# Communication service tax?



## flaguy (Apr 10, 2008)

Does anyone know what in the world the "communication service tax" is all about? It just showed up on my November bill. I've never seen it before. Any ideas? Thanks.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Its a tax in Florida... this may explain it for you [link].


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I forget for sure, but I think Maine has a similar tax. would not be surprised to see all states doing it at some time


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

Florida is exceptionally high at about 13%.


----------



## Guardian (Oct 30, 2009)

flaguy said:


> Does anyone know what in the world the "communication service tax" is all about? It just showed up on my November bill. I've never seen it before. Any ideas? Thanks.


Thats the satellite tax you always see on D* programming that they try to fight :box: other states from getting :kickbutt:


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

If the gov't can figure out how to tax you on something, they undoubtedly will.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Yep;

It's a satellite tax for sure, and one that is totally wrong as states have no real legitimate basis for taxing satellite services since they require no right of way access over public terrestrial facilities to deliver service.

But cash strapped states are desperate for revenue especially in this sagging economy and politicians are grasping out at practically anything they can get their nasty little hands on for funds.

I mean please, a "communications tax?" What the #@!*&% is that supposed to mean!


----------



## ZBM2 ZAR3 (Apr 1, 2008)

"I mean please, a "communications tax?" What the #@!*&% is that supposed to mean!"

It means just another avenue into citizens pockets.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

The cable companies wanted the tax as much as or more so than the govt. so they feel they are on a level playing field, but when it comes to offering the same channels, the cable companies are not interested in equality at all. How hypocritical and typical of them...


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Taxing satellite service is just wrong,many have no other choice and an antenna will never work in the far rural areas especially since the digital transition.

It's come to the point you can't watch TV without being squeezed for cash.:nono2:


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

If Directv had not screwed every merchant they dealt with they would now have a chance of establishing some sort of resistance to this tax.

There is even a constitutional right to freedom of speech..."Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or freedom of the press. . . " (from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.)

How is taxation not an abridgment of (satellite) speech?

But since they have chosen to conduct themselves as they have...and without breaking any laws.....let them call their own cab on this one!

Joe


----------



## meStevo (Jul 23, 2007)

Hmm? Taxes don't prevent freedom of speech. Sending and receiving a satellite signal is a service being provided to us by a company, hence the tax.


----------



## flaguy (Apr 10, 2008)

CCarncross said:


> The cable companies wanted the tax as much as or more so than the govt. so they feel they are on a level playing field, but when it comes to offering the same channels, the cable companies are not interested in equality at all. How hypocritical and typical of them...


Thanks for all of the info, folks. I still can't figure if this tax is monthly or annually. It was not on my October bill, but it is on my November bill.

As far as the cable companies, after checking it out I see that they have the communications tax in Florida as well as satellite, BUT, they have a lower rate than satellite.


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

meStevo said:


> Hmm? Taxes don't prevent freedom of speech. Sending and receiving a satellite signal is a service being provided to us by a company, hence the tax.


All true,

But every aspect of satellite service is taxed elsewhere. It becomes a double tax. And if you tax it enough the service will cease. Is there some tangible item not taxed elsewhere that is part of satellite service?

Joe


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

cariera said:


> Florida is exceptionally high at about 13%.


Here in CT the tax on my DirecTV bill is 11.7%. 

Mike


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

joe diamond said:


> All true,
> 
> But every aspect of satellite service is taxed elsewhere. It becomes a double tax. And if you tax it enough the service will cease. Is there some tangible item not taxed elsewhere that is part of satellite service?
> 
> Joe


But what exactly is the basis of such a tax (assuming there actually is a genuine one)?

That a state owns the earth's atmosphere above it and may thereby charge for right of passage for the satellite radio waves passing through from space to earth?

What nonsense ... :nono2:

But then again if it made sense it wouldn't be politics I guess ... :icon_lame


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

flaguy said:


> Thanks for all of the info, folks. I still can't figure if this tax is monthly or annually. It was not on my October bill, but it is on my November bill.
> 
> Sad to say its monthly...


----------



## MattWarner (Feb 11, 2007)

I liked this story from 2001 when California tried to tax DirecTV's satellites:



> From 2001:
> 
> NEW YORK - A California plan to levy property taxes on satellites orbiting in outer space has been shot down.
> 
> The far-out concept came up when the tax assessor for Los Angeles County, Calif. was doing a routine audit of Hughes Electronics, the $7 billion company that owns DirecTV, the country's largest satellite TV broadcaster. The eight satellites in question may be worth about $100 million each, but they happen to be situated 22,300 miles above the equator--far beyond California's earthly confines.


Repeat: old story, so you don't need to tell me that Hughes doesn't own DirecTV anymore.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

ZBM2 ZAR3 said:


> "I mean please, a "communications tax?" What the #@!*&% is that supposed to mean!"
> 
> It means just another avenue into citizens pockets.


And really who is communicating. Its a one way satellite communication. Sheesh. Thanks for posting this. I dont see my bill since its on autopay so nice to know what I was missing out on.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

On my bill, I have "Sales Tax" _and_ "TN Satellite Programming Sales Tax". 

If I'm not mistaken, it used to be called a "Satellite Luxury Tax" on my bill... or something to that effect.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Greg Alsobrook said:


> Only my bill, I have "Sales Tax" _and_ "TN Satellite Programming Sales Tax".
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, it used to be called a "Satellite Luxury Tax" on my bill... or something to that effect.


...because have cable is TV but satellite is a luxury

We used to dreeeeeam of having satellite TV. 

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

In NJ, DirecTV taxes only the $5 "lease" fee(s) and the protection plan. So it's 77cents/month for me. I'm sure that will change now that we have a new Gov. 

It all depends on the state. Florida is the worst.


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But what exactly is the basis of such a tax (assuming there actually is a genuine one)?
> 
> That a state owns the earth's atmosphere above it and may thereby charge for right of passage for the satellite radio waves passing through from space to earth?
> 
> ...


That is another way of stating the question,

Which elected officials think they can get away with it and why? Or why has Directv not found these politicians and addressed the issue under the table long before now.

It seems governments can tax users; use the roads and your fuel will be taxed to pay for them. Do things we don't like (mariajuana users) or do things that cause public damage (smokers & drinkers) and they will tax you. Your income will be taxed to redistribute wealth to help those unable or unwilling to earn their own and protect the place, etc.

This one seems outside what has already been taxed. The only obvious reason seems to be that politicians see money and want it.

What did I not state that explains this?

Joe


----------



## dorfd1 (Jul 16, 2008)

RACJ2 said:


> Its a tax in Florida... this may explain it for you [link].


How come the internet isn't listed? That is communication, voip and the magic jack use it.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> In NJ, DirecTV taxes only the $5 "lease" fee(s) and the protection plan. So it's 77cents/month for me. I'm sure that will change now that we have a new Gov.
> 
> It all depends on the state. Florida is the worst.


77¢/month :eek2:

I guess I need to move back to Elizabeth. 

Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

LOL ..... you might want to reconsider that since NJ has the highest overall total taxes in the USA. You'll make up for the DirecTV sales tax savings real quick. 



MicroBeta said:


> 77¢/month :eek2:
> 
> I guess I need to move back to Elizabeth.
> 
> Mike


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Rest assured it's monthly.


flaguy said:


> Thanks for all of the info, folks. I still can't figure if this tax is monthly or annually. It was not on my October bill, but it is on my November bill.
> 
> As far as the cable companies, after checking it out I see that they have the communications tax in Florida as well as satellite, BUT, they have a lower rate than satellite.


----------



## Villager (Feb 8, 2007)

Florida Tax

We've had this relatively high tax, roughly double the regular sales tax, for a number of years now. It was passed at the "request" of the cable companies to try to make the cost of using satellite services to be at least as much if not more than cable TV services. The argument was that since satellite companies had no local presence and therefore paid no local ad valorem taxes, nor sales taxes nor franchise fees, the satellite companies had an unfair advantage (and government was losing out of several revenue streams).


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

MattWarner said:


> I liked this story from 2001 when California tried to tax DirecTV's satellites:
> 
> Repeat: old story, so you don't need to tell me that Hughes doesn't own DirecTV anymore.


I like the quip about the satellite catching fire myself.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> LOL ..... you might want to reconsider that since NJ has the highest overall total taxes in the USA. You'll make up for the DirecTV sales tax savings real quick.


In that case I'll stay where I am. 

Mike


----------



## joe diamond (Feb 28, 2007)

Villager said:


> Florida Tax
> 
> We've had this relatively high tax, roughly double the regular sales tax, for a number of years now. It was passed at the "request" of the cable companies to try to make the cost of using satellite services to be at least as much if not more than cable TV services. The argument was that since satellite companies had no local presence and therefore paid no local ad valorem taxes, nor sales taxes nor franchise fees, the satellite companies had an unfair advantage (and government was losing out of several revenue streams).


That is how it is supposed to work.......equal opportunity, that is. You find a better way and exploit it. Keep the money from the investment as a profit. How about raising the tax to compensate the satellite companies for their satellite fleet costs? Rockets ain't cheap ya know.

The term "unfair advantage" deserves more examination.

Joe


----------

