Congratulations America! You're Done Paying for the Spanish American War

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Feds cut off phone tax after 108 years
Updated 5/26/2006 12:15 AM ET

By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

A pesky, century-old tax on your phone bill is finally being put to rest.
The Treasury Department said Thursday that it will no longer collect a 3% federal excise tax on long-distance calls and would refund about $15 billion to taxpayers.

The tax was imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War. It was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury.

"It's not often you get to kill a tax, particularly one that goes back so far in history," Treasury Secretary John Snow said.

Treasury said it was conceding its battle to uphold the tax after five appeals courts declared it illegal because of changes in the way long-distance calls are billed.

Phone companies and cellular carriers must stop billing for the tax Aug. 1. Individuals and businesses can file for refunds next year on their 2006 tax returns for excise taxes paid on long-distance calls since March 1, 2003.

Individuals who don't have phone bill records can seek a standard refund that has yet to be determined.

Elimination of the tax will cost Treasury about $46 billion in refunds, lost revenue and administrative expenses in the next five years. That should be offset by higher tax revenue from a strong economy, Snow said.

Phone companies hailed the move. "This is a good first step in alleviating consumers' telephone tax burden, which currently accounts for more than 18% of the average bill," Verizon Vice President Tom Tauke said.

Callers will still pay a 3% excise tax on local phone calls. But that tax will no longer be levied on services that don't distinguish local calls, such as cellular, all-distance landline plans and Internet-based offerings. Consumers with those services can seek refunds on their full excise-tax payments.

Snow urged Congress to repeal the local-phone excise tax, as well.

Contributing: Reuters
Link

Congress passed this when Clinton was President. He vetoed it. Far be it for a liberal to eliminate a tax imposed to fight a war 100 years ago....

I feel great, a war conducted in the 19th century is finally done being paid for. I figure at this rate we'll be able to eliminate WWII era bonds interest payments by 2053.
 
Yeah, and we'll be done paying off the war in Iraq by 2160, you blowhard.

A 3% tax on long-distance calls doesn't really seem to bad when we have an $8.3 trillion dollar deficit, especially since so many cell-phone companies give you free or severely discounted long-distance calling, anyway. I'd much rather pay an extra 18% on my phone bill than pay all my own medical costs because there's no money for Medicare and Medicaid.
 
Adam, you're always welcome to pay extra taxes. The IRS won't turn away your money.

I strongly suggest making sure you're paying 25% on all your telecommunications bills. Send extra to the phone company, cable company, cell company and whoever provides your internet.

Ladies and gentlemen here we have a perfect example of a self-admitted liberal. They don't want to pay for all of their own medical costs. They want someone else to. Meanwhile he's not even smart enough to realize that excise taxes like this don't even fund the program he wishes he were getting more of.

Good job. You exposed yourself quicker as a GIMME GIMME GIMME voter than any new poster in vs. board history.
 
... I wonder where all that money was going. :whistle2:k

I love how they're willing to spend 30 billion to refund 15... fucking government.
 
[quote name='article']

Elimination of the tax will cost Treasury about $46 billion in refunds, lost revenue and administrative expenses in the next five years. That should be offset by higher tax revenue from a strong economy, Snow said.

[/QUOTE]

Republicans have spent this supposed higher tax revenue about 18 times over by now.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Ladies and gentlemen here we have a perfect example of a self-admitted liberal. They don't want to pay for all of their own medical costs. They want someone else to. [/QUOTE]

Can I assume you have both health and auto insurance? It is because you wouldn't want to pay all of your medical or accident costs? Dipshit.
 
I didnt even read your post .. I just scanned through to see where you'd blame Democrats. Second to the last line ... saving the best for last eh? So in 100+ years Repubicans could'nt kill this tax before it got to Clinton? Why didnt Reagan stop this if it was so important to be stopped? Why focus on Clinton?
 
Elimination of the tax will cost Treasury about $46 billion in refunds, lost revenue and administrative expenses in the next five years. That should be offset by higher tax revenue from a strong economy, Snow said.
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
[quote name='Maklershed']I didnt even read your post .. I just scanned through to see where you'd blame Democrats. Second to the last line ... saving the best for last eh? So in 100+ years Repubicans could'nt kill this tax before it got to Clinton? Why didnt Reagan stop this if it was so important to be stopped? Why focus on Clinton?[/QUOTE]

Truly, every PAD posting has become a punchline to the rabid right-wing Republican joke that he is.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Adam, you're always welcome to pay extra taxes. The IRS won't turn away your money.

I strongly suggest making sure you're paying 25% on all your telecommunications bills. Send extra to the phone company, cable company, cell company and whoever provides your internet.

Ladies and gentlemen here we have a perfect example of a self-admitted liberal. They don't want to pay for all of their own medical costs. They want someone else to. Meanwhile he's not even smart enough to realize that excise taxes like this don't even fund the program he wishes he were getting more of.

Good job. You exposed yourself quicker as a GIMME GIMME GIMME voter than any new poster in vs. board history.[/quote]

You totally missed my point. And yes, you're correct, when I am retired and depend on a small Social Security check as my only income, I don't want to pay for all of my own horrifically overpriced medical costs. Duh.

I'm simply pointing out that when we are facing such a huge deficit, a refund that works out to roughly $50 per American seems unnecessary. The tax was imposed to pay for a war - why not use the tax to start paying off our current war? Sure it's peanuts compared to the total cost, but we have to begin somewhere. I'm 18, a new voter, and I don't want to be paying off this war for the rest of my life.
 
Why not, hey, cut spending in some of the 9,104 that the government shouldn't even be involved with. Agree or disagree with the war, at least it technically is based in constitutional thought ["provide for the common defense."] We can certainly debate if it's necessary, and if we should cut and run because oh no it's lasted more than three weeks, but at least it's a valid use of the government power.

"Elimination of the tax will cost Treasury about $46 billion in refunds, lost revenue and administrative expenses in the next five years."

Ah yes--the fact that letting the people keep more of their money, is now counted as "lost revenue". It's like the government feels entitled to the fruits of its citizens labors.

". That should be offset by higher tax revenue from a strong economy, Snow said. "
Exactly. Just as we've seen recently with 5.3% economic growth.

And the President doesn't inititate legislation, he signs it. Congress would have to pass the bill. I'll admit, he can talk it up and try to convince them to pass it, but ultimately it's up to Congress.

And insurance is not the same as government-paid [really, citizen-paid] health care. Private auto/health insurance is a competitive market, the companies try to profit so they focus on cutting costs and operational efficiency and wise investments. Government-provided health care has to do none of that.

I would think many liberals would support the cessation of this tax. After all, it was initiated as a tax against those damn wealthy people--but now, virtually everyone has either a land phone or a cell phone, and many have more than one. So people, including the poor, are paying the tax. Much like the AMT [sic], its method of social engineering has expanded to envelop even middle class and 'poor'.
 
[quote name='AdamInPlaidum']You totally missed my point. And yes, you're correct, when I am retired and depend on a small Social Security check as my only income, I don't want to pay for all of my own horrifically overpriced medical costs. Duh.

I'm simply pointing out that when we are facing such a huge deficit, a refund that works out to roughly $50 per American seems unnecessary. The tax was imposed to pay for a war - why not use the tax to start paying off our current war? Sure it's peanuts compared to the total cost, but we have to begin somewhere. I'm 18, a new voter, and I don't want to be paying off this war for the rest of my life.[/QUOTE]

Man, you're dumber than dirt.

You're going to expect SSI to be there when you retire? I look forward to seeing you in the gutter dead in 50 years. I'll laugh at you for the stupidity you exuded in your youth.

Medical costs will be the least of your worries when you have no fucking place to live.
 
[quote name='Msut77']DT. we are running a huge deficit right now does that penetrate your no doubt sloping foreheaded skull?[/QUOTE]

Nice response.
Does every twobit hack with a computer need to feel big by insulting people who don't agree with them on the internet?
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
And insurance is not the same as government-paid [really, citizen-paid] health care. Private auto/health insurance is a competitive market, the companies try to profit so they focus on cutting costs and operational efficiency and wise investments. Government-provided health care has to do none of that.
.[/QUOTE]


it touching that you've taken to PAD's defense. However, it would have been more touching if you had actually understood the point. Whether gov't run heath care is better than private care (which by the by, isn't the same as health insurance) is besides the point. Whether it be gov't or private enterprise, we use the theory of "shared risk" to avoid having to pay "all of out medical costs". Something PAD seems to think only liberals want or do.

What you seem to forget is the fact the "We the people" ARE the government. We have already collectively decided that the government is entitled to the fruits of our labor.
 
Adam, I'll take my 50 dollars thank you. If you want, feel free to go ahead and overpay the IRS by 50 dollars to make up for my capitalist pig self.


I'd also spose Reagan didn't end this tax because he didn't have a Republican controlled Congress. Thank god for the revolution of 1994.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Nice response.
Does every twobit hack with a computer need to feel big by insulting people who don't agree with them on the internet?[/quote]

You'd have a point if you ever criticized PAD in the same way.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You'd have a point if you ever criticized PAD in the same way.[/QUOTE]

So in your mind it's acceptable to respond to an intelligent, well thought out defense of a point of view with personal insults?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So in your mind it's acceptable to respond to an intelligent, well thought out defense of a point of view with personal insults?[/QUOTE]


Where in the holy hell did you see a point (let alone a well thought out one) in DTcarsons post?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Where in the holy hell did you see a point (let alone a well thought out one) in DTcarsons post?[/QUOTE]

Calm down now. Just because his responses tend to be more than one sentence doesn't mean they are pointless.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Calm down now. Just because his responses tend to be more than one sentence doesn't mean they are pointless.[/QUOTE]


Is that your attempt at an insult?

Ill ignore it and give you another shot, you can do better.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Is that your attempt at an insult?

Ill ignore it and give you another shot, you can do better.[/QUOTE]

Very good! Two sentences this time! Now work on the content.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Very good! Two sentences this time! Now work on the content.[/QUOTE]

Better, Anyhoo since when do you know or care about content?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So in your mind it's acceptable to respond to an intelligent, well thought out defense of a point of view with personal insults?[/quote]

?

My point is his comment fits posters in this thread similar to his political views, yet he's only attacking one side.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']?

My point is his comment fits posters in this thread similar to his political views, yet he's only attacking one side.[/QUOTE]

But you need not attack both sides to argue intelligently and with reason. dtcarson seemed to me to make a good argument for his side while refraining from personal attacks, in reply to which msut immediately hit back with a one-sentence personal attack.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But you need not attack both sides to argue intelligently and with reason. dtcarson seemed to me to make a good argument for his side while refraining from personal attacks, in reply to which msut immediately hit back with a one-sentence personal attack.[/QUOTE]

He comnpletely missed/ignored the point about the out of control deficit, idiocy should be scorned.

You seem to worship it.
 
What benefit does elimating this tax have at a time where our country needs it most? I'm all for lower taxes but can our government afford it at the current decifit that's sure to balloon even higher? Economics 101 should be a required course for a Treasurer/lawmaker at the rate they are going with these bone-headed moves.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']But you need not attack both sides to argue intelligently and with reason. dtcarson seemed to me to make a good argument for his side while refraining from personal attacks, in reply to which msut immediately hit back with a one-sentence personal attack.[/quote]

But msut was hardly the only one engaging in it.

Does every twobit hack with a computer need to feel big by insulting people who don't agree with them on the internet?
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt he intended that comment to any non-liberal behaving that way.

Though dtcarson did make a couple veiled attacks, my comment was not in response to that. Simply that he's criticizing msut for behavior that he has indicated no problem with, as long as it's not directed at him.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But msut was hardly the only one engaging in it.



I seriously doubt he intended that comment to any non-liberal behaving that way.[/QUOTE]

Come on alonzo, that was in response to msut's personal attack.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Come on alonzo, that was in response to msut's personal attack.[/QUOTE]


I might be wrong but that does seem to be the point.
 
Obtuse as it was, the point was not well taken by LoPrimero, the not-as-famous alter ego of a locally reknown superhero. He couldn't quite come to terms with the existence of such absurdity in a world supposedly bound by logical laws. But he fluxed his capacitors and wrapped himself around the situation.

"He seems to be in diametric contradiction to Descartes," he mumbled between sips of Sandropol. He walked to the kitchen and put on another pot of water. When he returned, the anathematic enigma had again spouted another spurious sapropel into thin air where it waffed, waiting for attention, like a lonely child craves a mother's scolding. LoPrimero had identified the underlying psychological motive and quickly rebuffed petulance with an observation without repremand.

For this was LoPrimero's super power. A power his collegues did not posess - the power to ignore his own emotion and remain even tempered in the face of all crises. Never had such superhuman powers been displayed, and never had they been completely unobserved by the casual user. Hate slid off his lapel like a lead shot off the Merrimack.

Thus is the understated greatness of Winston LoPrimero. To have the ability to report the real, leave no trace, and no bad after taste. He tastes good like a cigarette shoud !
 

Definitely your weakest entry yet. I expect better in your next appearance, presumably September 2006.
 

wtf.jpg
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Come on alonzo, that was in response to msut's personal attack.[/quote]

And he feigned outrage at something he hadn't previously acknowledged giving a damn about. He acted as if behaving the way msut did was something worthy of deprecation, when in reality his only concern is when it's directed at him, and possibly to other like minded individuals as well.
 
I think there's no call for random juvenile ad hominem attacks or random 'sniping' 'witty' comments, regardless of who says them or to whom they're directed.
If I responded to *all* of them, well, I'd be pretty busy; so yes, I do focus on the ones directed at me.
And I don't think I would label my response as "outrage", more like "resignation"--I wrote an admittedly long post with many thoughts, and I get the cyberequivalent of "Nuh-uh, don't forget [something new and irrelevant]!"

It disappoints me when people I don't agree with do that, because I give their ideas the respect of listening with an open mind and still respecting the person, though I may disagree.
It disappoints me when people I *do* agree with do it, because I feel that lessens our arguments.
If this is what passes for debate and discussion on the modern internet, well, it's sad. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I would hope they would be 'tolerant' and open-minded to discussing ideas or viewpoints other than their own.

On-topic: deficit is a red herring in this case. *This* tax, since it was theoretically a "temporary" "luxury" tax [there's almost no such thing as a "temporary" tax, and I don't like "luxury" taxes on principle], should have been lifted long ago. If we need to raise taxes to counter a deficit [though I think cutting spending should always be the first goal], then fine, do it elsewhere and be honest about it.
 
deficit is a red herring in this case. *This* tax, since it was theoretically a "temporary" "luxury" tax [there's almost no such thing as a "temporary" tax, and I don't like "luxury" taxes on principle], should have been lifted long ago. If we need to raise taxes to counter a deficit [though I think cutting spending should always be the first goal], then fine, do it elsewhere and be honest about it.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. I don't like that this particular tax remained in effect, but, at the same time, I don't want to cut it and lose the revenue. Ideally make the tax into something else, but if it's get rid of it or keep it the way it is, then I say keep it.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I look forward to seeing you in the gutter dead in 50 years. I'll laugh at you for the stupidity you exuded in your youth.[/quote]

A life spent hating is a life wasted.
 
I imagine in about 100 years some conservative idiot will be congratulating everyone on finally paying off the Iraq war, forgetting who started it in the first place.
 
[quote name='camoor']I imagine in about 100 years some conservative idiot will be congratulating everyone on finally paying off the Iraq war, forgetting who started it in the first place.[/quote]

I still say in 10-20 years you'll be among the conservatives. That's not an insult, just a prediction. Too bad I'll never know if I'm right or not.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I think there's no call for random juvenile ad hominem attacks or random 'sniping' 'witty' comments, regardless of who says them or to whom they're directed.[/QUOTE]


It was not random, you completely ignored something very important in your response. You seem to still believe ignoring the deficit is ok.

You are neither honest nor bright.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I still say in 10-20 years you'll be among the conservatives. That's not an insult, just a prediction. Too bad I'll never know if I'm right or not.[/QUOTE]

Im no slouch when it comes to insults but that is just cold.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I still say in 10-20 years you'll be among the conservatives. That's not an insult, just a prediction. Too bad I'll never know if I'm right or not.[/quote]

Well, in my heart I am a fiscal conservative, I could see myself going left libertarian, but I simply cannot fathom ever joining the neocons and theocrats.

I do think it would be good if my town occasionally saw the changing of opinion as a good thing - there is an unfortunate stigma in American politics for admitting that you find your past opinions/ideology to be incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top