California Liberals Continuous Insanity - "Netflix tax"

[TheFirstEMP]

Pasadena and other California cities weigh a 'Netflix tax' for video subscribers

The intrigue of the Netflix drama “House of Cards” soon might pale next to the turmoil brewing over whether consumers should pay a tax to watch Netflix and other video streaming services.

Pasadena city officials are mulling whether to tax subscribers of Netflix, Hulu and other video streaming using an existing municipal utility tax code that initially was designed for taxing cable-television users. Sacramento and dozens of other California cities have similar codes that might enable them to consider the tax.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-agenda-netflix-tax-20161003-snap-story,amp.html

Tax and tax and tax some more. When is enough, enough?

 

[dissolved]

California used to be the American Dream about when this song was a hit:



People don't even know anymore the beauty and freedom of what once was.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Cali really needs to pick its battles. There are a few stupid taxes on the ballot. Some things just need to be let go.

 

[Senkoy]

Taxes... taxes everywhere.

 

[bmasters1993]

YouTube is next

then Sherdog

 

[Arkain2K]

This could have been a very productive debate about extending Cable/Satellite TV taxes to premium digital Video-on-Demand services aiming to replace them (pros, cons, legality, scope of jurisdictions, et al), but alas, it has already been designed from the very beginning to be a partisan jerk-off thread about "California Liberals Continuous Insanity" instead of tax codes.

Such a shame, but that's all some thread-starters are looking for nowadays I guess.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Netflix & shill

 

[Rod1]

How would it even work to begin with?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

How would it even work to begin with?

sales tax added onto the monthly bill i would imagine -- or the on the gift card etc.

i assume.

*edit -- sorry, realized the article was geared towards municipal taxes -- not state wide. Makes it harder to enforce.


On the topic, ridiculous usage of a double tax -- people already paid taxes on the device they are using to stream said service and the data / connection via the utility provider -- now they want to tax for a 3rd product?

how about a google search surcharge?

You want to encourage people to lawfully pay for online material and not use free 3rd party streaming sites -- then dont punish them for doing so.

 

[original doom]

This could have been a very productive debate about taxes on premium online services (pros, cons, legality, scope of jurisdictions, et al), but alas, it has already been framed from the very beginning as a partisan jerk-off thread about "liberals insanity" instead of tax codes.

Such a shame, but that's all some thread-starters are looking for nowadays I guess.

So what are the pros on taxing an online streaming service ?

How is it even up for discussion.

 

[AFewDollarsMore]

20,000 gubmn't retirees in Cali have $100k + pensions. They ain't paying themselves. Cali will forever need revenue .

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pension-725098-calpers-club.html

 

[original doom]

Whats to stop people from just subscribing to another countries stream service. Some aussies use the american version of netflix instead of ours.

 

[Arkain2K]

So what are the pros on taxing an online streaming service ?

How is it even up for discussion.

Look around you. What are the pros in even attempting to have a proper discussion about taxes in a thread about insane liberals?

I'm going to grab a beer and watch this "debate" proceed exactly the way TS intended it to be.

 

[original doom]

Look around you. What are the pros in even attempting to have a proper discussion about taxes in a thread about insane liberals?

I'm going to grab a beer and watch this "debate" proceed exactly the way TS intended it to be.

Yeh i get ya but i don't know how you can even have a discussion on taxing a streaming service. Liberals sure as hell would not support this either.

Its all pitchforks.

 

[Space]

Netflix & shill

 

[chs140]

Look around you. What are the pros in even attempting to have a proper discussion about taxes in a thread about insane liberals?

I'm going to grab a beer and watch this "debate" proceed exactly the way TS intended it to be.

You simply don't have a point. And are now taking the victim stance. Go fuckin figure.

 

[Arkain2K]

Yeh i get ya but i don't know how you can even have a discussion on taxing a streaming service. Liberals sure as hell would not support this either.

Its all pitchforks.

First thing first: The so-called "Netflix Tax" itself is by no mean something new and revolutionary. There are actually MANY discussions about it, since it's actually been around for over a year now. Also, it applies to Premium Video on Demand services that tries to replace Cable TV, not cat videos on YouTube, so the phrase "tax on streaming services" used in the news is a bit of a misnomer.

Your suspicion is correct: the people who support and oppose extending the Cable/Satellite TV tax to Digital VOD services aren't actually divided into liberal and conservative camps. If anything, people who have Cable naturally think it's fair, and those who only have Netflix naturally opposes.

Pennsylvania has been collecting their 6% "Netflix Tax" since August, and Chicago has been charging their 9% "Netflix Tax" since last summer, which I'm assuming everyone who enters this thread already knew. Well, except the TS himself, who seems to think it's just been invented now by those insane liberals in California.

The good news is: there ARE strong push-backs in Pasadena over that proposed 9.4%, and its legality in California IS up for discussion by the people of Pasadena. That's how legislation in a democracy generally works!

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gov...adena-isnt-so-sure-about-that-netflix-tax-now

How would it even work to begin with?

It's quite simple actually:

1) The state/city government pass a new law to extend the Cable TV tax to PREMIUM Video On Demand services.
2) The government then ask Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, et al to collect that tax directly from the customers whose paying address is in their geographical jurisdiction.
3) The new tax will shows up as a flat amount on top of the service fee on their bill from there on out.

For example: if a Netflix customer in Pasadena is currently paying $10/month, their bill will be bumped to $10.94 after the tax came in effect.

You simply don't have a point. And are now taking the victim stance. Go fuckin figure.

The GREAT news is, with the forum's blocking feature, this is the first and last retarded post from you that us adults ever have to see.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

They plans to replicate Pensylvania's and Chicago's successful footstep: extend the Cable TV tax to online premium video services, then ask Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, et al to collect the tax from the customers whose paying address is in their jurisdiction, which then will shows up as a flat amount on top of the service fee on their bill.

Pensylvania has been collecting 6% for months now (which I'm assuming everyone who enters this thread already knew), but there are certainly strong push-backs in Pasadena over that 9.4% however:

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/gov...adena-isnt-so-sure-about-that-netflix-tax-now

Not as clear cut -- voters have to vote on new scopes to existing taxes which contradicts a 2008 ruling on video tax. However, with philadelphia we have yet to seen what the ramifications are since it is only a month old (decrease in subscriber list) and when the tax in chicago was announced, it was met with a law suit trying to prevent it.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/press-releases/lawsuit-challenging-chicagos-netflix-tax-advances/

People seem pretty unhappy with the idea to tax them for additional online content. Hopefully the idea ends up falling flat on its face.

 

[Arkain2K]

Not as clear cut -- voters have to vote on new scopes to existing taxes which contradicts a 2008 ruling on video tax. However, with philadelphia we have yet to seen what the ramifications are since it is only a month old (decrease in subscriber list) and when the tax in chicago was announced, it was met with a law suit trying to prevent it.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/press-releases/lawsuit-challenging-chicagos-netflix-tax-advances/

People seem pretty unhappy with the idea to tax them for additional online content. Hopefully the idea ends up falling flat on its face.

That's the gist of it.

If this thing is not approved by California voters, the lawyers gonna have a field day.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

That's the gist of it.

If this thing is not approved by California voters, the lawyers gonna have a field day.

if this not approved by the voters i suggest the city drops it and find another, more clandestined way to extort and fleece people -- usually governments are exceedingly good at it.