|
Bronze Member Username: Socrates2k1Post Number: 15 Registered: May-06 | I purchased my first satellite dish back in 1988, the cost $5000.00, why, because the salesman sold me on the fact that I could watch anything I wanted. Any sports team, any game, how much would that cost to go to in person and buy tickets, etc. Any movie, any time, anything out there on a satellite I would get for FREE, simply by purchasing this satellite dish, afterall the signals were not scrambled and they were out there for FREE. Well, we all know what happened, soon after all channels began scrambling their signals, therefore rendering these satellite receivers useless. Now, the salesman failed to tell you this was coming. So, yea, I still believe all satellite signals should be Free To Air, if I purchase a receiver that can receive that signal, then so be it. Think about it, they have already begun to do this to radio, they now have satellite radio, and people are paying for something they once could get FREE. I wonder how long the AM and FM radio stations will be able to compete? Something to think about . . . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Kick_outPost Number: 31 Registered: Jun-06 | People want everything for free.... Someone wants all your money. That is evolution of society. Remember that you are paying for water now. 10 years from now, you could be paying for air to breath. Charles Darwin's theory "only strong species will survive". Stupid isn't it????.... |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 4120 Registered: Jan-06 | In Korea, all people pay an "air" tax if U have any radio or TV rabbit ears or roof antenna etc...and thats been going on since at least 1969.. |
|
New member Username: Vyizder_zomenimorPost Number: 3 Registered: Aug-06 | I'm waiting for laptops to show up at the dollar store. |
|
Silver Member Username: Minn_rockPost Number: 142 Registered: Aug-06 | LOL..THAT GONA HAPPEN..NOT.. |
|
Silver Member Username: Herb_tokerPOTTSVILLE, GRASSLANDS GREEN--LAND Post Number: 178 Registered: Aug-06 | It was on 60 minutes a while back how they were arresting people mostly poor stay at home moms that hadnt paid there tv taxes.They have equipment that can see the tv is on in your home through the walls. They drive around in vans specialy equiped for that purpose.They walk through apartment complexes scanning room to room.Ppl tried wrappin foil around there sets and set antennas up inside.Tv taxes in europe pay for the programs they make.Thats why the programing sucks.The tax money must be spent and they spend it on anything they chose not what the ppl would like to see. Where i live they charge a death tax.They tax the cost of the funeral. |
|
Silver Member Username: Herb_tokerPOTTSVILLE, GRASSLANDS GREEN--LAND Post Number: 179 Registered: Aug-06 | C/P Europe's Television Taxes Can't Survive Internet: Matthew Lynn By Matthew Lynn July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Browsing for a snazzy, new personal computer that allows you to watch and record television shows? Or how about a top-of-the-range mobile phone you can plug into broadband networks? Then watch out. In much of Europe, you might be about to commit a criminal offence. In countries such as Germany, the U.K. and Sweden, governments are imposing taxes on the most up-to-date computers and cellular phones. Even by the standards of overregulated, overtaxed Europe, that is crazy. The most elementary economics course teaches that if you tax something, you reduce the demand for it. Either Europe turns itself into a technological backwater, or else the TV taxes will have to be abolished. Many European countries have TV licensing, set up when broadcasting was invented. Anyone who owns a television set has to pay a set amount -- in effect a tax -- that is used to fund a national broadcaster. The sums involved can be substantial. In Germany, TV licenses raise more than $7 billion a year to fund channels such as ZDF and ARD. In Britain, each household with a color TV has to pay 131.50 pounds annually. The fees bring in about 3 billion pounds ($5.6 billion), which goes straight to the British Broadcasting Corp. Few private companies have that kind of money, so the national broadcasters are powerful right across the region. The trouble is, television is changing quickly. The licensing systems have been around since the days when the TV was a big, clunky box in the corner, with three or four channels available. It was easy for governments to track who had one -- and there wasn't anything you could watch apart from the mainstream national channels. Tax on Technology Now TV is everywhere. Any medium-strength computer costing 1,000 euros ($1,270) has the capability to watch TV on it. Likewise, a high-end mobile phone can plug into a fast Internet connection and receive broadcasts as well. It may not be long before our MP3 players or portable game consoles are receiving broadcasts too. So what's the response from governments? To impose taxes on the new technologies as well as the old. ``If you are watching TV on a computer, then you have to buy a license,'' Elizabeth Jay, a spokeswoman for the U.K.'s TV Licensing in London, said in a telephone interview. ``The same if you are watching on a mobile. People have been prosecuted for that, although of course the vast majority of people already have a license.'' Indeed, during the soccer World Cup last month, British companies were warned that they would be fined if their employees watched games on their desktop computers without a license. German Licenses In Germany, the authorities are insisting that anyone who owns a TV-compatible computer or a mobile will have to pay a license fee, currently about 17 euros a month. As in the U.K., most individuals already pay a levy, but most companies don't. Now they'll have to do so. In Sweden, Parliament recently changed the law to allow TV license fees of more than $275 a year to be imposed on computers, though it is leaving the definition of a TV receiver up to the courts to decide, according to United Press International. If European countries are going to tax the ownership of computers and high-technology mobile phones, they will cripple themselves. After all, governments impose high taxes on, for example, petrol and cigarettes because they claim they are trying to prevent us from destroying the environment or our health. The same logic must apply to computers and mobiles. By taxing them, you will only discourage their use. Even worse, since most individuals already own licenses, the taxes will fall heaviest on businesses. And since they are flat-rate levies, it will be the smaller companies that suffer the most. 3 Billion Pounds Discouraging companies from owning advanced computers? What kind of industrial policy is that? One that is intent on taking you back to the steam age presumably. There is a better way. You can't hope to hold the line against technology. Computing is changing broadcasting fundamentally. Not only can you watch broadcasts on a range of different devices. You can also watch programs from just about anywhere. To take the U.K. example, why should British taxpayers be paying 3 billion pounds a year to create Web sites, radio and television that can now be enjoyed by anyone in the world? TV taxes look about as sensible as the levies the U.K. government used to impose on windows in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not surprisingly, the British responded by bricking up their windows. Now people may respond by getting rid of some high-tech devices. What good will that do? No-Win Situation There is a case to be made for national broadcasters. They can provide quality programs at a time when the market is flooded with commercial pap. There is no case, however, for attempting to tax new technologies. If you want a national broadcaster, you should pay for it out of general tax revenue. Anything else is just fighting against the tide of history. You won't win -- and you only damage yourself by trying. (Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.) To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at matthewlynn@bloomberg.net . Last Updated: July 30, 2006 19:09 EDT |
|
Bronze Member Username: MickmPost Number: 51 Registered: Jul-06 | I have a friend who lived in germany, after finishing high school, she got a job and on her 1st paycheck she was taxed 10% for religion, seems that if you attend church, the church has the right to tax you. Here in AZ. it's illegal to charge for water, so they charge you to deliver/pump the water, and they tax that. but at least in AZ. we don't pay tax on food items. just remember everytime you vote yes, your voting to raise your taxes. next time you say "there ought to be a law..." your saying raise my taxes. whenever you hear a politician say education for the kids, in essence he's saying i'm going to raise your taxes. and when you gasp in disgust about janet's nipp1e, you saying raise my taxes. P.S. i can't believe nipp1e is not allowed. |
|
Gold Member Username: LklivesPost Number: 4122 Registered: Jan-06 | Her nippl*e was ok ...but NOT during Superbowl...biggest family sports show of the year!...we do need to maintain some family issues and morals..her titti*es have nothing to do with taxes! |
|
Bronze Member Username: MickmPost Number: 52 Registered: Jul-06 | her nipp1e has everything to do with taxes, where do you think the fcc gets it's money from? it's all the prudes in the world who think it's thier way or it's a sin and we need a law to correct it. teets are not obscene, if they were then why did your mom force one in your mouth for 1st year of your life? morals cost big bucks how many women were raped because janet flopped out a little skin? football is a violent sport, you can't tell me violence is ok, but a centimeter of skin will currupt you family. guess i'm getting off the track a bit. sermon over. lets tax the pot smokers ( big_fat) |
|
Silver Member Username: Herb_tokerPOTTSVILLE, GRASSLANDS GREEN--LAND Post Number: 181 Registered: Aug-06 | They already tax hemp.In fact when a person is arrested for posession they can be fined for not paying there hemp taxes in many states.Its an extra they can use against those otherwise that cant be charged.The fact is most tokers would gladly pay taxes like on alcohol.Read up at NORML and fight the cause.Or at least help support the otherwise law abideing tax paying citizen. |
|
Bronze Member Username: MickmPost Number: 53 Registered: Jul-06 | gee big_fat i thought you would get a real chuckle out of "tax the pot smokers" AZ. is one of the states that requires you to buy a tax stamp for your hemp. even though it's illegal. go figure. |