Which bit do you find clueless. Finding a way to use an obscure law about cell phones to tax people on their streaming services hardly seems clueless to me (I doubt I would have thought of it), in fact it's kind of inspired in a twisted sort of way.
It's the difference between knowing what you can do, and knowing what you should do.
Who ever came up with this is very clever in finding a loophole, and completely clueless in thinking that it's even marginally acceptable to try and exploit said loophole.
That wasn't quite my point, but I know what you're getting at. I just meant it in a more "people are probably just gonna go back to piracy if you start taxing them on things they expect to not be taxed on" kinda way.
Huh? People are complaining because it's a pointless tax. Cable taxes cover the costs of ROW maintenance and regulations. Netflix doesn't need any of this. We should be pissed. Taxes without reason is theft, plain and simple.
people are complaining about this utterly useless tax because it shows that the city just plans on getting away with it. And other cities are going to follow. and the tax will eventually go up again. and again...
A municipal tax on cable TV can be enforced because there's a physical line to a residence in the municipality.
What's stopping users from ordering netflix to an "address" in a tax-free municipality? For that matter, how are they determining this in the first place? I never told netflix where I live; they only have a billing address. But billing addresses aren't where tax is due; I regularly pay municipally taxed services for one address at another billing address.
I live in UK and I haven't been watching broadcast TV since 2013 - streaming all that I need. So, I will find it annoying if I am hit with an additional TAX just because I utilize the service that I already pay for to the best of my abilities - mind you that I also pay additional subscription fees for online streaming content and faster fiber. I totally support the TAX on plastic bags to prevent littering the environment but TAX on online content? What is the point of that?
Are you streaming live broadcasts? Because that requires a tv licence.
> but TAX on online content? What is the point of that?
I guess to provide investment into the infrastructure, supported by heavy users. I'm not sure what the evidence is about usage of networks and streaming.
How presumptuous of you to speak in the name of the rest of the world. I'm very happy with my subscription from Romania. It's actually more comfortable than pirating!
I'm pretty happy with it here in Canada. I know we have far less content than the american version of netflix, but it's still the best streaming service available (and a decent competitor to piracy)
What if Netflix dropped their price to compensate in California. The combination of the tax along with Netflix's good gesture would give them huge positive publicity.
Since the trend is toward dropping cable in favor of Netflix, et al., already, I doubt they need positive publicity by way of cutting into their revenues because of the poor decisions of a few local legislators. Especially when it would be cheaper to lobby, stir up consumer unrest, and possibly oust those legislators.
> They’re calling it a utility, so it can be taxed like water and electricity.
Curious how it's not a utility when we start talking about regulating who provides Internet service and under what terms, but then it is one when they want to tax your use of it.
"it" in the article is Netflix (generally, video streaming). It sounds like you're talking about internet service. It seems perfectly reasonable to call one of those a utility and one not.
So... What exactly is the cost to government being justified here? Usually a tax is to pay for something, in this case it seems to be just "hey we want some of that money, give us some". What the fuck.
As long as the money is not earmarked for a certain expense, I assume it is used for the general running of the local government. Like police, fire, sanitation, ect. Local government provides a lot of essential services.
I see a lot of comments here in shock and disbelief. In the spirit of at least trying to consider the most charitable view if the events I would like to offer my justification for what happens.
Municipalities tax consumption on their territory. By contrast, the federal government taxes income and/or profit. The individual states tax one or the other or both. This division has to do, in part, with practicality of administering the tax.
The primary purpose of taxes is to fund the projects for the common good, plus the overhead. The secondary purpose is to promote or suppress certain activities, such as tobacco use. Tying a certain tax to a certain purpose is an exception rather than the rule. Most taxes go into the common pool.
Had there been a movie theater in town it would have been taxed. The same is true if both the server and the viewer were in the same town - the server would be taxed as a business and the viewer would be taxed as a consumer.
Moving the server to a different location leads to a situation where the consumption tax is not paid in either jurisdiction. Thus an arbitrary act of placement has dramatic consequences for the revenue of municipalities. It also puts local business at disadvantage, undermining the business tax base and jeopardizing jobs, so further eroding the funding of the common good.
Yeah, I prefer to pay less myself. I also run a Saas business and I would rather not have to collect the taxes. Still if I am concerned with the fairness of it, I have to admit that uniformity trumps my personal preference.
A consumer is already paying tax on the "utility" be it cable or wireless, its a line item on your cable/wireless bill. This tax is in addition to other regulatory fees local governments also collect from each subscriber. Why should the consumer also be taxed on the bits they move through that pipe they've already paid tax on?
49 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadSource: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/what-if-politicians-had-to-we...
Who ever came up with this is very clever in finding a loophole, and completely clueless in thinking that it's even marginally acceptable to try and exploit said loophole.
Do you know what else has no tax? Piracy.
People will complain about anything.
What's stopping users from ordering netflix to an "address" in a tax-free municipality? For that matter, how are they determining this in the first place? I never told netflix where I live; they only have a billing address. But billing addresses aren't where tax is due; I regularly pay municipally taxed services for one address at another billing address.
Are you streaming live broadcasts? Because that requires a tv licence.
> but TAX on online content? What is the point of that?
I guess to provide investment into the infrastructure, supported by heavy users. I'm not sure what the evidence is about usage of networks and streaming.
Do they have a decent catalogue in Spain? and they have the series translated in Spanish as well?
Curious how it's not a utility when we start talking about regulating who provides Internet service and under what terms, but then it is one when they want to tax your use of it.
Municipalities tax consumption on their territory. By contrast, the federal government taxes income and/or profit. The individual states tax one or the other or both. This division has to do, in part, with practicality of administering the tax.
The primary purpose of taxes is to fund the projects for the common good, plus the overhead. The secondary purpose is to promote or suppress certain activities, such as tobacco use. Tying a certain tax to a certain purpose is an exception rather than the rule. Most taxes go into the common pool.
Had there been a movie theater in town it would have been taxed. The same is true if both the server and the viewer were in the same town - the server would be taxed as a business and the viewer would be taxed as a consumer.
Moving the server to a different location leads to a situation where the consumption tax is not paid in either jurisdiction. Thus an arbitrary act of placement has dramatic consequences for the revenue of municipalities. It also puts local business at disadvantage, undermining the business tax base and jeopardizing jobs, so further eroding the funding of the common good.
Yeah, I prefer to pay less myself. I also run a Saas business and I would rather not have to collect the taxes. Still if I am concerned with the fairness of it, I have to admit that uniformity trumps my personal preference.
The distinction I'm trying to make is between taxing a stream of bits and taxing a stream of dollars.
Similarly, municipalities are not taxing the weight of the items purchased at the store, but their monetary value.