Federal Performance Radio Tax

[jackson33]

Any mandate made by Congress resulting in cost to the producer or service, whether paid has a direct tax, no specific purpose (income/death tax/property gains etc.), indirect tax, for a specific purpose (payroll taxes/gasoline/diesel taxes/excise taxes) for permits and/or compliance (CAFE Standards, Tobacco products or the hundreds of other items) have the same results or taxes imposed indirectly on the consumer.

 

Not defending AM/FM radio, they have generated the sales of Music, and all involved, by airing certain recordings for 80 years, never charging the producers of these products, that created that demand.

 

My point for even starting the thread was the continuous incremental involvement of the Federal on every aspect of life around the industrialized world, especially here in the US, all of which is adding cost to products which in some manner end up in Governments hands.

 

As for the argument of what are taxes and by those concerned (NOT necessarily me), I'll refer you back to the OP, where the following was sited;

 

 

A performance tax would threaten the local radio stations that communities depend on. It would financially hamstring stations, stifle new artists and harm the listening public who rely on free local radio.

 

 

Where does the money go?In short, the money generated from the performance tax would flow out of your community and into the pockets of the major record labels – and three out of the four are foreign-owned. The record labels would like for you to think this is all about compensating the artists, but in truth the record labels would get at least 50 percent of the proceeds from a tax on local radio.[/Quote]

 

http://noperformancetax.org/Radio%20at%20Risk

 

bascule;

 

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. [/Quote]

 

Yes, "people like me", do worry about what goes on in Government and what the underlying motives might be. Generally older people, that have seen hundreds of small programs grow well out of proportion to there original intent.

 

By the way, your site was with in my original post site and where I got the above. I'll add there is concern what it means to Spanish Radio Stations. One question, if smaller station were to be exempt from the taxes, who is it these Taxes are directed to and where is the legality. Royalties have/are being paid by small and the very largest advertiser all along, but now the Government is picking which Stations are involved. Most smaller stations, however are already part of larger groups, corporations.

[bascule]

jackson33,

 

Stop calling it a tax. It's not a tax. It's a royalty. Calling it a tax is just wrong. You've fallen hook, line, and sinker for some terrible spin.

 

Not defending AM/FM radio, they have generated the sales of Music, and all involved, by airing certain recordings for 80 years, never charging the producers of these products, that created that demand.

 

But without "these products" (as you so aptly state), their service would be worthless. Content is king. They're using someone else's product to add value to their service, and not paying for it. Now that the government is changing the laws so they do have to pay, they're ostensibly mad about it. The free lunch is going away!

[jackson33]

bascule; Since you want to continue this; Every year thousands of people audition for 'American Idol', in hopes of being one that makes the show or go on to be one of the top 10, who generally end up with a contract. The show (a TV show), pays nothing to these folks (other than their cost to participate), yet is the number one show in the US and their audience tunes in for the free music or talent.

 

In the 70's, while working with 'Records of Dallas' and 'Western Merchandisers' (WM now owned by Wal Mart, servicing North American Stores and both distributors) in Texas; They routinely called on major AM and FM Stations, around the areas they covered, encouraging play of certain items, holding parties, often with the artist attending and WM, held an annual sales meeting with at least ten major artist of the day, generally Country and Western, some very big names and always a couple of newer artist and always free of charge and their was always an overflow of those wanting to attend. I'll offer you one true story, that happened well after I left...Garth Brooks was one of the newer artist, the owner of Western took a liking to, and when his first album was released, bought a million copies, launching his lucrative career. Garth returned the favor a few years later giving the eulogy at his funeral. Labels, the artist, distributors and radio stations have always worked together, are doing so this day and will do so in the future.

 

 

Troyal Garth Brooks (born February 7, 1962) is an American country music artist. His eponymous first album was released in 1989 and peaked at #2 in the US country album chart while climbing to #13 on the Billboard 200 pop album chart. [/Quote]

 

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

 

 

As for "TAX", call this whatever you want, I presented it as was described by the opponents of the bill and your welcome to argue with them. I've gone over how money is collected and who is the final payer of any additional cost, collected as mandated requirements, permits or social obligations are taxes paid by the consumer. As far as I'm concerned, any body smoking products from a FEW Cigarettes Manufactures are paying some very high 'hidden taxes', you will no doubt call fines. Here is a later article on the issue, with some interesting 'comments' and still using that nasty "Tax" word.

 

http://www.tipsity.com/taxes/2010/radio-performance-tax-affect-radio-stations-2010-support-bill

[Mr Skeptic]

As for "TAX", call this whatever you want, I presented it as was described by the opponents of the bill and your welcome to argue with them. I've gone over how money is collected and who is the final payer of any additional cost, collected as mandated requirements, permits or social obligations are taxes paid by the consumer. As far as I'm concerned, any body smoking products from a FEW Cigarettes Manufactures are paying some very high 'hidden taxes', you will no doubt call fines. Here is a later article on the issue, with some interesting 'comments' and still using that nasty "Tax" word.

 

http://www.tipsity.com/taxes/2010/radio-performance-tax-affect-radio-stations-2010-support-bill

 

So, anything that increases the price that customers pay is a tax? Then we have a variety of drug taxes (due to drugs being illegal their cost goes up), a quality tax, a monopoly tax, an inflation tax, various regulations taxes, pollution taxes, a we're running out of resources tax, and countless more.

 

If the opponents of this bill can't make a coherent argument, why should we listen to them? If they do understand this isn't a tax but are lying about it cause they think "tax" will garner opposition, then why should we believe anything they have to say?

[bascule]

How are the costs passed onto consumers when radio is free?

[jackson33]

Skeptic; Yes, anything that increases the price to a consumer of a product, yet adding nothing to profits to the producer, in my mind effectually is a tax. Back to Cigarettes; The cost to produce a carton of most any brand is around 2.50 per, while in NYC today, some cost the consumers near 100.00. It remains a legal product to consume, yet by virtue of every taxing authority and added cost to the producer through regulation and mandates, the NYC consumers pays that additional amount. A gallon of Gasoline cost in the neighborhood of 1.00 at today's crude price and diesel even less, yet today must charge around 2.00 per, MORE for diesel, but through regulation from the Federal, each State and many City requirements it cost twice as much to refine. Then you the consumer, already having been charged to conform to regulation are then charged additional taxes from the Federal and each State, not to mention the Billions of Dollars most refineries pay in local, State and Federal Corporate Taxes, all of which are passed on to a consumer. Truckers, for instance who are already paying more per gallon for what normally would be a less costly product to refine, also pay 6,000 to 10,000$/year for other taxes/permits and mileage fees to travel the various States, additional insurance cost, cost to conform to different States regulation, all of which you the consumer are forced to pay for, when purchasing a product. I could go on with this, from the place you live to the burial plot your placed at death...

 

Note, for any nit-pickers...Friday 3/5/2010, crude closed at 81.50, cost at refinery 2.27 and no doubt average cost in the US will be around 3.25/3.40 by Monday for Gas/Diesel...

 

As for those concerned, their arguments, would probably be similar to the arguments I've made, in that they have performed a free service for the recording industry itself for years for and with the cooperation of that industry. It's a business model, that has worked, working well and should be left to continue, with out Federal involvement, so long as a consumer exist. Music on AM radio, has been a non factor for years, talking/informational taking its place back in the early 1990's. FM is already hurting with the advent of Satellite Radio and the Computer or all the gadgets available.

 

Skeptic, I had another post stored for another one of your threads, I'll now post if you wish to continue this discussion. Your making valid arguments and asking valid questions, that I believe are based on misconceptions by the public at large, especially here in the US and the confusion over what are Federal/States responsibilities, then the individuals.

 

 

bascule; Radio is really not FREE, somebody is paying your share for any enjoyment received. Generally through advertisers or investors or folks simply interested in their small town. It's not much different than these little forums, where maybe 100 or less of us that take part or read postings daily, are being supported in part by others, often the owners themselves without a profit. I would literally come unglued, if the US Government tried to permit any Internet activity and believe me, they are trying to figure out a way....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Skeptic; Yes, anything that increases the price to a consumer of a product, yet adding nothing to profits to the producer, in my mind effectually is a tax.

 

Forcing people to pay royalties to the producer does not add to their profits?

[jackson33]

Skeptic; Yes, anything that increases the price to a consumer of a product, yet adding nothing to profits to the producer, in my mind effectually is a tax. [/Quote]

 

Forcing people to pay royalties to the producer does not add to their profits? [/Quote]

 

CR; That's what I said...The end result is to lessen the profits or increase cost to whatever entity that supports the operation, in the end being an effectual tax on somebody.

 

If the Radio business had been charging an additional price to promote an offering, then there would be no argument from me, that once the property became a 'property of value' they would be liable for then using that property to promote their own interest. If an advertising agency (charges for service), increases the value of an automobile, they can use that success only with the permission of the product, to publicly promote their own agency. That doesn't mean they can't talk (replay the music) about the success (1st Amendment), to other potential clients (other music listeners) even if implying their involvement. Said another way, if a radio Station, were to play music by some artist (promotional program), they felt created a success for their station, even today they are required to pay royalties.

[Mr Skeptic]

Skeptic; Yes, anything that increases the price to a consumer of a product, yet adding nothing to profits to the producer, in my mind effectually is a tax

 

Well then, the FDA is a tax, banking regulations are taxes, voluntary increases in quality are taxes, inflation is taxes, material shortages are taxes, small scale production is a tax, shoplifting is taxes, rotting is taxes, ... Clearly if you are going to call shoplifting a tax then your definition is broken.

 

No, a tax is something that:

1) is required by the government.

2) goes to the income of the government.

 

The effect of a tax is requiring people to give money to the government. These regulations do not do this, and so they are not a tax.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Skeptic, I had another post stored for another one of your threads, I'll now post if you wish to continue this discussion. Your making valid arguments and asking valid questions, that I believe are based on misconceptions by the public at large, especially here in the US and the confusion over what are Federal/States responsibilities, then the individuals.

 

Certainly; either post it here or a link to it and we can discuss elsewhere if you prefer.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Yes, anything that increases the price to a consumer of a product, yet adding nothing to profits to the producer, in my mind effectually is a tax.

 

To echo what Cap'n said — this is money that goes to the performers who actually made the music.

[jackson33]

Skeptic; Economically speaking anything government does to increase a cost, has the same effect as a tax. If this is the result mandating regulation or requiring additional cost to the end product, the consumer of that product/service is forced to pay (opposed to everyone..inflation/theft/rotting) additional cost.

 

What your trying to instill into this are definitions, which the Government is very good at. For instance they claim to reluctantly collect Payroll or Gas Taxes, for services the public demands. Payroll was never designed to be a Federal Revenue and Gas Taxes (Government calls 'user fees') are not and the 'Trust Fund' they appropriate from is periodically used for all kinds of strange and unintended purposes, with very little authority to enforce what the money is actually used for. Think both Minnesota and Louisiana used use this funding for Football Stadiums...

 

 

 

People pay user fees for the use of many public services and facilities. At the federal level in the US, there is a charge for walking to the top of the Statue of Liberty, to drive into many National parks, and to use particular services of the Library of Congress.[/Quote]

 

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

 

2010 Transportation Appropriations Bill Progressing

September 17, 2009...

 

The Senate approved its version of the FY 2010 transportation appropriations legislation today. The bill provides $42.5 billion for the highway program, a 4.4 percent increase over FY 2009 and transit program funding of $11.1 billion, a 9 percent increase over FY 2009. The bill also provides $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, the same amount appropriated the past two years. The House previously approved lower amounts for both the highway and transit programs. The Senate bill includes $1.2 billion for high-speed passenger rail improvements-$2.8 billion less than the House bill. A House/Senate conference committee will be convened soon to work out the differences. Action to extend transportation program authorization is necessary before these appropriated funds can be sent to the states.[/Quote]

 

http://newsletters.agc.org/highway/2009/09/17/2010-transportation-appropriations-bill-progressing

 

I think your missing my entire point (this thread), that your being hit in so many different direction by so many taxing authorities, you have no idea which is spending money for what and may be wanting more hits....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

To echo what Cap'n said — this is money that goes to the performers who actually made the music.[/Quote]

 

swansont; To "echo" my response...that those fees came from "free promotion" by those radio stations, at the request of those artist or their representative..."quid pro quo".

[Mr Skeptic]

But why are you insisting that the payroll and gas taxes are taxes? Of course they are, no one is arguing against that! Keep in mind that in these examples, money goes from the people to the government, exactly as I said a tax does. The requirement that I purchase goods rather than steal them is not a tax, since although it is a monetary requirement made by the government, this money does not go to the government. So long as the money does not go to the government it can't be a tax.

 

Also, the example I gave of rotting fits your definition of a tax to the letter. Rotting cabbage, for example, increases the costs of both the producers and consumers of cabbage. By your definition this makes rotting a tax.

[swansont]

swansont; To "echo" my response...that those fees came from "free promotion" by those radio stations, at the request of those artist or their representative..."quid pro quo".

 

And now they want to be paid instead. Not a tax.

[bascule]

jackson33, originally you said:

 

I've gone over how money is collected and who is the final payer of any additional cost, collected as mandated requirements, permits or social obligations are taxes paid by the consumer

 

But as I noted, the consumer of radio receives the broadcast as a free service. When I point this out, you then note:

 

Radio is really not FREE, somebody is paying your share for any enjoyment received.

 

So yes, my original statement is correct. The "somebody" who is paying who would get "taxed" (your wording, not mine) by this bill is a corporation like Clear Channel, Entercom, or Cumulus. It's not your favorite local station or a non-profit. They are exempt.

 

There are 5 corporations which control approximately 95% of the radio stations in this country. They are the ones who are going to be """taxed""".

 

So why do you care?