Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on June 17, 2005, 11:44:11 AM
-
Interesting tidbit from party headquarters:
http://www.lp.org/article_154.shtml
Text as follows:Your contribution to the Spanish-American War
A hundred and seven years ago, in 1898, the federal government began levying a temporary 3 percent excise tax on telephones, ostensibly to fund the Spanish-American War.
Flash forward to 2005 -- and every American with a telephone is still paying this "temporary" tax. The war was over after just a few months, but the tax has been in effect for over a century. On top of that, the tax does not go for any specific purpose. Rather, the funds are simply added to the general fund.
Congress attempted to repeal the tax in 2000. Both the House and the Senate passed legislation to eliminate the tax -- it was a 420-2 vote in the House -- but then-President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill when it reached his desk.
Once again, the House has been presented with a bill -- H.R. 1898 -- that would repeal the tax on telephone and other communications services. The bill was introduced in late April by Rep. Gary G. Miller of California, and has been cosponsored by 39 other congressmen. It currently sits in the House Committee on Ways and Means.
This tax should have been repealed more than a century ago, but some members of Congress still support the tax -- and some even want to expand it. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation issued an opinion in January, saying that the tax could be expanded to apply to wireless Internet and data connections.
Note: I'm a member of the Libertarian party, and the article ends with a pitch to join up. I'm not trying to prosel-^H^H^Hprosylet-^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hproslyt-^H^H^H^H convert you guys, but I think it's an interesting bit of information.
-
Support the NSA!
Pay yer damn phone bill!
-
Hmmm... Interesting point, I'll have to bring it up in class. This week, we're studying the Spanish-American War.
The prof is one of the most leftist people I've ever met. Part of our class credit is participation. I'll score points.
Woot!
-
i'd like to hear his explnation of why clinton vetoed the bill then ; )
-
Government, from either side of the aisle, has never really seen a tax it wanted to get rid of if there was the least chance of keeping it.
-
Originally posted by JB73
i'd like to hear his explnation of why clinton vetoed the bill then ; )
That's an easy one... Democrats like taxes. ;)
-
Or there could have been something else attached to the bill that Clinton didn't like. Congress likes to slip you the big 'ol pork weenie that way.
-
Nah, just cut to the chase.
Pretty much every entity of the Federal Government views every single revenue stream from any source whatsoever as theirs to keep in perpetuity.
-
Further proof to never accept a tax or a tax hike that you don't want to live with for generations to come.
They tried a neat one here in Tennessee a few years back. They said "we'll reduce the state sales tax, cap the local option, and take the sales tax off of necessities, if you'll support an income tax". In small print, they said "we'll of course have to keep all the taxes going for a while, until the income tax generates enough revenue to allow us to repeal or lower the other taxes".:rolleyes:
They tried this for 3 years, shutting down the state twice, my wife went home for a week twice, before the backlash finally cost dozens of the tax and spend dirtbags their jobs.
We eventually ended up with a lottery, to fund education, after all, the taxes were for the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN. The lottery proceeds are only available for college, not a dime is spent on K-12.:eek:
-
You mean me too Toad? After all I've done in the last 3 months trying to cut about 3 mil out of our flying budget, somehow I think I deserve all your money?
There's gratitude for ya.
:rolleyes:
j/k
:aok
-
see that's what i don't get.
sorry not to get all political here, but yes sandman you are correct. in a general sence democrats like more taxes, to pay for all sorts of causes. more money out of my pocket for the "homosexual minority mimes with disabilities society" or whatever.
yet they claim they are for "the little man" or whatever.
why promote all sorts of extraneous taxes to take more money out of my pocket (the under $25,000 / year income group) to pay for these groups and programs i never get a use from? how many white christian male programs are there, and show me a government tax break for someone like myself.
for someone to say to me i have to give my money for whatever this or that a democrat politician sets up, i get very angry.
oh well thats just my opinion.
-
I'm not sure your generalization is entirely correct. The Republicans have actually spent more federal money in the last 5 years then the Democrats in the same time period, even adjusted for inflation and subtracting war expenses. The 'Tax and spend! Tax and spend!' stereotype for Democrats was killed in the early 1980s with the Reagan administration. Likewise, the Republican stereotype of 'Up with business, down with minorities' is equally inaccurate these last few decades.
Both parties are increasingly mirrors of each other, and have straddled the middleground.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, just cut to the chase.
Pretty much every entity of the Federal Government views every single revenue stream from any source whatsoever as theirs to keep in perpetuity.
Amen.
But not just the Federal Government.
Here, in 1970, they took out bonds to pay for two high schools. A local wheel tax was enacted to pay off the bonds, it was one of the highest in the state. It was to be retired in ten years, when the bonds were paid off. Twelve years later, they had not only increased the wheel tax, but were also charging students to park in the school parking lots. None of the principle had ever been paid on the bonds, they paid the interest only. After complaints, they removed the message on the bottom of the wheel tax sticker:
"To retire the ten year construction bonds for the 1970 high school construction"
:rofl
We still pay that wheel tax, 35 years later, and the bonds have never been retired. But at least the interest is paid up.
We were recently told we needed to pay $25M for more new schools. The reason is we're one of the fastest growing counties in the country, but revenue from taxes paid by those moving in will not cover their needs for schools, or utilities and such.:rolleyes:
-
That may or may not be true 73, but take a look at our deficit under Clinton, then look at it before Clinton, and look at it after Clinton.
You do the math, yer a smart boy.
I dont like taxes anymore than anyone else, and I hate stupid programs that waste our money. But I dont mind so much paying the taxes if we get something to show for it.
-
Originally posted by eagl
You mean me too Toad? After all I've done in the last 3 months trying to cut about 3 mil out of our flying budget,
Lemme guess.. yer boss said "Eagl, we gotta cut $3 mil out of the flying budget. I think this is a great idea! We need to fly less! Get on it!"
And you said...
"Yes sir! I was thinking just the other day there's WAY too much flying going on around here and people just don't enjoy it. I was hoping there'd be a way to cut funding."
Is that how it went?
:rofl
I feel for ya buddy.... went through that when I was in. Fortunately, my little unit had a pretty protected budget. The other guys in the Wing got their wings clipped pretty short though.
Good luck with it... I hate when that happens.
Now, when we're talking about $150 mil for the new extension of the Robert Byrd "Klansmen Memorial Highway" in West Va... that's different. ;)
-
I don't mind a tax on communications, as long as we all get broadband and wireless is freely available in major cities. Otherwise repeal. Anyone see why clinton axed it?
On Monday, Clinton vetoed a bill combining funding for the
Treasury Department with funding for the legislative
branch. Clinton had not yet vetoed a second combined
bill for the Commerce, Justice and State Departments as
well as the District of Columbia, but indicated he would
do so.
The Treasury bill includes the language to repeal the 3
percent excise tax. In his veto message, Clinton did not
criticize the plan to repeal the tax. Instead, he slammed
Congress for approving a Congressional pay raise before
acting on the President's priorities in the Education funding
bill.
http://www.csaaul.org/Bmj1101.PDF
-
Naw, we never talk dollars. We talk hours and sorties. We've been told by waaaaaay up there to fly a bit more than we want for our "ideal" training program, but there is jack-shxt we can do about it except gripe.
-
I imagine you guys are flying a bit more than you'd prefer. When I was in, '73-'80 it was the other way around, except in a very few squadrons.
My squadron was one of the exceptions. In that period, it wasn't unusual to get 100 hours a month and fairly regularly get 125, waivers as needed. IIRC, one December I got something like 138 out of Mildenhall. Wx had canceled a bunch of sorties in Nov and when we rotated over in Dec the Det. Commander asked us if we'd mind "catching up for NSA". We had been scheduled to stay into January and after a quick huddle and and some computations we quickly figured out if we agreed to their schedule, we'd be out of flying time on the 21st and they'd have to send us home in time for Christmas.
We lived in that airplane for almost three weeks. Got home on the 23rd. :)
-
The Joint Committee on Taxation put forward the option of widening this very same tax to cover all communications services to end users as recently as January this year, listing the difficulty in distinguishing VoIP traffic from other non-voice data traffic as a possible justification. I think your IRS have also been sniffing around the issue as well.
Edit: Oops, I didn't fully read the OP before posting :o
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The prof is one of the most leftist people I've ever met. Part of our class credit is participation. I'll score points.
Woot!
Who's the prof man? I'm dying to know.
-Sik
-
I smell BS. The House website did not list an H.R. 1898 when I searched for it, and in any event, that convenient kind of bill numbering seems highly unlikely.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Oh, great DMF.
Next you're going to tell us that the Cable TV tax that the Contintental Congress levied on the major cities in the 13 colonies to fund Washington's illegal war against the Brits didn't really happen either?
And that Washington's French Aide de Camp, Major Richarde de Sheney, didn't pass the field fortification construction contracts right to his fellow nobleman Mssr. Francois Halliburtonne with no competitive bidding?
-
LOL
Well, there is evidence that Congress passed a telephone tax repeal bill during the 106th Congress (420-2 in the House and 97-3 in the Senate). That seems like a pretty veto-proof margin to me unless Clinton employed a pocket veto at the end of the session. I don't know enough about that to comment.
But if H.R. 1898 does exist, the House's bill database does not list it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Here we go. I finally managed to dig up the bill in question. It is, in fact, H.R. 1898, but the bill seems to be trying to change something introduced into the 1986 tax code. Perhaps the initial story took some liberties with the origins of the legislation.
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1898
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communications services.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 27, 2005
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California (for himself, Mr. FOSSELLA, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. PAUL, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. GILCHREST, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. DUNCAN, Mrs. BONO, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. CAMP, Mr. CANNON, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. MACK, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. TERRY, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. HART, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. COX, Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, and Mr. ADERHOLT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and other communications services.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
(a) In General- Chapter 33 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to facilities and services) is amended by striking subchapter B.
(b) Conforming Amendments-
(1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by striking `chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 4121) and subchapter B of chapter 33,' and inserting `and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 4121),'.
(2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such Code is amended by striking `section 4251 or'.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking `imposed by--' and all that follows through `with respect to' and inserting `imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect to', and
(ii) by striking `bills rendered or'.
(C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) of such Code is amended by striking `Communications Services and'.
(3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by striking `4251, 4261, or 4271' each place it appears and inserting `4261 or 4271'.
(4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such Code is amended by inserting `or' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking subparagraph (C), and by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to subchapter B.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills first rendered more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Who's the prof man? I'm dying to know.
-Sik
Judge Porter.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Judge Porter.
I KNEW IT!!!!
Worst. Class. Ever.
Ok, not really, but man that guy drove me crazy and it had nothing to do with his political views (which seem to have been drifting to the left).
-Sik
-
Originally posted by rpm
Or there could have been something else attached to the bill that Clinton didn't like. Congress likes to slip you the big 'ol pork weenie that way.
This doesn't happen very often.
I agree with RPM.
There, I said it. I hope everyone is happy now.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I KNEW IT!!!!
Worst. Class. Ever.
Ok, not really, but man that guy drove me crazy and it had nothing to do with his political views (which seem to have been drifting to the left).
-Sik
So far, he's been entertaining. The guy is fearless though... room full of military and ex-military, and definitely as republican as they come, but he throws it out there.
-
Fearless?
The GI's have enough experience with "the system" to immediately recognize who holds the hammer.
Making the prof look like a fool is probably not the best GPA strategy is it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Making the prof look like a fool is probably not the best GPA strategy is it?
I still managed to get an "A" :p
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Toad
Making the prof look like a fool is probably not the best GPA strategy is it?
On the contrary, the prof seems to like dissenting opinions. If you surround yourself with people that agree with you, you'll learn absolutely nothing.
-
Let me rephrase it. Perhaps the GI's have experienced making the Colonel look like a fool and are wary.
-
haha Chairboy, I went to the Libertarian Party today and read the same article.
I demand Spain is attacked right NOW to justify this spending!
-
If we are still paying for it then I expect us to invade Spain then, dammit.
I want to see something for my money.
-
Originally posted by eagl
Naw, we never talk dollars. We talk hours and sorties. We've been told by waaaaaay up there to fly a bit more than we want for our "ideal" training program, but there is jack-shxt we can do about it except gripe.
:rofl
we've been trying to get a 150K lightning protection system installed in our building for years. This year we might actually get it wich is weird because they've done their best to cut as much travel and budget extras as possible.
I wont even get into mait. funds.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
This doesn't happen very often.
I agree with RPM.
There, I said it. I hope everyone is happy now.
Jupiter has aligned with Mars. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let me rephrase it. Perhaps the GI's have experienced making the Colonel look like a fool and are wary.
Let me rephrase... I believe the prof knows that he can't sharpen his argument preaching to the choir. ;)