Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Utah "Tax Equalization" Bill


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   kenglish

kenglish

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 972 posts
  • LocationSalt Lake City, Utah, USA
Joined: Oct 02, 2004

Posted 07 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

"Tax policy shouldn't determine the winner and losers in the cable or satellite marketplace, says Sen. Wayne Neiderhauser, whose attempt to evenly tax the competing television services prompted a flurry of emails from angry satellite subscribers."

http://www.ksl.com/?...s&s_cid=queue-5

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   davring

davring

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 6,398 posts
Joined: Jan 13, 2007

Posted 07 February 2012 - 11:53 AM

We pays all the same taxes as the cable co's in Florida. The cable companies lobbied hard for it. Ticked me off, why should I pay the same fees the city charges the the phone/cable co's for right of way? The states law makers are looking out for us....
HR20-700(2.0TB)>Sony XBR-55HX929
HR20-700>Sony KDL40V2500
OTA RS outdoor ant
Hardwire networked to Cysco Router 6.0 AT&T DSL
MRV enabled
R15-500>Samsung LNT2342H
DirecTV customer since 1997

#3 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,110 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 07 February 2012 - 05:27 PM

Wow ... this one actually seems "fair".

Currently satellite subscribers are paying 6.25% ... and if the bill passes satellite subscribers will continue to pay the same.

Currently cable subscribers pay 3.75% to 8.75% depending on the franchise fee ... and if the bill passes cable subscribers will pay a flat 6.25%.

It is a wash for satellite subscribers and a leveling for cable subscribers. What is the problem?

BTW: I doubt if the $3 to $4 tax is the big difference between cable and satellite. :rolleyes:

#4 OFFLINE   Shades228

Shades228

    Hall Of Fame

  • Banned User
  • 5,914 posts
Joined: Mar 18, 2008

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:18 AM

Wow ... this one actually seems "fair".

Currently satellite subscribers are paying 6.25% ... and if the bill passes satellite subscribers will continue to pay the same.

Currently cable subscribers pay 3.75% to 8.75% depending on the franchise fee ... and if the bill passes cable subscribers will pay a flat 6.25%.

It is a wash for satellite subscribers and a leveling for cable subscribers. What is the problem?

BTW: I doubt if the $3 to $4 tax is the big difference between cable and satellite. :rolleyes:


The big deal is that the cable companies are required to pay franchise fees where satellite companies are not. There are very good reasons for this and yet consumers have to pay more to "keep it even". Depending on where the tax comes into play matters as well. If the state is collecting it yet doesn't give it back to the communities than it's negating the reason of the franchise fee in the first place as that money goes to the city the company has the deal with. In most cases I've seen the states are the ones imposing the tax and they keep the revenue. Now it's about to get political but needless to say that it's just another way that lobbyists have found to increase the average consumers payment for political reasons.

I understand the comment about the small differences in most areas however most companies usually raise prices in that range and all hell breaks loose. If you got a letter stating that you would save money on taxes each month, regardless of the amount, I doubt you would complain.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...