# Iowa Legislature propses Satellite Tax Bill



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

Figured it was only a matter of time with the Dems in control 

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS10/704120398/1001


----------



## heavyobjects (Mar 23, 2007)

This isn't a partisan problem. The problem is, when many career politicians see their budget coffers shrink, they quickly look for somewhere to replace it, regardless of appropriateness. 

Forget the fact that the franchise fee has no REASONABLE application to the satellite industry... It's much easier for them to slap a tax on something else (or raise it somewhere else - OR BOTH) than to "work" out a solution. Typical...


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

garn9173 said:


> Figured it was only a matter of time with the Dems in control
> 
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/NEWS10/704120398/1001


Idiot Republicans did it here in Ohio a long time ago along with taxing Electric, natural gas and a failed attempt to tax milk and bread...... I'm tired of inbred, uneducated hillbilly conservatives.......


----------



## jhillestad (Jan 13, 2007)

They (idiot democrats) did it here in Florida years ago. They needed to subsidize the cable tax loss.... 

The real question goes to being taxed without representation.

The sat signal comes from space 23,000 miles from space using no city or state poles or land to bring you the signal (hence cable tax) so if they are taxing you from a signal that uses no state resources whats in it for you ? If your signal goes down the state does not care... if a tree blocks your signal... they dont care....

So this is a bogus tax to fund things other than the quality of your service.

Probably state pension plans or some other useless thing that brings nothing to the quality of your life.

Sorta like your phone bill with that tax on it so other people can get internet for free (but not you of course)... maybe they are giving away dtv in the poor neighborhoods so they have more money for cigarettes and beer.


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

jhillestad said:


> The sat signal comes from space 23,000 miles from space using no city or state poles or land to bring you the signal (hence cable tax) so if they are taxing you from a signal that uses no state resources whats in it for you ? If your signal goes down the state does not care... if a tree blocks your signal... they dont care....


That's the same argument made in the "comments section" of the Des Moines Register article. Oh and get this, the tax would only apply in you lived in in a community with a cable franchise, so in other words if you lived on a farm or acreage, you would be exempt from the tax :eek2:


----------



## Ira Lacher (Apr 24, 2002)

The following is a copy of an email I sent to Rep. Geri Huser (D-Altoona, IA) after viewing this story. Any Iowan out there, please feel free to adapt it to your own words. Her email is:

[email protected]

(BTW, I have deleted my home phone and address; if anyone wants to contact me on this, please feel free to send me a private message.)

++++++++

Good morning, Rep. Huser.

Today's Register noted your involvement with House Study Bill 303, which would impose a 5 percent penalty on those Iowa families who have chosen an alternative to cable TV. Please allow me this opportunity to say a few words in opposition to the bill, which strangles Iowans' freedom of choice.

Municipalities charge a franchise fee on cable TV operators because those operators make use of city streets and other city-owned "rights of way" to string their land lines. Occasionally, this involves digging under the streets to bury cable.

However, satellite TV subscribers receive their TV signals over the air -- just as millions of non-cable TV and radio listeners have done for decades, and as millions of cell-phone users do today. Imagine the outcry if the General Assembly taxed every radio listener, cell-phone user and non-cable TV watcher!

Cable operators in Iowa consider themselves at a disadvantage against satellite TV because of the city-by-city franchise fee. Let's forget for a second that satellite subscribers choose that alternative over cable because in most communities, satellite delivers a clearer picture, updated technology and a greater choice in programming for a comparable -- or lower price.

Let's also forget for a moment that for hundreds of rural Iowans, satellite is the only option because cable operators refuse to extend their services into the country.

Instead let's accept the cable operators' claim: that they truly cannot compete because of the franchise fee. Why not instead sponsor in the House a concurrent version of Senate File 554, which would allow cable operators to apply for a statewide franchise instead of the crazy quilt of city-by-city franchises? That would eliminate what cable operators consider such an arduous expense that they are prevented from investing in new technology, such as fiber optics, and programming, such as Major League Baseball Extra Innings, that would make them more competitive with satellite providers.

The free marketplace -- not a penalty on Iowans' right to choose -- should determine whether TV watchers opt for cable or satellite.

I would be happy to discuss this with you. Please respond to this email or contact me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Ira Lacher


----------



## HD AV (Nov 22, 2006)

So this is a bogus tax to fund things other than the quality of your service.

Probably state pension plans or some other useless thing that brings nothing to the quality of your life.

I agree the 13% Fl tax is bogus, but I suggest you refrain from inflammatory statements based in ignorance. This tax does not fund our state pension plan. If you had put in 30 yrs. of service to the public at a lesser salary than the equivalent in the private sector, and depended on the state's retirement plan, you would be grateful to have a fiscally sound plan. Maybe you're not planning on retirement.


----------



## Proc (Jan 19, 2006)

I just read that the Michigan legislature has proposed a satellite TV tax as well.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Part of the idea of having a franchise is that you're assured of not having to deal with competition. Allowing satellite in kind of defeats that assurance.

Regulated monopolies are difficult to administer at best and with the current attempts at deregulation, it is getting very messy.


----------



## garn9173 (Apr 4, 2005)

harsh said:


> Part of the idea of having a franchise is that you're assured of not having to deal with competition. Allowing satellite in kind of defeats that assurance.
> 
> Regulated monopolies are difficult to administer at best and with the current attempts at deregulation, it is getting very messy.


There's another bill floating through the Iowa legislator that will allow state wide franchies allowing teleco's (Qwest, Verizon, etc.) to provide video service. Trust me when I say that Mediacom is in dire needs of competition.


----------



## Proc (Jan 19, 2006)

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704060315

Michigan legislature is proposing a satellite tax....


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

OTA and FTA satellite are not taxed (at least, not yet).


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It is a "loss of income" tax.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

jhillestad said:


> They (idiot democrats) did it here in Florida years ago. They needed to subsidize the cable tax loss....
> 
> The real question goes to being taxed without representation.
> 
> ...


Th Foeida legislature has had more republicans than Democrats for some time now. Here in VA we have two houses dominates by republicans and they passed a satellite tax this past year.

As for taxation without representation that is a strange claim in this context. It usually applies to situations where the payers of the tax have no representation and that is not the case with this tax.

You are right that the tax has nothing to do with the service it is based on. the same is true of the sales tax and in states with an income tax it applies there too.

NOne of us like the taxes but cursing the other party does little. Write your representatives and tell them you do not like it.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> It is a "loss of income" tax.


That pretty much sums it up. states are ina bit ofa squeeze and see residents jumping to satellite so they try to tax it.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

It's very simple, people who can afford satellite must be rich, and it's alright to tax the rich, isn't that what we've been told over and over?

There are those of us who remember the Alternative Minimum Tax debate, it was sold on the basis of being a "tax on the rich" bill also.....


----------



## jodavis (Jan 9, 2007)

This is why it is good to have a Mail Boxes Etc account. You can get a physical address in an area where these taxes dont apply. It works for cell phone and satelite and I suspect it will work for wireless internet soon.


----------

