States Debate More Dish Taxes

[Chris Blount]

State legislatures across the country are in session, with some debating the same budget shortfalls they encountered last year. And a few state lawmakers are again considering a tax on satellite TV services to help address those money woes.

At the moment, satellite TV interests are eyeing dish tax debates in two states: Utah and Arkansas.

In Utah, the debate surrounds whether to repeal the tax on satellite TV services state lawmakers passed last year. The state's satellite TV tax included a provision allowing local entities - cities and counties - to collect tax revenue on dish services, which violates federal law.

Utah legislators have said they need to correct the tax provision concerning local tax on satellite TV, and talk is that they may repeal the state's entire satellite/cable tax. However, other lawmakers have pointed out the tax brings in $14 million in revenue, and they expect to debate whether giving up that money is a smart move.

The Arkansas proposal to tax satellite TV service is a bit vague. According to stopsatellitetax.com (http://www.stopsatellitetax.com), state lawmakers are looking at a DBS tax to fund education reform, and satellite TV subscribers could be assessed an extra 5 percent tax that doesn't apply to cable TV.

Other states also may consider satellite TV tax issues.

In Arizona, a Citizens Finance Review Commission is expected to recommend a tax on satellite TV services to the state legislature, though no bill has been introduced at the state house. And the folks with stopsatellitetax.com said cable companies in Kentucky could push a tax on DBS.

Satellite TV interests also continue to watch legislatures in California and Virginia to see if new dish tax provisions surface during their current sessions.

http://www.skyreport.com

[Bogy]

Hey, you guys all saved your federal tax cuts to help pay your state tax increases, didn't you?

[Earl Zuberbelt]

State legislatures across the country are in session, with some debating the same budget shortfalls they encountered last year. And a few state lawmakers are again considering a tax on satellite TV services to help address those money woes.

At the moment, satellite TV interests are eyeing dish tax debates in two states: Utah and Arkansas.

In Utah, the debate surrounds whether to repeal the tax on satellite TV services state lawmakers passed last year. The state's satellite TV tax included a provision allowing local entities - cities and counties - to collect tax revenue on dish services, which violates federal law.

Utah legislators have said they need to correct the tax provision concerning local tax on satellite TV, and talk is that they may repeal the state's entire satellite/cable tax. However, other lawmakers have pointed out the tax brings in $14 million in revenue, and they expect to debate whether giving up that money is a smart move.

The Arkansas proposal to tax satellite TV service is a bit vague. According to stopsatellitetax.com (http://www.stopsatellitetax.com), state lawmakers are looking at a DBS tax to fund education reform, and satellite TV subscribers could be assessed an extra 5 percent tax that doesn't apply to cable TV.

Other states also may consider satellite TV tax issues.

In Arizona, a Citizens Finance Review Commission is expected to recommend a tax on satellite TV services to the state legislature, though no bill has been introduced at the state house. And the folks with stopsatellitetax.com said cable companies in Kentucky could push a tax on DBS.

Satellite TV interests also continue to watch legislatures in California and Virginia to see if new dish tax provisions surface during their current sessions.

http://www.skyreport.com

Thanks for posting Chris. States are looking for revenue, and they're noticing all them Dishes and seeing $$$ for state coffers.

You'd be surprised how much an impact a call or e-mail to your legislator can have, especially if you show up at the capitol and knock on their door.

Especially effective if you're pre-emptive even if it's not up for discussion in the current session where you live. Let your elected representatives not to bother considering it all....ever.

Not sure what either Dish or Direct are advising consumers, but if I were them, I'd be very proactive in firing up the voters.

Possibly it's time for another Tea Party. Worked once before.

-Earl
Yankee born Southern bred

[James Long]

My county is passing a "Cable Only" tax, and explaining the need as "to cover the cost of negotiating contracts with cable and to repair damage done by cable installs (road repairs)." Although I don't like service specific taxes, that reasoning makes sense. (And it will also make for the third overall increase cost of cable in 12 months! :LOL: )

If they want "Satellite Only" taxes they are going to need good reasoning. Perhaps the increased cost of zoning enforcement? :D Luxury taxes? Basic services shouldn't be a luxury? Entertainment taxes? Show them channel 104 next month and you'll prove it isn't entertaining. :)

I get to pay 6% of my bill each month in sales (gross receipts) tax. But then the state I'm in charges that penalty for purchasing or renting nearly anything - a blanket tax. I'm glad there isn't an additional charge JUST because it is satellite.

JL

[DS0816]

…anything to achieve separating consumers from their money is not only a sign of advertisement but also a key objective in government. (In other words: this should be of surprise to no one.)

[Bogy]

...especially when the current federal administration is so active in tax shifting.

[BrettStah]

Call me crazy, but I'd rather my taxes (that are used to pay for local resources) be sent directly to my local government, instead of being sent to the federal government which then sends part of it back.

Simplified example...

My town has to build a new road. If I send $1000 to D.C., they will consume up to 40% of that money with their bureacracy. Then they'll send $600 to my local government to help fund the new road. My local government spends a certain amount on bureacracy (let's assume they also waste up to 40%), and so they have $360 left over to spend on the road.

I'd rather send my local government $600 directly and bypass the federal government. The amount of actual money spent on the road won't change, but my taxes for it drop from $1000 to $600.

(The 40% "waste" may be a little high or low, depending upon the specific federal and local agencies involved. But the gist of the example above is that at each layer there is money spent on the supporting bureacracry, so if money can be sent directly to the governmental agency that actually will be spending the money, fewer tax dollars should be needed to have the same level of funding).

[Bogy]

Good explanation Brett. Everybody should now feel good about their local taxes going up.

[BrettStah]

If my federal taxes go down more than my local taxes go up, I'll be happy. So far my local taxes haven't gone up much if at all. My federal taxes have gone down.

Now if the Republican-controlled Congress would actually curb discretionary spending like they all said they wanted to do we'd be getting somewhere.

[jeffwtux]

Now if the Republican-controlled Congress would actually curb discretionary spending like they all said they wanted to do we'd be getting somewhere.

You mean like the war? Yeah, I know it's partisan, but how can any war supporter talk about cutting speding when they initiated a $200 billion pre-emptive war. That hasn't helped a single AMERICAN(well it has helped the companies that got contracts like Halliburton)

[BrettStah]

The sad thing is that even if you exclude the money for Iraq and homeland defense, discretionary spending is till WAY up... it seems Republicans in Congress are only interested in cutting spending (or more accurately, reducing the rate of growth in spending) when a Democrat is in the White House.

[Karl Foster]

Now back to the actual topic...

I received a mailer from Directv advising me to contact my local representative to get the satellite tax repealed.

[Mark Holtz]

Just to steer the topic back... the topic here is taxing DBS service, and how it can be used as a discrimantory tool by the cable companies lobbyists. Although some good points are made here, the topic of how tax revenue is spent, or how the tax burden is shifted from federal to state and local governments is more appropriate in the Potpourri forum. - Holtz

[BrettStah]

Geez, Mark... I was just getting fired up! I was ready to delve into why all existing federal taxes should be scrapped in favor of a national sales tax! :D

[Mark Holtz]

Geez, Mark... I was just getting fired up! I was ready to delve into why all existing federal taxes should be scrapped in favor of a national sales tax! :D:lol: - Holtz