Federal Performance Radio Tax

[jackson33]

Federal "Performance Radio Tax"...what's next.

 

 

I realize, this may not pass, is no big deal, if enacted would mean maybe 3-5 B$ coming from 50 States and probably would give a little (half the revenue) to artist, song writers etc, which in turn would pay additional taxes, but my question is where is this going to stop. The bills are listed in the article, which I did read, seeing loop holes for further taxing of 'Terrestrial Radio', assume leaving out Satellite Radio.

 

 

 

For more than 80 years, radio and the recording industry have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship: free play for free promotion. And it works. It’s a relationship that has sustained businesses on both sides.

In fact, radio’s free promotion of artists translates to as much as $2.4 billion annually in music sales for record labels and artists. And this doesn't’t even include the enormous revenues they receive from concerts and merchandising.[/Quote]

 

http://tipthepizzaguy.com/discussion/thread.php?num=16883&ip=1

 

Another related article, gives a list of taxes that didn't exist 100 years ago and the list leaves out a good many State Taxes, which are different in each State...

 

<< The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CDL license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Gross Receipts Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Personal Property Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service Charge T ax

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax

Sales Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice FeeTax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax

Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

 

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'

And I still have to 'press 1' for English!? [/Quote]

 

http://tipthepizzaguy.com/discussion/thread.php?num=16883&ip=1

 

What's next?

 

 

 

bascule, we have discussed Glenn Beck on another thread and one of his primary complaints/topics in recent months has been the Progressive Movement(s), from the turn to the 20th Century. This has come from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Taxation is very much a politically progressive idea.

 

 

Disturbed by the politics of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming the country. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

A progressive tax taxes differentially according to how much has been earned. For example, the first $10,000 in earnings may be taxed at 5%, the next $10,000 at 10%, and any more income at 20%. [/Quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

[Pangloss]

Well you're welcome to fear this, but I don't see much point to worrying about slippery slopes when we've had taxation for almost 150 years and the slope hasn't given way. Each new tax is debated and deliberated on its own merits, and always has been. Certainly not every tax makes sense to me, but that's a democracy for you. You win some, you lose some. (shrug)

 

As to a radio tax specifically, I can't really work up any great concern here. There's no great precedent here to be terrified of, and I think most broadcast radio is a bad joke anyway, both in terms of content and in terms of quality. Since even heavily downsampled MP3s maintain the full dynamic range of the original, broadcast will never match local data -- there's just too much pressure to rob dynamic range in order to compress the channel even further and thus add more content streams. Yay, 150 channels of pure drek! Amazing! Wow, I'll buy that new car right now!!!! (And don't even get me started on the garbage that passes for "high definition television". With the one and only exception of Lost, which is almost over, I don't even want to hear about a television program until it comes out on DVD and I can put it in my Netflix queue. I'm just fed up with all broadcasters, cable, satellite, local, all of them.)

 

I'm afraid I'm not going to lose any sleep over an "attack" on the broadcast industry. That's an industry badly in need of being stomped on, and hard. Although I guess the world already has too many hairdressers and telephone sanitizers, so the unemployment rate might go up. Oh well, maybe they can try garbage collection. Now that's an amusing image -- perfectly dressed and coifed news talkers picking up my weekly cans. Sweeeeet.

 

None of that's aimed at you, btw -- I don't mean to suggest that you're defending the broadcast industry, and I'm afraid you happened to catch one of my pet peeves. Also I think you and I would agree that the problem isn't taxation, but rather spending. I think most of this forum disagrees with us (chuckle), but hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Pangloss

[Phi for All]

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

100 years ago, we were a nation that didn't have many cars, telephones, schools or restaurants, our wildlife was more abundant and not over-hunted, we had no interstate highways, many fewer state highways, no workman's or unemployment compensation, fewer corporations and fewer citizens, to name a fraction of the differences. 200 years ago we had far fewer taxes than we did 100 years ago, so it's really not a very good argument, despite it's punchy emotional plea. We have many more helpful projects bought with the taxes, that's the other side of the equation.

 

And you have to define "prosperous" for it to have any meaning. Is it strictly economic, or does it include other factors like overall health, military might, resources, etc.?

 

Also I think you and I would agree that the problem isn't taxation, but rather spending. I think most of this forum disagrees with us (chuckle), but hey, that's what makes life interesting.

I don't disagree that the problem is spending. In fact, most people would probably agree that spending has always been the problem, they just don't agree on the particulars of where it's spent badly.

 

I agree that a tax on broadcasters probably isn't going to harm much, except an industry that is headed down the tubes anyway. Aside from a bit of nostalgia, and a pang of sympathy for those who can't afford much besides the free airwaves, I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. I'm more concerned with the billions unaccounted for in defense, the billions spent on pork barrel projects, the billions granted in subsidies for well-established industries, the billions spent on corporate welfare, the billions spent on helping those poor health insurance companies....

[swansont]

"free play for free promotion" isn't how it works, though I can't find that quote in the link you provided. Radio stations pay royalties to the artists.

 

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm

http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/royalties.html

 

I also can't find any mention of a tax in the house or senate version of the bill

[bob000555]

How conservatives like Jackson can get away with complaining about the budget not being balanced while at the same time rejecting every attempt to raise taxes to pay for programs THEY advocated or cut any significant spending is beyond me. They come up with ridiculous proposals like scraping the National Endowment for the Arts to save paltry 200 million dollars and call it fiscal conservatism while demonizing anyone who opposes a 727.3 billion dollar program like Medicare part D. They call democrats irresponsible for leaving tort reform that could save 1-3 billion but they have no problem with preventing Medicare part D from negotiating drug prices even though this could save hundreds of billions of dollars. They call it good fiscal policy to cut taxes in the middle of a war that costs almost three quarters of a billion dollars a day not to mention the war in Afghanistan. They protest cutting f-22 raptor when everyone from the Comptroller General to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says that it is a waste of money.

 

They have perpetuated a myth that taxes in the United States are higher then the rest of the world, even going so far as to claim that we “Have the highest taxes in the world,” when the charts below clearly show that personal income taxes in the United States are on the low end for Western Democracies. They make ridiculous claims about capital gains taxes being oppressively high when they are some of the lowest in the developed world.

 

 

In short the narrative of the overtaxed American is simply a lie. There are people in this country who want to take the easy way out: low taxes and high spending. They demonize those who want to take responsible actions of rising taxes to pay for programs and cutting defense spending. They know that they can placate the masses of voters who understand nothing but their own wallets, nothing but their own tax rate and nothing of long term disaster. They thing they can deceive the American public into thinking that things will all be ok if the rich don’t pay their part. They engage in Orwellian double speak, calling themselves fiscal conservatives while destroying surpluses with low taxes and high spending.

 

In short, Jackson, you are an insult to true fiscal conservatism.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bob000555

[Pangloss]

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.

100 years ago, we were a nation that didn't have many cars, telephones, schools or restaurants, our wildlife was more abundant and not over-hunted, we had no interstate highways, many fewer state highways, no workman's or unemployment compensation, fewer corporations and fewer citizens, to name a fraction of the differences. 200 years ago we had far fewer taxes than we did 100 years ago, so it's really not a very good argument, despite it's punchy emotional plea. We have many more helpful projects bought with the taxes, that's the other side of the equation.

 

That's a great point there. This is why I never go along with the anarchists-posing-as-libertarians crowd.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How conservatives like Jackson can get away with complaining about the budget not being balanced while at the same time rejecting every attempt to raise taxes to pay for programs THEY advocated or cut any significant spending is beyond me. They come up with ridiculous proposals like scraping the National Endowment for the Arts to save paltry 200 million dollars and call it fiscal conservatism while demonizing anyone who opposes a 727.3 billion dollar program like Medicare part D. They

 

<snip>

 

In short, Jackson, you are an insult to true fiscal conservatism.

 

Bob, this is over the line and inappropriate. Please refrain from putting words directly in people's mouths, or using personal ad hominems like the above. It's unfair and not in the spirit of SFN posting policies. Thanks.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Also I think you and I would agree that the problem isn't taxation, but rather spending. I think most of this forum disagrees with us (chuckle), but hey, that's what makes life interesting.

 

Actually, I was just thinking about starting a thread about that. Reduced taxes are supposed to go with reduced spending, but only one of these two is popular. It might even benefit them politically to increase the deficit, since they can then complain about how much Dems are spending.

[jackson33]

Briefly; The modern day Federal Income Tax was adopted in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. Originally the tax was 1% of incomes above 3,000 to 500k$, a surtax of 6% on incomes above 500k$, no deductions. I seriously doubt many that actually paid taxes, did much complaining. Brackets, rates and allowed deductions have changed over the years for assorted reasons, but never again was it to go back to those original figures.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

 

Briefly the first Social Security tax (payroll taxes) were set at 2% of wages up to 3,000, or 60.00 per year, maximum. Today that is 15.3% (for self employed or from both employee-employer) up to a little over 100,000 for SS, (12.4%) and on ALL income above at 2.9%, or 15,300$ and it's going broke.

 

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

 

I could go through the list offered on each tax, that has been imposed primarily in the 20th Century, that was imposed, with promises of short periods of time or no increases will be needed and have NOT been terminated or have not gone up, including adjustment for inflation.

 

Pangloss; My concern, though retired years ago, is the incremental taxes that are being imposed indirectly on the US Consumer, then the viability of the business they are being collected from. Most, of course can alter their programming, going talk/informational or play certain music not covered or simply pay the cost, passing on to their advertisers those cost. Some Stations, either the independents, not too many left, or those affiliated with group ownership, will be dropped or go out of business. For a price, people can just go satellite or use their computer. Agree, this is no big deal, in and by itself....

 

bob; Fiscal Conservatives and Constitutional Conservatives, play with the same deck of cards. The Federal should be limited to the design of our Constitution, simple. Most programs, the Federal Plays around with, for what ever purpose (votes/authority) are or never been part of a Federal Government over the various States. As for balancing the budget, as Pangloss suggest, CUT SPENDING.

 

The National Endowment for the Arts, is no different than the American Bowling Congress, for the interest of interested parties and should be sustained for and by those interested, IMO.

 

By the way, I find you a mild mannered gentleman, compared to iNow or bascule, who I'd rather debate with, if I want honest PERSONAL opinions...

 

 

Phil; Agree we have grown as a Nation, suggest the private sector and Capitalism the actual engine, not the Government. Now if you want to measure the growth in population and products, why should there have been a need to increase per capita, any tax, other than to keep up with inflation.

[bascule]

I can't say I really care. Radio as a medium for music distribution was destroyed after deregulation allowed the majority of the stations in the country to fall into the hands of a few companies (ClearChannel, Entercom, Cumulus), ClearChannel being the worst offender. Good DJs were sacked and replaced with cheaper ones. Formats were changed to maximize advertising revenue. Playlists were preselected. And everyone stopped listening to the radio...

 

The only major innovation in recent radio history has been the "Jack" format, automated stations that effectively put the entire station's library on random shuffle. In other words, they change the station's playlist to act like an iPod on shuffle. At that point, why not just listen to an iPod?

Edited February 18, 2010 by bascule

[swansont]

Does the money from this proposal go to the government?

 

No.

 

Therefore, it's not a tax.

 

 

It's an assessment of royalties on behalf of the performers. Is it a good business practice? Probably not. This will probably reduce the advertising they get when radio stations play the songs. And if people aren't aware of your music they won't buy it and they won't go to your concert. It will probably not have the intended effect of increasing compensation to the performers, but because the music industry is dysfunctional and suffer from cranio-rectal inversion syndrome, they can't see this. Argue these points, pro or con, if you want.

 

But don't call it a tax. That's just intellectual dishonesty.

[bob000555]

Jackson:

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+fiscal+conservative

 

Fiscal conservative - one who favors a balanced budget, preferring spending cuts or tax increases to barrowing. Fiscal conservatives often consider deficit and national debt reduction as well as balancing the federal budget to be of paramount importance.

 

Here is a chart of federal spending:

And revenue:

 

Raising taxes is going to have to be part of any realistic plan to balance the budget. Even if you cut the entire category marked “other discretionary spending” there would still be a deficit of almost a trillion dollars and that would mean cutting vital services down to nothing. Cutting defense spending significantly while managing healthcare costs to cut Medicare and Medicade would be a start but even then we would have to increase corporate tax rates and take significant steps towards enforcement to have any chance of keeping the budget balanced.

 

When you look at the impending pile-up of entitlements and interest you see that balancing the budget by cutting discretionary spending is absolutely ridiculous.

As you can see from this chart the problem is not merely demographic, cost is the problem. Incentives are out of line: those making the choices of what health care to get( retirees in this case) have every incentive to get the most expensive care and pass the bill on to Medicare or private insurance. The only solution is for the government to step in and curb the acceleration of health costs; any other policy WILL eventually lead to the bankruptcy of the Federal Government.

As for you allusion to constitutional conservativism: this is one of the most bastardized terms in the American lexicon. It does not mean using a pedestrian knowledge of legal history to point out that at one time the government did not provide the services that it does today, nor does it mean reflexively calling every new piece of Federal spending a violation of the Tenth Amendment. It does not mean worshiping the Second Amendment while ignoring the First and advocating for stricter censorship. It does mean respecting all parts of the constitution, wheatear they are convenient to your narrative or not, including the elastic clause and the Sixteenth Amendment. If you feel some of the programs they justify are unjust that is a perfectly legitimate argument but simply saying that the fact that the program is, in your opinion, a waste of money does not make it a states’ rights issue. True constitutional scholarship involves carefully placing the program on the spectrum between authorized by the elastic clause and forbidden by the tenth amendment with out being biased towards one side by politics.

Edited February 18, 2010 by bob000555

[Mr Skeptic]

Does the money from this proposal go to the government?

 

No.

 

Therefore, it's not a tax.

...

But don't call it a tax. That's just intellectual dishonesty.

 

Ha! It's a tax and a subsidy. Double plus evilness! The evil government is trying to do evil wealth redistribution from the people who use something to the people who made it. Triple evilness!

[jackson33]

bob, one size won't fit all people; Constitutional and'/or Fiscal Conservatives also believe in small government or as prescribed by the Constitution, the definition you chose not to show;

 

One who favors a balanced budget, preferring spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market ...[/Quote]

 

We're long past the point where borrowing money, or printing are NOT viable options and short of Nationalizing certain programs or increasing GDP, it turn tax revenues, will never be. As GDP grew from 1984 or so and at the rate it did, there should have been no deficit spending, by Congress.

 

As you can see from this chart the problem is not merely demographic, cost is the problem. Incentives are out of line: those making the choices of what health care to get( retirees in this case) have every incentive to get the most expensive care and pass the bill on to Medicare or private insurance. The only solution is for the government to step in and curb the acceleration of health costs; any other policy WILL eventually lead to the bankruptcy of the Federal Government. [/Quote]

 

Do you understand, what's driving up insurance cost;

 

In recent years, the number of mandated benefit laws, or laws that place requirements on the content of private health benefit plan contracts, have increased significantly. Most of these laws have been enacted at the state-level of government, although the federal government has also placed mandated benefit requirements on health plans. Mandate laws range from statutes that require health plans to cover services by particular types of providers (e.g., chiropractors, optometrists), requirements to cover specific diagnostic or treatment services (e.g., mammography, inpatient hospital care following delivery) or laws to extend benefits to certain populations (e.g., continuation coverage of employees or dependents). While individual mandates are often very popular since they are intended to provide specific populations with greater access to particular services, there is a cumulative price tag associated with ensuring such access. The sheer volume of mandated benefit laws being passed in the states has caused health insurance premiums to rise substantially. As a result, reducing the number mandated benefit laws or examining the cost-impact of mandates is being discussed in many jurisdictions. [/Quote]

 

http://www.nahu.org/Legislative/mandated/index.cfm

 

Today, can't find a source yet, but I understand proposed mandates for Medicare or Medicaid patients, will now increase that cost 14% this year.

 

As for HC cost, I don't know any other way to say it....get Government out of the business, regulation and/or responsible for payment. Privatize, give it to the States or just drop it, I really don't care, or no person or Company will be able to make premiums or the tax burden.

 

As for counting on GDP increasing (again your tax base) that possibility essentially ceased in 2009 and will be cemented with the proposed 2011 budget, no chance for that much growth.

 

As for you allusion to constitutional conservativism: this is one of the most bastardized terms in the American lexicon. It does not mean using a pedestrian knowledge of legal history to point out that at one time the government did not provide the services that it does today, nor does it mean reflexively calling every new piece of Federal spending a violation of the Tenth Amendment. It does not mean worshiping the Second Amendment while ignoring the First and advocating for stricter censorship. It does mean respecting all parts of the constitution, wheatear they are convenient to your narrative or not, including the elastic clause and the Sixteenth Amendment. If you feel some of the programs they justify are unjust that is a perfectly legitimate argument but simply saying that the fact that the program is, in your opinion, a waste of money does not make it a states’ rights issue. True constitutional scholarship involves carefully placing the program on the spectrum between authorized by the elastic clause and forbidden by the tenth amendment with out being biased towards one side by politics. [/Quote]

 

I would rather enjoy a another discussion on the Constitutionality of Government intrusion into State and individuals rights, but don't try and excuse my opinions as secondary to your "True constitutional scholars", which are NO LESS, opinions. While those in charge today would go along with an interpretation, I simply will not.

 

On another thread, asking I reply here and have obliged you, mentioned "winning an argument". Even addressing SCOTUS, opposing attorneys and the judges, using the same material, will disagree on the final conclusion. This in itself does not make right wrong or wrong right, rather a stalemate until and if a better argument can be made. IMO, so long as Congress refuses to properly handle these issues (amendments) growth of the US Federal Government will continue, to the point States will be subservient to the Federal, out of pure dependency, never even imagined by the founders...

 

I can't say I really care. Radio as a medium for music distribution was destroyed after deregulation allowed the majority of the stations in the country to fall into the hands of a few companies (Clear Channel, Entercom, Cumulus), ClearChannel being the worst offender. [/Quote]

 

 

bascule; I believe this bill is directed at those giants in the business, which will break off any questionably profitable stations. I also feel the bill could be used to include non-musical, as they call it in the bill "programming permits", of course meaning talk shows. There could be a lot of loose tax out there, for Limbaugh/Hannity and other programs that are on 500/600 Stations and generate most the income for AM Radio. My little station down here in SE NM, is pretty worked up about it and believe is syndicated. There FM Station all Country...think covered by the bill...

[bascule]

I also feel the bill could be used to include non-musical, as they call it in the bill "programming permits", of course meaning talk shows. There could be a lot of loose tax out there, for Limbaugh/Hannity and other programs that are on 500/600 Stations and generate most the income for AM Radio.

 

What?

 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h4789/show

 

No. This is not some slippery slope into the death of talk radio. It affects performances of recorded music, not live talk radio.

[swansont]

And it's not a tax.

[Phi for All]

Phil; Agree we have grown as a Nation, suggest the private sector and Capitalism the actual engine, not the Government. Now if you want to measure the growth in population and products, why should there have been a need to increase per capita, any tax, other than to keep up with inflation.

I think the government is best suited for certain undertakings, especially where private sector profit motives might interfere with the objectives. Healthcare is a great example; I would rather pay money into a government program designed to pay for my medical treatment than to a private insurance company whose profits suffer if I use those funds for my medical treatment.

 

Some things, like roads, libraries and parks, we all benefit from either directly or indirectly, and we should be happy to pay for these things in the form of taxes. We should not be happy to pay for subsidizing private industries and corporations with our tax monies whose products we may not even use. You may be lactose intolerant, but in the US a part of your income taxes subsidize dairy farmers. You may like free market capitalism, but subsidies like this unfairly imbalance trade and drive up costs in addition to what we're taxed. This isn't the fault of our system of government, it's the fault of citizens who aren't using their representatives in that government. The corporations, PACs and lobbyists are using the representatives and we are not.

 

These bills and resolutions on radio performance aren't really taxes, as swansont has tried to point out. They may still be bad for all in the long run since they may affect us all, including those who aren't listening to the radio. I see this as another lobby who wants their government to pass a law that makes them more money.

[Pangloss]

I think the government is best suited for certain undertakings, especially where private sector profit motives might interfere with the objectives. Healthcare is a great example; I would rather pay money into a government program designed to pay for my medical treatment than to a private insurance company whose profits suffer if I use those funds for my medical treatment.

 

Yes, IMO that works up to a point -- the purpose of government intervention is generally not efficiency but rather to have an objective third party intercede. Unfortunately since cost is a factor the efficiency issue does have to be addressed. Whether we pay for it in a big fat hospital bill that we cannot afford, or a big fat deficit that we cannot afford, ultimately has the same effect.

 

In my opinion the question of whether public health care is the best option remains undecided, but cannot be easily dismissed along generalized ideological lines (e.g. "socialism is wrong!!!11one"). Ultimately it seems to be a struggle to find the right balance of public intervention (for fairness) and private manipulation (for efficiency). The trick will be finding the right balance, and it may simply be a problem that will not be solved in our lifetimes.

[Phi for All]

Yes, IMO that works up to a point -- the purpose of government intervention is generally not efficiency but rather to have an objective third party intercede. Unfortunately since cost is a factor the efficiency issue does have to be addressed. Whether we pay for it in a big fat hospital bill that we cannot afford, or a big fat deficit that we cannot afford, ultimately has the same effect.

 

In my opinion the question of whether public health care is the best option remains undecided, but cannot be easily dismissed along generalized ideological lines (e.g. "socialism is wrong!!!11one"). Ultimately it seems to be a struggle to find the right balance of public intervention (for fairness) and private manipulation (for efficiency). The trick will be finding the right balance, and it may simply be a problem that will not be solved in our lifetimes.

I'm not convinced that government != efficiency, I just think it ends up being manipulated that way. Mechanisms that keep a private business changing in response to market pressures surely could be applied to government programs, but they often aren't. There almost seems to be a desire to keep the programs from changing to make it easier to figure out how to scam them.

 

Putting the power to update the programs in the hands of those who might profit from letting them stagnate is where a lot of government inefficiency exists, imo. Maybe we need another cabinet position, like the Secretary of Integrity, someone to keep Congress from corrupting their own work. Unfortunately, that office would probably attract the most scumbags.

[jackson33]

No. This is not some slippery slope into the death of talk radio. It affects performances of recorded music, not live talk radio.[/Quote]

 

bascule; Starting off post #8, this thread, I offered the original bill for our modern day Taxing system and the current SS System. Neither of these resemble the original intent and have grown, along with the list of Taxes and yes other FEE's. Social Security for instance, now includes both Medicare/Medicaid and every other Health Benefit available, there are many. It would be well worth your while to review this pdf, but have brought up the 1965 Amendment to the 1936 SS Bill, noting that Providing (Medicaid) was never intended for anyone (all self paid) in the SS Bill. There have been hundreds of changes, to date nothing that may reduce cost, except increasing the ages for eligibility. Talk about a "SLIPPERY SLOPE"...

 

1965 Amendments

 

The 1965 amendments established under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act two related health insurance programs for persons aged 65 and over. Hospital Insurance (HI), or Part A of Medicare, provided basic protection against the costs of hospital and related care, and Supplementary Medical Insurance, or Part B, provided coverage for physicians’ services and other related health services. Part A was to be financed by an additional payroll tax, gradually rising to 0.8% on employers and employees, each, and on employed individuals, by 1987. Enrollment in Part B was to be voluntary, and Part B was to be financed equally by general revenues and premiums paid by enrollees. Separate trust funds were established for each part of the Medicare program. [/Quote]

 

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf

 

I have no idea, where what seems to be benign "Programming Permits" (however you define the terminology), means to these legislatures or where they could extend as taken by future ones. All I KNOW, is each generation of legislatures has had different understandings.

 

I'm not concerned, whether my little local AM Station is forced off the air, or it builds to where other programming becomes involved. Whether 'Talk Radio' could be forced to buy 'Permits' is not the issue, the idea that here is another revenue collection (however you define the terminology) that will no doubt in the end pay performers, writers, a whole lot more than collected.

 

I think the government is best suited for certain undertakings, especially where private sector profit motives might interfere with the objectives. Healthcare is a great example; I would rather pay money into a government program designed to pay for my medical treatment than to a private insurance company whose profits suffer if I use those funds for my medical treatment.[/Quote]

 

Phil; How about "FOOD", whether you buy it from the Grocer or eat out. This is ALL private industry from those that grow food, feed animals for food or farm any number of animal stock, those that furnish the feed/fertilizer, harvesting, packaging, transportation, all the infrastructure and machinery involved and the markets you choose. When you think about all that goes into ONE .50 cent can of soda/juice, that pay all those people, that pay all those taxes, that support a 14.3T$ economy, it's an amazing thing.

 

On HC, what Government wants to do is come between the patient and the private sector, making demands on one for the presumed benefit of others, asked for or not. This won't work and for Capitalism to work, the consumer must set the prices.

 

Some things, like roads, libraries and parks, we all benefit from either directly or indirectly, and we should be happy to pay for these things in the form of taxes. [/Quote]

 

Good example of one thing, the Federal did right, but it didn't start that way, heading back to being an error...The Interstate Highway Program, was proposed, planned and began as a road system for the US Military under Eisenhower in the 1950's and was to be funded by Fuel Taxes placed on Gasoline/Diesel. The public didn't buy the Military use only, was discarded but continued to be built. It generated untold billion of economic growth over the yeas, but remains the only US Road, where the Federal can control, without cohesion. They have NOTHING to with State and County roads and limited commitment for US Highways or control over how they are constructed or who can constructs them. The original planned called by passing all metropolitan areas, later changed and States, to get free maintenance started running them through towns.

 

I doubt 1 in a 1000 people (Some Museums/National Library etc.), have ever been in a Federally supported library, even presidential libraries are privately built and all City, County or State Library are operated differently, but NOT from the Federal. You pay taxes, to the State for most the services you may think are coming from the Federal, especially under education.

 

We should not be happy to pay for subsidizing private industries and corporations with our tax monies whose products we may not even use. You may be lactose intolerant, but in the US a part of your income taxes subsidize dairy farmers. [/Quote]

 

Most subsidizing is for research and development, oil Companies to explore, parts for NASA and so on. I don't know what you call buying GM or what was given to Chrysler, but this is all new. Subsidizes to farmers for not growing products or for producing products at a loss (milk products), is Governments system for controlling prices. Actually I am lactose intolerant, but use Chocolate Milk today as a laxative, old age thing.

 

The corporations, PACs and lobbyists are using the representatives and we are not.

[/Quote]

 

Most every major Corporation, even those owned by Berkshire/Hathaway (Warren Buffet) are financed by tens of thousands to millions of people, directly or through Mutual Funds or any number of retirement plans. Lobbyist represent those people, who I'll assume is interested in both the investor and the Company. Even is your one of the 40% not invested in some manner with these companies, you probably use there products/services, maybe like them and would like to see they stay in business. Aside from this, most lobbyist represent Unions (Teachers/Trial Lawyers/Labor) or are agenda driven. They are your connection to all the Representative in Congress, in many ways.

 

These bills and resolutions on radio performance aren't really taxes, as swansont has tried to point out. They may still be bad for all in the long run since they may affect us all, including those who aren't listening to the radio. I see this as another lobby who wants their government to pass a law that makes them more money.[/Quote]

 

These fee's/taxes are used to control a business with a over 80 year track record in business. It's being imposed only on what Government can control, permission to US the publics airways, offered and revenue collected by the Government. It's a "duck"...tax. Yes, this or any number of other programs planned or in use, will affect everyone, if or when Government decides 'public airway' include both satellite and the Internet. It's all about sharing the wealth, nothing less, from the current Congress.

 

I'm beginning to think a thread on cost of Government versus Cost of Private Business, would be in order. Wal-Mart, employs 2M, FG 2.2M Civilians, that cost more than the SALES this company generates in a year, 408B$

 

http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?Symbol=WMT

[bascule]

jackson33, the money collected from this bill doesn't go to the government, it goes to private citizens whose works are being played on the radio. Therefore it's not a tax. End of story.

[jackson33]

bascule; The Government, if the bill passes, will issue "programming permits", already has the authority to deny airway access for non-compliance with regulation, and claims they will distribute to whomever. Just as Government collects payroll taxes, guess you feel are fee's, promising to pass along to qualified recipients. They are both taxes, "end of story".

[swansont]

Payroll taxes go to the government. That's why they are called taxes. The proper name for money paid for copyright use is "royalties."

[bascule]

Here's a decent synopsis:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_Rights_Act

 

The Performance Rights Act is an amendment to United States Federal Copyright law proposed by representative Howard Berman.[1] The bill would expand the protection for public performances of copyrighted sound recordings.

 

Under the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act, sound recordings have a limited public performance right in digital transmissions, such as webcasting.[2] The bill would expand the performance right to cover terrestrial broadcasts, such as AM/FM radio.[3] Since the bill would extend the performance right of sound recording copyright holders, it would increase the royalties that AM/FM radio stations must pay to license music.[4] The bill includes a provision to establish a flat fee for non-profit radio stations, or stations that make less than $1.25 million in gross revenue. Still, the bill may increase the transaction cost to broadcasters by requiring record keeping.[5]

 

So basically, they're amending the DMCA in a manner that would require companies like Clear Channel to pay more money to the RIAA. I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

So where is all this horrible spin that jackson33 was injecting in the OP coming from? Here:

 

http://www.noperformancetax.org/

 

It's clear the corporations who would have to pay more money because of this bill are spinning it as a "tax" because they know it will get people like jackson33 all riled up. The web site makes claims like it will "kill local radio", which is ironic because Clear Channel already killed local radio. However, it sounds like smaller stations and non profits will remain largely unaffected.

 

The proper name for money paid for copyright use is "royalties."

 

QFT

[Pangloss]

It's actually a floor wax and a dessert topping.

[Phi for All]

It's actually a floor wax and a dessert topping.

Shimmer Royalties?