Vote NO on Proposition "S"
Posted by: Gary Aminoff | 01/15/2008 4:44 PM
I don't know how it is going to modernize communications but I can tell you for sure it is anything but a "Reduction of Tax Rate". While the City has been collecting a 10% tax on cellular phone service service, the courts have declared the tax invalid because, in violation of Prop. 218, the City did not get voter approval for the imposition of the tax. The City is appealing that decision, but in case they lose, which they probably will, they have decided to bring out Proposition S. If you vote NO for Proposition S, and the City loses in the courts, there will be NO tax on electronic communications.
Prop S does reduce the tax rate from the invalid 10% rate to a 9% rate. But actually, if the city loses its appeal the rate will be 0%. Prop S also imposes the tax on a host of new electronic communications that were not included before, such as using the internet, DSL, VOIP, PCS and other electronic services.
The tax is estimated to raise approximately $270 Million for the city of Los Angeles. The City is disingenuously claiming that without the tax it won't be able to hire new police, or, run the city. The City of Los Angeles has a budget of $6.7 Billion. The tax would produce another 4% of revenue for the City.
My thoughts are that they can certainly find $270 Million to cut in the budget.
City Controller Laura Chick recently stated, "we shouldn't think of asking taxpayers for more money until we get our house in order."
-
City Hall squanders your money on wasteful programs (e.g., sphincter-control classes for civil servants), gives away millions in "pork" for special interests (e.g., millions in subsidies for downtown developers), and fails to guard against embezzlement (e.g., over $1 million from the housing agency). (For more examples of waste, look at the "Spreadsheet of Shame.")
-
The special election itself is an example of waste: instead of putting Prop S on the ballot during the general elections in November 2004, 2006 or 2008, City Hall spent $5.1 million to add it to the presidential primary in February 2008.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION S
Let's see we vote yes on S so that the city can give developers near Staples Center a $290 million dollar tax break. Claiming that they will have to cut fire and police services which will not get the money anyway. They also want to tax my internet use and what ever electronic communication device that may come our way. Seems fair to me.
Yeah, LA could do a better job with its spending, but you could get a few facts right in opposing Prop S.
Prop S does not tax internet access, whatever format (DSL, cable, dial-up).
Prop S modernizes the current tax ordinance so that services like VOIP will be subject to the 9% tax, like all other phone services.
The tax on cell phone service would not be reduced to zero. It would go back to a prior agreed upon collection formula.
It is not expected to raise additional revenues; the tax cut is hoped to be offset by the additional revenues from collections on phone services previously not taxed (VOIP). Also it will protect the current tax collections from legal challenges, such as current ordinance references to the Federal Excise Tax.
If LA loses, the phone tax will erode away and cost the city several hundred million. Coupled with other revenue losses due to the current recession, police, fire and other essential muni services will be cut.
Prop S does not tax internet access, whatever format (DSL, cable, dial-up).
Au contraire. Prop S. does indeed tax internet access, whatever format.
I suggest you view this web page for details:
http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/NoOnPropS/Internet_And_Wireless.html
If LA loses, the phone tax will erode away and cost the city several hundred million. Coupled with other revenue losses due to the current recession, police, fire and other essential muni services will be cut.
------------------------------------------
Perhaps that will motivate the city to cut out some of the waste and unnecessary programs to the extent of 4% of the budget, which would cover the anticipated revenue from Proposition S
The anti prop s people should file a law suit immediately to invalidate any vote on this prop since the "independant" opinion claims it is a reduction in tax. This is a false and misleading statement about the proposition and those people who are voting based on this statement would not have so voted if they knew the correct facts. You can NOT have a reduction in a tax that has already been declared invalid. How can there be a reduction from a zero tax rate?
If the voters want to allow a new tax that would be fine but if they are voting for the proposition because they think it is a reduction, there vote was falsely obtained so all votes should be thrown out until the voters are properly informed.
Regarding the liberal fear-mongering about essential services being cut, Mayor Villariagosa is already on record as saying that none of these services will be cut as a result of losing this tax. KFI has the sound bite from both the Mayor and from LAPD Chief Bratton, and play it regularly when talking about this tax.
So stop trying to scare us. What WILL need to be cut are all of the entitlement projects and "fluff" administrator positions, as well as the exhorbitant pay raises the city council gave to its union friends in exchange for political endorsements for their new third terms they can run for due to getting Prop R passed last year.
The liberal entitlements and the union special interests influence on our city council has to stop!
For details about why you should vote "no" on Prop S, visit my website. My name is Walter Moore, and I wrote the official ballot argument against Prop S. I'm also running for Mayor of L.A.
The website is: http://WalterMooreForMayor.com
From what I understand from reading both sides of this prop, we're basically deciding how much of the money we pay for cell service goes to the company we contract to and what portion of that goes to the city we live in. Seems to me that we're paying the same rate, but which portion goes to community services and what portion goes to our "provider." We can pad our cell-company's pockets or we can give back to the community we live in. Either way there isn't a reduction in our prices. We won't be paying any less, it's just a matter of where the money goes.
John,
You are 100% incorrect. The current 10% tax being levied by the City of Los Angeles has been declared unconstitutional by the courts. It is an invalid tax. Not only that, but the tax is levied only in land line and cell phone service. The new tax would be 9%, levied not only on land line and cell phone service, but on ALL ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, including DSL, VOIP, etc.
So you are talking about a new 9% tax on all electronic communications. None of the present tax, and none of the new tax goes to the "provider". I don't know if this is a "plant" post by the supporters of Proposition S, but if it is not, you should really study the Proposition and read about the fact that the present tax of 10%, besides being invalid, covers a lot less than the new tax would cover. There would be an additional tax on the people of Los Angeles in the incredible amount of $270,000,000 per year.
Gary,
I'm not a "plant," nor mineral, or vegetable. I am bigger than a breadbox. I ahve studied the proposition. What isn't addressed in the bill is where the "tax" comes from. Is it an addition to what we pay or is it deducted from businesses that provide the service? One could argue that any tax applied to a business would be passed along to the customer, but will that affect people with current contracts? Will we see that passed to us in future contracts?
This has been the hardest issue to decide on. It looks like the bill taxes the provider, but now I am reminded of all of these "surcharges" that are always attached to my phone bill. Despite what was agreed on my cellphone contract, there is always a surcharge tax that has a percentage attached to it. I support civic services, but I also reject the idea that in this modern age where "Long Distance" is a myth and surcharges go to unprecidented amounts that this measure is needed.
Umm.. Mr. Aminoff? Is this a first? Can someone's post on a BB actually cause someone to reexamine their position and admit that they were 100% wrong?
John,
Sorry I referred to you as possibly being a "plant". A lot of times opponents of positions will send someone in to post and try to discredit the position.
The tax is a tax on the user, not the provider. The provider who will add it to your bill and collect it for the City.
No, John. It isn't a first. Many times people get facts on these kind of boards that they don't get elsewhere and change positions. That is sort of the purpose of these boards. Anyway, re-examining your position shows an open mind. That is a good thing.