Tax on SMS if oil tax reduced
Its either Oil or SMS.
If the Government reduces the tax on oil/gasoline, then one alternative to generate the loss income is to put tax on SMS. That’s what the great Secretary on Trade Peter Favila said.
What The?!!!!
Favila said in an interview in Malacañang that imposing a tax on short messaging system (SMS) could make Filipinos shift their focus on endeavors that are more productive.
“Texting is also a source of negative reason…(and) it makes people more cynical,” he said in an ambush interview shortly after the weekly press conference of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita.
Government has been appealing to text-crazy Filipinos to be more careful in spreading or forwarding text messages containing rumors, especially on destabilization attempts.
Source: GMA News
“Texting is also a source of negative reason…(and) it makes people more cynical”
I say texting is a way where people can inform the public of negative/wrong doings in the Government. It makes Malacanang tremble. hahhaha
Mr. Favila knows that there millions of SMS/text messages everyday. And even imposing a 1% tax on it would give the Government lots and lots of funds for them to put in their pockets.
I strongly feel that SMS should be free. But networks are just regulating SMS thru promotions to CONTROL its use and not to clog the network.
If this pushes through a simple text of “i Love You” will now be taxed.
pic from vibesnscribes
Grrrrrrrrrrr!
Oh wait, Putting tax on SMS would make an administration candidate loose the 2010 elections.
So, is it the MONEY (on SMS) or the MOB (the Vote)????
First pic from ABC.net.au
Update:
TXTPower calls on all texters and mobile phone subscribers to join the texters’ revolt.
Text Trade Sec. Peter Favila at 09178176110 with this message: NO TO TEXT TAX! According to TXTPower, the Arroyo government at present collects 12-percent EVAT from all local text messages and calls, and another Overseas Communications Tax for international text messages and long distance calls.
Update 2:
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry chairman emeritus Donald Dee said that the proposed tax on SMS services is okay because he said many youth, who comprise a large segment of text message users, use the said service for senseless messages.
Federation of Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry president emeritus Francis Chua said that the proposed text tax is okay, but the government should dialogue with telecommunication companies first.
However, Smart spokesperson Ramon Isberto said that text messaging services already have 12 percent Value-Added Tax (VAT), aside from income tax and sales tax that the telcos pay the government.
Meanwhile, Sen. Francis Escudero, who is Senate Ways and Means Committee chairman, said that Malacañang would not get any support from his committee on moves to impose the said tax, and the proposal to increase tax rates on cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, radio dzMM reported.
Sen. Manuel Roxas II also rejected the proposal of the executive department of a text tax as a means to make up for inadequate government collections.
“The government is rubbing salt on a wound by first rejecting a bill to suspend the VAT on oil products, and then expressing openness to tax another daily-life necessity - text messaging,” said Roxas.
source: ABS-CBN News
Update 3 (01/11/0 
Bunye: No plans to tax text messages
Malacañang on Friday denied that it is planning to impose a tax on short message services (SMS) or texting.
“Ni hindi namin narinig recently na ito ay pinag-usapan sa Cabinet (We don’t even hear it recently in discussions of the Cabinet),” Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told dzMM.
source: ABS-CBN News
Waaa these people should tax more on liquor and tobacco than on SMS.
Here’s something President JOse P. Laurel said in 1943, which the Great Marcos also agreed:
“The whole history of government shows that public affairs would be better administered and the welfare of the people better served in the hands of a moral and intellectual aristocracy. The people cannot be governors and governed at the same time …. On the other hand, a good and efficient government, a benevolent government, may exist and continue indefinitely to function with admirable harmony, when men of superior moral and intellectual endowments are in control of the state.”
though i believe our government as a whole is really questionable by performance. please, Let us leave our leaders (either good or bad) do the thinking and planning for our nation. building a nation is undeniably a hard task and i believe they can do deliver such task than leaving it to less superior intellectuals. remember we voted them. meaning we entrusted nation-building to them. if you believe election was corrupted and election is unrepairable, you can leave Philippines. wicked analysis though….if election was truly corrupted, it only meant a plausible superb effort that was intellectually planned by few individuals who I think should be one of the deserving think-tanks of any country.
i do believe people cannot be governors and governed at the same time. and if we indeed proved our current “intellectual” leaders do rigged the election, would you allow nation-building to the masses? if ever you know intellectuals who are not in the government, please convince him/her to be in the government. if you dont have any alternative leaders, please be contented with our existing.
i think Favila (though also have his own controversies) is right! he just delivered his message wrongly. raising tax on sms is better than on oil. do you think, a more expensive texting increases prices????? damn no!!!!!!!! the only downside is…..Philippines will then not become the texting country anymore. i am a texter too. but face-to-face conversation is still better and this can be somehow be encouraged by tax.
sms tax is crazy indeed. for one because it is a “new” idea. and new ideas freak us most!
think this, …ever consider a higher (or 50% more expensive) taxi fare rate during midnight or a Ph18,000 fine for not flushing the toilet bowl in public cr??? if it is crazy, please dont travel to the crime-free and lickable clean Singapore, where people are discouraged to go out by midnight and disciplined for cleanliness.those are just one of those crazy policies of singapore, but look at them now!!! look at them now. we could had been like them if Marcos stayed more with his superior plans of a New Society, believed to be emulated by Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yu and believed to parallel to the concept of Socialism and Communist.
hindi ako nang-aaway, just sharing factual insights. im also discontented with our country (not just the leaders, but also the voting masses) but im still hopeful and not leaving the country and doing everything to, at least, change how we look at governance and nation-building. democracy has done a lot of damage. do u think, wed still stick with it?
ask these people also to be disconnected to cellular networks..as if the country isn’t full yet with imbeciles and idiots running the country..
Next time try to think on imposing more taxes to people driving Navigators, Expeditions and Tahoes. Amd oh have we forgotten that all goverment cars derive their gas as govermnent expenditure? oh wait we are stupid mindless mobs right? we are not supposed to know that!
Mr Fabila here, i suppose is using a 4 stroke motorcycle to attend to to his work.i suppose. cynical ei?
pyk,
Thanks thanks for those insights! Those kinds of comments makes me say “oo nga no” then “teka, hinde”. heheheh. Sarap mag isip!
I’d really love to rebut on the issues/topics in your comment. pero i’d have to stick with the topic of SMS Tax.
You say favila is right on putting tax on SMS. For me he’s wrong. There are other means and ways to raise money for the government. Like what cesar said up there, they could instead impose more tax on tobacco and liquor. To lessen the people who smoke and/or drink.
But WHY SMS?
Kasi nga - i think - that’s the easiest way to earn. kasi nga maraming gumagamit ng SMS. right? So are they really thinking? Or they’re just using their eyes and not their brains?
Again, there are other ways to earn money for the government.
oil prices has more damaging effects than sms prices, kahit nga lng sa household level. kaya i conceded on Favila.
lets assume…. household (or hh) spends its monthly income of P10k to:
basic tax and insurances 3k
food and transpo 3k
house rent 2k
celphone 500
clothes 500
TOTAL 9K
SAVING 1K
CASE 1
now lets assume OIL PRICE INCREASES! govt acts: taxed SMS thru communication networks (”directly making” txt cards and mobile phone subscription more expensive) and reducing oil tax (directly decreasing or least, maintaining” cost of transporting people and goods and the cost of goods cheaper or least, the same)
10k now is spent to:
basic tax and insurances 3k
food and transpo 2,7k or least 3k!!
house rent 2k
celphone 800!!
clothes 500
TOTAL 9k!! or least 9,3!!
UTANG NA 1k!! or least 700
CASE 2
lets assume pa rin OIL PRICE INCREASES! but this time, govt acts differently: no SMS tax (”directly leaving” cost of txt cards and mobile phone subscription the same) and no oil tax reduction (”directly making” the cost of transporting people and goods and the cost of goods more expensive)
10k now is spent to:
basic tax and insurances 3k
food and transpo 4k!!
house rent 2k
celphone 500!!
clothes 500
TOTAL EXPENSES 10k!!
SAVING 0!!
does it tell you a lot?? yes! a lot!
with CASE 1 (sms tax, reduced oil tax), a household “CONSERVATIVELY” retains its regular 9k expenses and 1k saving or LEAST have a minimal increase of expenses and still saves 700.
with CASE 2 (no sms tax, no oil tax reduction), a hh spends more with more expensive fare and food from 3k to 4k. leaving the household with ZERO SAVING.
ZERO SAVING OR p700 saving? of course, id go for the latter.
thus, Favila is sensibly right! and i believe the govt NEED TO REDUCE OIL TAX because ALL GOODS WOULD REALLY BE MORE COSTLY INCLUDING THE TEXT CARDS.
what to tax “alternatively”, so as to maintain public revenue after the oil tax reduction, is the main concern?
sin products (beer and cigars) vs. sms?
both are good because both are not NECESSITIES. however, which “want” is more less necessary? well, not all texters are drinkers and smokers. but all drinkers and smokers can be texters. but i think, the figures are even this day hehe. even then, taxing SMS is not really appropriate because everyone texts. but if ever govt pursues sms tax, id accept them. it would encourage me to do more personal face-to-face conversation.
to maintain public revenue without automatically cutting household income, government instead can focus on penalties and fines, as STRONG ENFORCIVE FACTORS IN DISCIPLINING PEOPLE TO FOLLOW RULES!
pyk,
Nice assumptions, but as my Business law professor would say “It depends”. I can’t say that your assumptions is wrong, maybe they’re just incomplete.
i thought you don’t get the issue, but you do…”what to tax “alternatively”, so as to maintain public revenue after the oil tax reduction, is the main concern?”
Contrary to your belief my friend, SMS or text messaging is now more of a need than a want. It is even evident in your example figures above. Cellphone expenses increased/was maintained, it never decreased.
But i’m not saying that people would choose sms over food/transpo (just making it clear).
And the figures (smokers/texters) will never be even..
I agree with you in the last part of your comment that as an alternative, increase penalties and fines for wrong doings. that way, people MIGHT be discourage from committing them.
The issue again, Why Tax SMS? Of all things in this earth, why SMS?
There’s a good reason behind it, but why do i feel that the bad outways the good? :p
i believe my assumptions on a very complexed issue were deliberately incomplete for clarity and preliminary explanation. and though my discussion was somehow off from the main issue-why tax sms?-it was meant to explain how “minimal” the effects of sms tax to all yet still provides substantial public revenue and regulates damaging effects of oil price increases.
indeed, there are more people texting now than drinking/smoking and texting somehow became a “need”! my wildest guess is….GOVERNMENT CHOSE TO TAX SMS because OF IT!-there are MORE TAX COLLECTIBLES FROM SMS THAN FROM BEERS /CIGARS (imagine taxing 10 texters of 10 people vs. taxing 3-5 drinkers of 10 people)
just like votes, tax is also a numbers game. the more, the better. and any govt would definitely tax on “more”.
and it just felt bad because texting became a “need” to you and to most of us. and i believe, sms tax can still be sensible “along” with sin product taxes….because texting, almost closely similar to drinking and smoking, can be “suspended” or even “stopped/foregone” without DISSATISFYING THE HUMAN NEED TO TALK/ASSOCIATE/RELATE. remember, humanity survived before texting existed. the real “basic” needs are food, water, sleep, shelter, clothes, not texting and drinking. you cant stay long without food, but you can without sms.
and to reiterate my point….taxing SMS is still sensible enough because:
1. it has minimal negative effect to all, being a “suspendable or foregoable modern need”
2. it provides more public revenue to govt, being necessarily embraced by a “larger taxpayer unit”
and yes! there long has been taxes on sin products. they are even one of the government’s urgent taxes for adjustment.
pyk said: “there are MORE TAX COLLECTIBLES FROM SMS THAN FROM BEERS /CIGARS (imagine taxing 10 texters of 10 people vs. taxing 3-5 drinkers of 10 people) :D”
I have no further questions to the witness your honor. =p