70%+ of the people who commented are not in favor of this ballot issue. When will they realize the time has come to manage within their budget. The good days in the valley are over for some time to come. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to review the comments on this board and wonder who represents the citizens of Mountain View. This is what we should keep in mind when we go to the poles..............
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Draeger’s Los Altos eyes upgrades, expansion
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,789 views
Housing is for People
By Steve Levy | 18 comments | 1,762 views
College Visit: Lehigh and Lafayette
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 4 comments | 1,240 views
Is Coffee a Date?
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 489 views
The Opposite of What You Don't Want
By Caroline Fleck | 0 comments | 344 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2015 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.