Couldn't this have waited two months?
I just received my "special election" ballot in the mail regarding Measure 02-54, the cell phone tax that will apparently cause the decline of western civilization. Or so the opponents of the tax would have you believe.
It's a fairly simple measure. Since the city has lost franchise fee revenue as more and more people switch from land lines to cell phones, the city council came up with this tax as a way to even out the cost burden to basically anyone with a phone. This measure calls for a 5% flat tax on all landline and cell phone calls. This is the same franchise fee already found on our electric, cable, water and garbage utility bills. It is not 5% of the total wireless bill; extras like ringtones, email and downloads will not be taxed.
The opponents of the tax are making claims that are intentionally misleading. The first is that this tax will affect landline service in addition to the 7% franchise fee already billed by the company. This is absolutely false. This 5% tax will replace the existing 7% fee. If you only have a landline, your bill will actually decrease a smidge. The revenue from this tax will go into the general fund, but initially, the funds will be diverted to the fire department.
Opponents also state that internet phone service (Skype, Vonage, etc.) will be taxed. Wrong again. The measure clearly states that this tax will not apply to any internet-based services whatsoever.
The same letter expressed concern that this measure would cause great hardship to lower income residents of Corvallis. While an argument could be made that having no phone service whatsoever is, indeed, a hardship, the same cannot be said for wireless service. If someone is in a position where they need to really scrimp and save, then cell phones (and cable TV and DSL and so on) should be eschewed in favor of cheaper alternatives.
Most irritating is the voters' pamphlet argument by the Taxpayers Association of Oregon that suggests "Cell phone tax hurts senior citizens and the disabled." The paragraph states that seniors and disabled citizens use cell phones as an emergency device for when they need to call for help. Well, there's no reason for them to stop carrying cell phones for emergencies. Even without any wireless service at all, any cell phone with a charged battery can be used to dial 911. It doesn't matter if you picked it out of the trash and can't afford the cheapest Verizon plan out there; 911 is always available.
The taxpayers of Corvallis may or may not have to shell out this wireless tax, but either way, we all have to foot the bill for this $25,000 special election. So you might as well vote, right? The deadline is September 19th. Consider it practice for November.
It's a fairly simple measure. Since the city has lost franchise fee revenue as more and more people switch from land lines to cell phones, the city council came up with this tax as a way to even out the cost burden to basically anyone with a phone. This measure calls for a 5% flat tax on all landline and cell phone calls. This is the same franchise fee already found on our electric, cable, water and garbage utility bills. It is not 5% of the total wireless bill; extras like ringtones, email and downloads will not be taxed.
The opponents of the tax are making claims that are intentionally misleading. The first is that this tax will affect landline service in addition to the 7% franchise fee already billed by the company. This is absolutely false. This 5% tax will replace the existing 7% fee. If you only have a landline, your bill will actually decrease a smidge. The revenue from this tax will go into the general fund, but initially, the funds will be diverted to the fire department.
Opponents also state that internet phone service (Skype, Vonage, etc.) will be taxed. Wrong again. The measure clearly states that this tax will not apply to any internet-based services whatsoever.
The same letter expressed concern that this measure would cause great hardship to lower income residents of Corvallis. While an argument could be made that having no phone service whatsoever is, indeed, a hardship, the same cannot be said for wireless service. If someone is in a position where they need to really scrimp and save, then cell phones (and cable TV and DSL and so on) should be eschewed in favor of cheaper alternatives.
Most irritating is the voters' pamphlet argument by the Taxpayers Association of Oregon that suggests "Cell phone tax hurts senior citizens and the disabled." The paragraph states that seniors and disabled citizens use cell phones as an emergency device for when they need to call for help. Well, there's no reason for them to stop carrying cell phones for emergencies. Even without any wireless service at all, any cell phone with a charged battery can be used to dial 911. It doesn't matter if you picked it out of the trash and can't afford the cheapest Verizon plan out there; 911 is always available.
The taxpayers of Corvallis may or may not have to shell out this wireless tax, but either way, we all have to foot the bill for this $25,000 special election. So you might as well vote, right? The deadline is September 19th. Consider it practice for November.
posted by Corvallist at
7:17 AM
5 Comments:
I don't understand why this couldn't wait until November, either, and am irritated that it's costing $25,000. You say "This 5% tax will replace the existing 7% [landline] fee. If you only have a landline, your bill will actually decrease a smidge." Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is going to be true. I have received a letter from Qwest telling me my landline bill will go up. It is a very misleading letter, but they currently pay more than half of the current 7% tax (3% is consumer-paid and 4% Qwest paid). I believe their intention is to make the consumer pay all of the 5% tax, if passed, so I think I will be paying more, though not by design of the measure. It's corporate greed.
By
Anonymous, at 1:14 PM
I am officially disabled. I don't have a cell phone. Costs too much. I don't have long distance either. I use those phone cards from 7-11 for long distance, like for returning cat adoption interest calls out of area. What bugs me is so many local people have cell phone numbers that require a long distance return call, costing me my precious minutes on prepaid long distance cards, just to call someone local, who still has a cell phone number from God knows where. Now that does hurt a disabled person trying to help out and adopt out rescued cats and kittens.
By
Strayer, at 5:03 PM
The woman who wrote the Qwest letter I received is Judy Peppler. Her email address is judy.peppler@qwest.com if anyone wants to write to her about the letter, which was misleading and did not explain WHY Qwest would pass the entire 5% tax on to the customers when they currently pay the majority of the 7% tax.
By
Anonymous, at 2:43 PM
Oh, the reason I gave that woman's email address is because the letter from Qwest did not provide her email address or mailing address. Qwest is obviously not interested in communicating with its customers on this matter, just screaming "Fire!" and running away.
By
Anonymous, at 3:12 PM
AT&T is a bad phone company. Read here to see why. I'm not going to let them tell me how to vote when they're bilking the elderly out of thousands of dollars.
By
Anonymous, at 2:28 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home