California Considers Text Messaging Tax To Fund Cell Service For Low-Income Residents (thehill.com) 244
According to a report from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California may soon tax text messaging to help fund programs that make phone service available for low-income residents. The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax. The Hill reports: The report outlines the shrinking revenue coming from a current tax on the telecommunications industry and argues that a new tax on text messaging should be put in place to make up for it. "From a consumer's point of view, surcharges may be a wash, because if more surcharge revenues come from texting services, less would be needed from voice services," CPUC spokeswoman Constance Gordon said in a statement. "Generally, those consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more, whereas consumers using more voice services may pay less." "Parties supporting the collection of surcharges on text messaging revenue argue that it will help preserve and advance universal service by increasing the revenue base upon which Public Purpose Programs rely. We agree," the report states. The CTIA, a trade association representing major carriers in the wireless industry, says the tax is anti-competitive and would put carriers at a disadvantage against social media messaging apps from tech companies such as Google and Facebook. The CPUC is expected to vote on the proposal in January 2019.
Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:4, Interesting)
The iPhone crowd have their own messaging system and the rest uses whatsapp et al.
If the tax gets through, the latter will be used by everyone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If by "Nobody" you mean "95% of people" then.. I guess? It always amuses me how out of touch people are with reality.
"Hey guise, nobody uses credit cards anymore, it's all BITCOIN!!!!". Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.....my anecdotal experience is...I have YET to meet anyone that uses whatsapp, much less even has ever heard of it before.
Everyone communicate with uses text....Apple switches to use whatever the recipient uses..so, likely a mix of iMessage and regular text...
Re: Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:4, Insightful)
No, like most Americans, I have no need to travel outside the US, PLENTY to do here....hell, most of us don't even have a passport.
I have traveled to Europe before, MX and the caribbean....but last time out was years and years ago.
I really don't see much of anything compelling that would tempt me for foreign travel, hell, there's so much to do and so many places to see in the US that I'll never get close to them all in the rest of my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the part where it would be a flat fee. So in other words they're taxing any cellular plan capable of texting, whether or not you actually text.
Re: (Score:3)
So then people will demand plans without texting.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait so people VOIP but they don't TOIP, now that just don't make any sense what so over, you people have been scammed. In reality you are actually TOIPing but being charged likes its an extra special service, ohh you schmucks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one trying to tax it. But someone's going to have to draw an oddly arbitrary line somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Most VoIP providers charge a per-text fee for sending text messages via SIP. That's because the gateways to the major cell carriers charge for each text message (granted, it's usually fractions of a penny, but the end result is that the end user gets charged a penny-per-text). On top of that, many of the low-end VoIP end terminals (ie. phones) don't support anything other than SIP (or MGCP), and at that an even smaller subset handle texting.
My SIP provider literally just started handling text messages ove
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it says that. It also says "consumers who create more text revenue" will pay more. Then again, it also says the purpose is to increase revenue, while also claiming people won't be paying more. The whole thing is full of California-speak.
Re: (Score:2)
SMSes still use between iPhones and Android hpones though. I only know one person who uses WhatsApp, and he lives in China.
Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:5, Insightful)
And those same services can be used on a phone without a plan. Or a tablet. Or a PC with a web browser. How do you tax that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's really easy.
You tax the provider (Apple, Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger, the wireless companies, etc) and the provider passes the charge through to you.
What's that, all of those providers don't have a tax passthru infrastructure setup yet? Nobody said big government is cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have to decide exact what constitutes messaging. Next thing you know, someone has to argue in court why app notifications are not messaging.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you tax that?
Govt Tax ticks: "Challenge Accepted"
Re: (Score:2)
How do you tax "no plan"?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, not at all.
Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:5, Insightful)
This idea is hilarious. Tax text messages to pay for phones for the poor, who will then use it to send text messages! This is the government equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.
This is like the lottery, or a tax on milk. It will hit the people it is trying to serve much harder than "the rich".
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.
If you really need a mobile phone pick up a cheap ass tracfone and do the prepaid thing. Mommy government doesn't need to be buying everyone an iphone -- and taxing the rest of us to fund the little feel goods.
Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.
Communications is a basic need to function in modern society, and governments have been involved in that since Henry VIII.
Governments subsidised where needed postal, and later phone services, to cover their countries.
Now in the 21st century, cellular service has become much cheaper than fixed lines to provide, so it makes sense to stop mandating cheap rural fixed-line services, and replace them with cellular. Also, telcos are not allowed to charge more in small towns than in the city. None of this cross subsidy is new.
But this California proposal makes no sense. Why create another micro-tax? Do you have a separate tax for each spending program? Thats ridiculous.
In Australia we pay A$10 (us$7)/month for unlimited calls and 1-2 GB of data. UK is similar. Even homeless people have cellphones. What does a basic service cost in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia we pay A$10 (us$7)/month for unlimited calls and 1-2 GB of data. UK is similar. Even homeless people have cellphones. What does a basic service cost in the US?
My plan in the USA with with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2GB of data is $55/month. I don't know of any plan that would cost much less except perhaps a pre-paid type that would charge by the minute. Family plans are closer to $100/month or more.
Re: (Score:2)
My plan in the USA with with unlimited calls, unlimited texts and 2GB of data is $55/month. I don't know of any plan that would cost much less
This is surprising, since just about everything else is cheaper in the US than in other wealthy countries. You guys are really getting ripped off by the telcos.
The $10/month plans here are not sold directly by the major companies who own the networks, but but re-sellers or subsidiary brands (Belong, Kogan, ALDI, ...) . Most are prepaid, but thats not a problem here.
Voice calls uses such a small amount of data, that the networks decided to effectively make them free, and just set a monthly f
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know having a cell phone was a basic human need that government should be getting involved with.
A phone is not a basic right, but having one can turn a poor person's life around. They have a number to put on a job application form, they can talk to friends, find out about opportunities, call for help, etc.
But this proposal is a bad idea in a much deeper way: We should NEVER has specific taxes targeted toward specific purposes. It is always a bad idea. The decision on what to tax should be made completely independently of the decisions of what to spend it on. All taxes should go into one pool.
One c
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly 'a phone', in the basic, utilitarian notion is already so ridiculously cheap -- that anyone who truly needs one, or would use in the 'basic human need' sense, already has one.
This is a poorly conceived gimme in an effort to buy votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor people having phones saves the government money. Instead of having to employ humans to process interactions with citizens, they can use web sites or apps. Even just having a call centre instead of an office where people have to go is a saving for the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor people having phones saves the government money.Â
If that was the case, then why do they need a tax to pay for the phones? Shouldn't they send the phones to those who need them and cut taxes with all of the savings?
Re: (Score:2)
It takes many years for the savings to be realized. I guess they could borrow the money, but it's America so to avoid looking too socialist they have to do it this way.
Re: (Score:3)
This idea is hilarious. Tax text messages to pay for phones for the poor, who will then use it to send text messages! This is the government equivalent of a perpetual motion machine... It will hit the people it is trying to serve much harder than "the rich".
It's only like a perpetual motion machine if the exact same people receive benefits who are being taxed. But if (as in the plan) more people get taxed and fewer get the benefits, then it's just bog-standard redistributive taxation and unrelated to perpetual motion.
If it hits one group of people harder than another, that's another way of saying that it's like a perpetual motion machine.
The only way it can hit the people it's serving harder than "the rich" is if the benefits that people get (subsidized phones
Re: (Score:3)
I can see someone making a "game" that has a chat feature, just to dodge the tax.
This will be an endless cat and mouse game between developers and regulators. I look forward to the hilarious shenanigans that will follow.
Re:Nobody texts anymore, gramps (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume the tax would apply to those services as well. Generally legislation isn't specific as to which service you use.
How's that supposed to work? The two aren't anything alike.
They operate over different networks (cellular vs. cellular, WiFi, and wired). They operate on cellular via different channels (dedicated vs. general purpose). They differ in security (not encrypted vs. end-to-end encrypted). They require different hardware (SIM vs. any Internet connection). They operate on different classes of devices (phones and SIM-equipped laptops/tablets vs. PCs, phones, tablets, and MP3 players). The natively support differing numbers of devices per user (one per user vs. many per user). They natively support different content (texts alone vs. texts + effects, audio/video, typing notifications, tap backs, read receipts, stickers, money, hand drawings, etc.).
And that's all before we even get to the most obvious problem: one costs the end user a monthly fee just to use it, the other doesn't cost anything. Collecting a tax on $0 is a fool's errand.
I'd shudder to think how legislators would define the law in such a way that it could apply to those services in any sort of reasonable way. Aside from how they are visually presented to end users, there's really no similarity at all between iMessages/WhatsApp and standard SMS texting. If anything, the former bears more resemblance to instant messaging than it does to SMS texting. How are legislators supposed to draw a line that puts iMessage/WhatsApp on the same side as SMS without also including IRC, Slack, Facebook Messenger, Google app of the month, e-mail, or really just about any other form of asynchronous communication, free or otherwise?
A user may think that the only difference is that one is a green bubble and the other is blue, but the actual differences are vast.
So people will be billed for incoming? with only c (Score:2)
So people will be billed for incoming? with only choice to get out of it to block all txt
New game: The Onion or California? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's play a game. Somebody posts a news story and the rest of us try to guess whether it comes from the Onion or from California.
That could be a very challenging game.
Okay, okay - I know someone reading this probably *likes* California, and doesn't think California politics is ridiculous. That's cool. Thanks to Article 1 of the Constitution, the rest of us aren't allowed to tell you how to live. California can have whatever laws you all want. Just in case anyone forgets to read Article 1, the framers repeated it in the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So don't worry. Even though I think you guys are a parody of yourselves, I'm not going to try to stop you, I can't stop you. You can tax blinking if you want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New game: The Onion or California? (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes are cornerstones of modern society, particularly ones that are used to fund things for the disadvantaged.
Sorry you hate people, be sure to bring that up with your god when you're at the gates, he'll totally understand.
I'm sure you've heard that all taxes are regressive, and bureaucracy propagates bureaucracy. If a government can demonstrate fiscal austerity, responsible spending, and minimal waste on grossly negligent pork products and needs to increase taxation to raise revenue...alright.
You assume that governments automatically know what is best. They don't. You accept that if the government says it needs more money, the first response should be for them to steal more of everyone's money instead of auditing their spending for waste. Have you ever SEEN a CBO report? On how grossly wasteful and financially irresponsible virtually every aspect of our government is?
It isn't people-hating to question bureaucracy, it is civil duty - and while civic responsibility is a pipe-dream in America now, the only people hating is YOU. You hate people so much that you think the government should take their money unquestioned.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes are termites eating the floor of modern society. See, I can make silly metaphors too!
Different strokes for different folks. BIG pile of (Score:2)
If you like California, of course you wouldn't want me to come there are ruin it for you. That's cool. I got the F out of California.
I wouldn't want you to bring your California crap to Texas. We prefer different things.
We're both fortunate that we live in a country that has federalism - each state can do what they want, with the federal afederation) government only doing the things that need to be done at that level, like national defense. You do you, and I'll do me.
> 5th largest economy
I hear that a l
Re: (Score:2)
"I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. "
One of the worst parts of Texas is simply driving through it. Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left. Driving through the desert there is like driving through some sort of post apocalyptic scenario of abandoned business'. Texas' economy is exactly like that of the countries you try put on Cali
Well there's a good thing (Score:2)
Hey cool. I *thought* you could come up with something better than "our economy is like Mexico, India, and Russia".
See that's really cool you live in a place where half the land is owned by the federal government, compared to Texas where we own our own homes that we live in. That's awesome. Renting an apartment next to a federal hazardous waste^H^H^H^H^H preserve is much better.
One of my favorite things about California is that you can pick your season. You can waterski on Saturday and snow ski on Sunday, a
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice fiction you've got there but let me put things plainly for you.
California's country side is not full of hazardous federal waste sites. Texas' "country side" does in fact look like a big spread out dump.
Re: (Score:2)
You like that the California land is owned by the federal government.
I like that the Texas land is owned by me. We both get what we want.
We don't have to argue about whose preference is better, we both get what we want. For now, anyway. The feds have already gone way past their Constitutional authority, and it keeps getting worse. Hopefully I'll be able to leave you guys to do things your way, in your state. I gtfo of there.
Re: (Score:2)
When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed? You're just making shit up now.
All I've commented on is how Texas seems to have no concept for land management at all so that anyone can buy land anywhere and then abandon anything they want there.
Re: (Score:2)
> When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed?
You said:
--
Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left.
--
I take that to mean you prefer California, where most of the land is owned by the federal government, vs Texas, where we each own our land.
Or maybe you meant (Score:2)
Did I misunderstand when I thought you meant you preferred California-style federal ownership vs Texas individual ownership?
Maybe your emphasis was on "economic growth", your point is that having a big economy is bad?
Re: (Score:2)
And blue states achieve brilliant economic growth while maintaining proper land usage.
Re: (Score:2)
All you're doing is putting words in my mouth.
"your point is that having a big economy is bad?"
Clearly I was not claiming that as can be easily inferred by me discussing the wealth of California and Blue states in general in several posts.
So your point is? (Score:2)
Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership. If economic growth, twice as much as California, is good, and personal ownership is good, I'm not clear on what your point is.
Were you pointing out some ways Texas is better, with the economy doing twice as well as California, while we retain our property rather than handing it over to the government?
Re: (Score:2)
"Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership."
More words in my mouth. When will you stop making shit up? Lying just makes you look weak.
Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to its long term determent which has been my point all along. Texas has used its exclusive ownership of its territory to exploit it to its extreme, thus making the states "rural" regions look like a dump. This point has been clearly
Re: (Score:2)
> Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to which has been my point all along.
Okay, thanks for stating your point clearly.
When you just point out that, unlike California, Texas didn't cede half its land to the federal government, it's a bit unclear what your point is.
Re: (Score:2)
we've been blue for a long time now and are still the 5th largest economy in the world.
5th a while back, now 7th and declining.
Re: (Score:2)
No, 5th. http://fortune.com/2018/05/05/... [fortune.com]
Nice completely made up response though
Where is dyac when you need it? (Score:2, Informative)
> On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states
I would have died laughing if autocorrect had made that "one of the most preposterous states".
Seriously I'm glad you like where you live.
I like where I live.
If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from ec
Re: (Score:2)
It says flat tax. If your cellular service includes texting you get an extra tax.
Re: So people will be billed for incoming? with on (Score:2)
Which I already do.
Number of texts I have sent or received in the last 5 years: 0
Because what better way to fund services (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, in 2018 does anyone still fall for this crap? It's like when they rebranded trickle down economics as "Tax cuts for Job Creators" and left out the fact that "Job Creators" don't pay taxes when they invest in their companies...
Yeah because no one can control themselves (Score:2)
Don't want to pay the tax turn off texting. Your regressive tax has just become progressive.
No, because texting is usually free (Score:3)
There's a sizable group of people in this country that want poor people to suffer. The idea is that their suffering will encourage them to stop being so damn poor. Now, virtually all research on the topic shows that pressure does not in fact make
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at your phone bill the taxes are flat and a couple of bucks. Don't like the tax drop the service.
Or I could vote (Score:2)
Left wing ??? (Score:2)
Business groups in the state and wireless carriers are against the proposal
https://thehill.com/policy/tec... [thehill.com]
You do realize your state is controlled top to bottom by left wing politicians ?
Re: (Score:2)
Many people don't seem to understand that the poor and the rich can drive roughly the same amount of miles (fuel taxes), consume the same amount of alcohol and cigarettes, and use the same amount of cell phone service.
Even if a rich person consumes 10x as much fuel and 100x as much alcohol, the tax is generally a smaller fraction of their income than it is for a poor person. It hits middle-class harder, since the marginal utility of any spending is lower, so they'll toss more pennies here and there for t
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing good about anything in politics called "progressive."
Another state tax on your exceptional talent? (Score:2)
Wont enforce laws about trash and waste in the streets. Park RV and tents in the streets.
Has to clean waste from its streets.
How many more "tech" tax attempts before tech understands that many other US states are clean, safe, welcoming and low tax?
Move to a state where you don't have to "pay a bit more" in new tech tax and you can invest a lot more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The schools are failing because of Progressive education, and that is deliberate. The uneducated are easier to deceive and control.
Planned Parenthood continues as the racist organization it was started as, dedicated to persuading blacks not to reproduce.
Absolutely (Score:2)
Should tax people on a per character basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of all the rappers posting screenshots of themselves texting the complete works of Shakespeare.
Re:Absolutely, per character basis (Score:2)
Should tax people on a per character basis.
Why do you hate character actors so?
It's a mental health thing (Score:2)
No multiple personalities.
That's one way to kill text messaging. (Score:2)
Better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Let's tax every stupid idea a politician has. 1 cent per.
We'd be able to pay off the national debt before the end of the year.
Don't drink the water in California (Score:2)
What can possibly be more logically coherent than regressive taxes to help the poor?
After massive fraud magnet that USF has proven to be states just can't help themselves to more of the same.
Dark Ages (Score:2)
subsidizing? wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have a prepaid cell in California for $12/month. No one needs subsidizing. End the subsidizing and you don't need a new tax. ffs.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but politicians get more votes from low-income residents when they give low-income residents things totally for free. When someone buys a $12 prepaid card a politician can't get the credit for it. When a politician pushes a law that gives phone service away totally for free, that will buy them votes.
Re: subsidizing? wtf (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, every government program is an opportunity for people to skim, grant contracts to friends and family or for kickbacks in one form or another. Maybe you have a family member who needs a job, why not hire them to administer some new program and of course pay for the job it of the same pool of taxes collected for that program.
Thats why we use text. (Score:2)
Let's tax Prop 13 houses (Score:2)
That makes a lot more sense than taxing text messages
Re: (Score:2)
Lies from the get-go to get new tax in the door (Score:3)
1. If it's going to be a wash because they will lower voice service taxes, why bother, just take a portion of voice service taxes - unless somehow California has separate governments for voice and text services.
2. How do I reconcile those two statements:
"The report says the tax would likely be a flat fee added to a monthly bill instead of a per text tax."
"consumers who create greater texting revenues may pay a bit more"
If the tax is flat, how to consumers who create greater texting revenue pay more? Did they not think it through, or just telling people whatever they want to hear?.
This is straight from the government "How to get some more money to skim from" handbook - ask for a new tax, make it small do people don't think it matters, tell everyone what they want to hear, get sufficient approval (or indifference) from the public to add the new tax, wait a year, increase the new tax, award new contracts to people who now owe you. After all, six taxes at 4% each don't seem as bad as one at 24%, right?
Sidestep the tax (Score:2)
Go back to e-mail. Or IRC, or ....
And the welfare trap continues (Score:2)
I can almost guarantee that their "low income" definition will have a hard cut-off. This will just make the hurdle of transitioning from welfare to work that much harder to jump. Anybody above the low income bar will be regressively taxed. California's government really needs to turn in it's progressive card. They've totally forgotten what that word originally meant.
Looking forward to taxes to replace gas use fees (Score:2)
This is pretty interesting, but what is going to be really interesting is to see how governments end up replacing gas taxes as electric cars become more popular...
They are going to have to do something, in the end I am thinking it will probably have to be an extra yearly fee on electric vehicles. Which will make hybrids rather unpopular, as you get taxed twice...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, rule out any method that doesn't involve the taxation itself adding an additional unnecessary cost that is paid for through the act of taxation.
For example, in Oregon they're already piloting a GPS unit that you're required by law to connect to your vehicles diagnostic port. [myorego.org] How's that for convoluted and needlessly expensive? It even comes with with the added bonus of privacy and security concerns.
Sacramento is going to piss themselves in excitement in copying this system for their state, if they
Re: (Score:2)
no, change the gas tax to a tax on how many wheels the vehicles has.
The problem with that though, is it's not proportionate to how much you drive, the way gas tax is...
Unless you mean charge an additional tax per tire sold? That could be interesting, and also encourages people to get longer wearing tires where people that wanted to splurge a little on higher quality tires would pay a bit more in road tax.
Just tighten the requirements (Score:2)
Individuals making $27,000 a year (the approximate current limit) can afford to pay $10-$15 a month for a basic phone plan. Reduce the maximum income to $20,000, or to whatever it takes to fit within the program's funds. Or if you must, make it be for homeless people only -- they're the ones whose lives it makes the most difference in (connecting them to services and making it more possible to find work).
Incidentally, this same approach could help California's affordable housing crisis. Stop making families
Re: (Score:2)
Not just in California. In many major cities one is struggling at the $50k/year mark. When housing and basic transportation to/from work costs 2/3rds of your take-home that doesn't leave a lot of room for things like food, clothing, and basic utilities. Portland, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis, Boston, NYC. You have to be making closer to $100k before things start getting "comfortable" in these cities.
There is Little Help for Poor In CA (Score:2)
Texting should be FREE (Score:2)
You're saving a ton of bandwidth vs. making a phone call. How we got into this bizarro land of pretending like texts are some premium feature is beyond me.
A wash? Someone's math stinks. (Score:2)
Except that you're still adding a new surcharge so there is an instant increase in cost. It's never a wash from the consumer's perspective, only from the tax collectors', and then only after it's been in place.
Besides, the whole point is that, "The report outlines the shrinking revenue coming from a current tax on the telecommunications ind
how you text doesn't matter (Score:2)
This is about declining number of land line users paying into the utility fee attached to every physical phone line. The Utility commission isn't going to tax you per message, they are going to slap a monthly fee on your cell account. There will be no getting around it. It sucks but it's not going to be a per text sent or received issue. You may continue your blissful ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
..or how about the TelCos make it affordable or hell, even free, for low income families!
Perfect! The bonus is the 7,000 new jobs created by the new government bureaucracy required to manage such a program! Can't just give that shit away. The state will have to issue cell phone vouchers! On paper first... then revamp the program in 10 years. Add in a dash of fraud and a touch of embezzlement and we've got ourselves a real boondoggle here!
Re: (Score:2)
And he grew up as a Pony Express rider and lost his job to Union Telegraph.
No he didn't. Stop making stuff up.
I know how much you Americans love making up myths about your heroic presidents, but that one is straight up bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Interstate Commerce? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1129/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Change your billing address to your parents house.
Re: Taxation is theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Try getting a job when no one can follow up with a phone call.
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining a developed civilization isn't free, it costs money. But you want to enjoy that standard of living without paying for its upkeep - so fuck your self, you self-centered parasite.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't like, own a lawn, man. It's part of Mother Earth.