LAist: LAist Guide to the Primary: Proposition S

poppy8sd

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:54:59 -0800

NO doubt AT ALL, YOU made Mayor VERY VERY happy with what you wrote. You Proved: HE succeeded --with his lies --but worse: not only did you fall for it, you posted drivel on it. YOU didn't understand it well enough to Explain why people oppose it. Proof? Tax NOW is: "0" --HOW is "9% tax" LESS than? YOU: didn't do your homework. --City: ILLEGALLY imposed AND collected a tax they FAILED to get permission from voters to Impose. CITY WAS SUED --and THEY LOST. But: They continued to collect it, since 2003. But thanks to dumbies, NOW: -free voice-over-internet calls WILL BE TAXED. -Texting: TAXED. -ALL NEW phone things: will be TAXED. --Land-lines --blackberry --ALL. Your land-line: disconnected? Reconnection AND security charges: 9% tax WILL BE SLAPPED ON that too. NOTHING in the fake Prop states: money WILL BE USED for police -fire -library -parks, etc. IT ACTUALLY says: money will go into the pot --for the Fraud Squad and the Chief wangler to suck on, deeply. Did YOU NOT read: Laura Chick's comments??? PEOPLE JUST VOTED TO --TO GET A TAX SLAPPED ON THEIR PHONE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE. --YOU Helped Chief Bratten AND MAYOR LIE. And Guess what, genius: the NEW tax --STARTS --count 'em --in TEN DAYS. Really nice. sheesh, thanks for Helping getting LA taxed, morron. THIS SITE: 100% PURE drivel waste of time.

iluvhatemail

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:45:06 -0800

fine then propose a "10% tax on telephone usage to support the public services" bill. I would gladly vote for that. I wont vote for a fake tax cut because i am sick of the city's attempt to mislead and confuse people. Most of us don't have a law degree. If their bill was so up front about spending the money from these taxes specifically on public services I would believe them, but there are so many loopholes and I just know a good chunk will end up going somewhere I don't support. What is the harm with adding "these funds will only go towards library, trash, and safety services" in it?

la_coco

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:59:04 -0800

I can't make a case for S any better than minthemiddle did. I will add my favorite LAPL librarian quoting Kurt Vonnegut: "The America I love still exists at the front desks of our public libraries."

minthemiddle

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 10:50:05 -0800

Well, I will be voting yes on Prop S. because I for one do not want to see the city's public services cut. They indeed will be dramatically slashed if Prop S does not pass. Say goodbye to your libraries and parks being open. Got trash? Bring it to the dump yourself... We have been taxed on our telecommunications for many, many years. Voting no on Prop S. isn't going to change this, we'll just end up creating an ugly situation. By Voting Yes, we're voting to maintain services that are vital to keep the city that we call home running smoothly and safely. I have read a lot about this Proposition and it is my understanding that ONLY THE SERVICES YOU PAY FOR ON CELL PHONES CAN BE TAXED, NOT THE TEXT MESSAGES THEMSELVES. Also, cell phone service use is already taxed under the current structure, so it's not new. It's confusing in this article's paragraph where it states that the proposition decreases the current tax on new media (including cell phones) from 10% to 9% but then it states that it updates the current structure to include "modern communications" like cell phones. Hmmmm. We all have to pay taxes to support the systems and services we enjoy and often take for granted. In a perfect world, the city could just provide for us, but we don't live in a perfect world. We have to pay actual dollars for our safety, our intellectual freedom (to keep libraries open), our water service, our trash pick-up, our fire service, our police service and places for children to go after school when they have nowhere to go. (Unless we'd like to host them all at our homes. Great!). The existence of these services make our world a better and safer place in which to live. The city of Los Angeles gets $270 million from this tax. By voting yes on Prop. S, we are basically saying that it's okay to keep this tax. Yes, there will be parties that benefit from this tax, but someone will always benefit more than another person from paying one thing or another. Businesses always have gotten breaks, but they likely otherwise could not remain open. And since most individuals aren't getting T1 lines into their homes, it will be businesses picking up the big money payments on this part of the tax. Last year, the City of Covina voted their city council out because they supported a similar proposition that they passed on as voters. Then, upon realizing that the city had no other way to come up with the money for public services, the new city council, which swore they wouldn't back that proposition, then had to impose it on its citizens to keep the city running. To address the above comments: 1. The tax that Prop S concerns is only 10%. I'm not sure what this 18.99% is all about. 2. Not to be flip, but it sounds like you're not sure about whether the language allows this or not, you just think it does. You can't "feel" between the lines. It's my understanding that legal language is loose for a reason. This is so a law or regulation can interpreted as situations change, and not always for the worst. 3. The city is desperate. We've all been there. They're trying to sell it. It's called politics. It actually will be a reduction at first, and then it will resume to 10%.

SoapBoxLA

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:51:05 -0800

Tsk, Tsk! It's a tax hike, pure and simple. Calling it anything else is simply deceptive! Strike One! Our budget dilemma is not one of $ but one of management. The City’s annual revenues climbed 27% between the 2004-05 and the 2006-07 budgets, to an all-time high of $6.7 billion per year. Strike Two! Los Angeles City Controller Laura Chick says "And we shouldn't think of asking taxpayers for more money until we get our house in order." Strike Three! p.s. In the spirit of Full Disclosure it should be noted that the new "Tax" does not apply to those involved in the gathering of "News" which explains the LAtimes and their cavalier endorsement of the new tax. Bloggers, get those media passes! (d) Exemptions. -snip- the tax imposed under this section shall not be imposed upon any Person for using Communications Services under the circumstances set forth below: 1. News services. No tax shall be imposed under this section, except with respect to local telephone service, on any payment received from any Person for services used in the collection of news for the public press,

iluvhatemail

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:46:56 -0800

I will be voting no for two main reasons. 1. California already has one of the highest cell phone taxes in the Country at 18.66% That is high enough 2. Even though there are Federal laws prohibiting the tax on internet use I personally feel the language could still possible contain a loophole we do not currently see Also why can't they just be clear and upfront about naming this thing. It is so misleading and only leads to more misleading propositions in the future.