California wants to tax the news

[Glennfs]

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 52421.html

I can't imagine any decent person supporting a tax on the news. This is an obvious effort to censor and limit information getting out to the unwashed masses by California's extreme left democratic party.
Since they can't control the free flow of information they decided to attempt to tax it. About as Un American as it gets.

[ProfX]

It's kinda misrepresenting the bill here, I think.

The article itself says:

The measure, authored by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, to pay a monthly “journalism usage fee” — to be determined through an arbitration process — based on the social media platform’s monthly ad revenue. The money would go into a fund for payments to the companies that produced the content. Media companies would be required, under the proposed law, to spend at least 70% of that money on journalists and support staff.

[snip]

The bill, which is set to be heard on the Assembly floor Thursday, has received unanimous, bipartisan support in both committees where it has been heard. AB 886 is supported by a range of media outlets, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Blade. It is co-sponsored by the California News Publishers Association, whose members include The Sacramento Bee and parent company McClatchy’s four other news outlets in the state — The Fresno Bee, The Modesto Bee, the San Luis Obispo Tribune and the Merced Sun-Star.

[snip][end]

Reading it, while I understand the goal - making sure news companies get compensation for re-carrying their stories on social media - dunno about the implementation. I want to make sure it goes to journalists producing the content, maybe that formula is good; and I dunno if a flat monthly fee would really be the way to do this. "Subject to negotiation?" What if social media giant X reprints 100 stories but antisocial media giant Y reposts 20.

What it is not is a tax on news or journalism, which is why news organizations are actually supporting it - liberal and conservative. Though I get why the tech giants don't want it, though I really have my doubts "Meta" can't afford to pay these fees.

[gounion]

It's about owning your own content, and being compensated when other make a profit re-posting their news stories. If you go to CNN, they support their business with advertising.

Now, here, if you repost a news story, Plunderer makes no money.

But if you repost a story to FB or Twitter, CNN doesn't make anything, but FB and Twitter do. It's reasonable. Too bad Glenn doesn't understand how business works.

[Glennfs]

It's kinda misrepresenting the bill here, I think.

The article itself says:

The measure, authored by Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, would require social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, to pay a monthly “journalism usage fee” — to be determined through an arbitration process — based on the social media platform’s monthly ad revenue. The money would go into a fund for payments to the companies that produced the content. Media companies would be required, under the proposed law, to spend at least 70% of that money on journalists and support staff.

[snip]

The bill, which is set to be heard on the Assembly floor Thursday, has received unanimous, bipartisan support in both committees where it has been heard. AB 886 is supported by a range of media outlets, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Blade. It is co-sponsored by the California News Publishers Association, whose members include The Sacramento Bee and parent company McClatchy’s four other news outlets in the state — The Fresno Bee, The Modesto Bee, the San Luis Obispo Tribune and the Merced Sun-Star.

[snip][end]

Reading it, while I understand the goal - making sure news companies get compensation for re-carrying their stories on social media - dunno about the implementation. I want to make sure it goes to journalists producing the content, maybe that formula is good; and I dunno if a flat monthly fee would really be the way to do this. "Subject to negotiation?" What if social media giant X reprints 100 stories but antisocial media giant Y reposts 20.

What it is not is a tax on news or journalism, which is why news organizations are actually supporting it - liberal and conservative. Though I get why the tech giants don't want it, though I really have my doubts "Meta" can't afford to pay these fees.

I find that they want to have a sliding scale to he tantamount to censorship. Hannity gets charged 1000 a day Thom Hartmann a dollar a day.

It is California liberals wanting to control the flow if ideas

[gounion]

I find that they want to have a sliding scale to he tantamount to censorship. Hannity gets charged 1000 a day Thom Hartmann a dollar a day.

It is California liberals wanting to control the flow if ideas

Believe whatever stupid shit you want. Reality never intruded into your mind.

[Glennfs]

It's about owning your own content, and being compensated when other make a profit re-posting their news stories. If you go to CNN, they support their business with advertising.

Now, here, if you repost a news story, Plunderer makes no money.

But if you repost a story to FB or Twitter, CNN doesn't make anything, but FB and Twitter do. It's reasonable. Too bad Glenn doesn't understand how business works.

Glenn owns a successful trucking company that grossed over 200k last year.
Glenn is considering expanding into the tow truck industry.
Glenn has owned an ice cream stand and a convenient store.

GoU thinks money isn't real. Nuff said.

This is about California censorship content

[gounion]

Glenn owns a successful trucking company that grossed over 200k last year.
Glenn is considering expanding into the tow truck industry.
Glenn has owned an ice cream stand and a convenient store.

GoU thinks money isn't real. Nuff said.

This is about California censorship content

Let's be clear. I know the truth. You keep bringing up your personal business, so I'm going to set the record straight.

Glenn is a "independent contractor" for a trucking company. You work FOR that trucking company. You can't work for anyone else. You don't employ anyone else. You lease to that company. So, you are no more a "successful company owner" than an Uber driver is. They just do that so they don't have to pay your health insurance or employment taxes. But make no mistake - you ARE an employee.

And money IS a fiction. Pure and simple. But it's guys like you that keep clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.

[ProfX]

I find that they want to have a sliding scale to he tantamount to censorship. Hannity gets charged 1000 a day Thom Hartmann a dollar a day.

It is California liberals wanting to control the flow if ideas

No, it's the CA legislature wanting to make sure journalists get compensated for their work by social media platforms who reuse their work and profit from it via advertising - regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Nothing suggests it would be based on the ideology of the reporter or organization. I don't know what "subject to arbitration" means exactly but I would think the fairest system would be based on the amount of reused content.

[gounion]

No, it's the CA legislature wanting to make sure journalists get compensated for their work by social media platforms who reuse their work and profit from it via advertising - regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

Nothing suggests it would be based on the ideology of the reporter or organization. I don't know what "subject to arbitration" means exactly but I would think the fairest system would be based on the amount of reused content.

Labor arbitration is fair and just. I could go on for hours explaining it, but I think I've done so before.

[JoeMemphis]

Let's be clear. I know the truth. You keep bringing up your personal business, so I'm going to set the record straight.

Glenn is a "independent contractor" for a trucking company. You work FOR that trucking company. You can't work for anyone else. You don't employ anyone else. You lease to that company. So, you are no more a "successful company owner" than an Uber driver is. They just do that so they don't have to pay your health insurance or employment taxes. But make no mistake - you ARE an employee.

And money IS a fiction. Pure and simple. But it's guys like you that keep clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.

Actually independent contractors do pay employment taxes. Actually they pay both the employee side and employer side of payroll taxes. I would imagine that Glenn is responsible for his equipment and is on the line personally for any debt on that equipment. Not typical of an employee. So while I know you don’t think highly of independent contractors as you can’t unionize such folks, they are businesses. They aren’t employees.

[Glennfs]

Let's be clear. I know the truth. You keep bringing up your personal business, so I'm going to set the record straight.

Glenn is a "independent contractor" for a trucking company. You work FOR that trucking company. You can't work for anyone else. You don't employ anyone else. You lease to that company. So, you are no more a "successful company owner" than an Uber driver is. They just do that so they don't have to pay your health insurance or employment taxes. But make no mistake - you ARE an employee.

And money IS a fiction. Pure and simple. But it's guys like you that keep clapping to keep Tinkerbell alive.

I have my equipment leased to a very large company. I set my own hours and am not under any forced dispatch.
In fact just yesterday I negotiated that starting in July I will only be available 17 days a month 10 months a year. Taking off from Christmas until March.
I also work a tow truck and drive Uber on my time off.
However if in your mind operating a company that grosses over 200k a year does not qualify that person as owning a successful business. I would like to hear what does.

[ZoWie]

California is not taxing the news.

The true aim of the proposed legislation is to compensate for the unauthorized use of copyrighted news writing over the Internet. It's yet another example of how these 20-year cycles of technology leave our institutions forever in a state of catch-up.

California does not tax every human activity to pay for spending programs that channel cash to Democratic Party approved charities. That's another net.legend made up by righties looking for scraps to throw at the "Left Coast," as they call it.

The proposal is supported by both parties, including some of the most conservative Republicans in the country.

[Toonces]

If you were to Google the California Journalism Preservation Act, most articles seem to center on Meta's objection to it. If you were to find a journalist's take on it, you'll find they're probably in favor.

And why wouldn't Meta complain? Their income stream is advertising. You are their product. The longer they have you reading Facebook, refreshing or scrolling, the more they make from their advertisers. If you're posting articles on their website for others to read, you are helping them generate income. The media news companies' product is their news and they should be entitled to make money on their product. News for profit is what we've pivoted to, for better or for worse.

Now, should Meta be charged if the news organization itself is placing it on Facebook, I don't think so. Hell, if the media company is making money in promoting their stories on Meta, Meta should have a right to benefit from that as well. Though, they already do to some extent in that those posts inherently benefit Facebook.

If you're making a delivery and a company came to you and said "Hey, you're going there anyway, can you deliver this for us for free?", you might be inclined to say 'no'. I mean, you do the work and they get the profit. Doesn't seem all that fair, does it? Sure, in theory, it doesn't cost you anything but someone else is profiting off your services.

I guess that's the idea behind the implementation of such a bill. Whether or not it functions that way is up to the lawyers.

[Number6]

California is not taxing the news.

The true aim of the proposed legislation is to compensate for the unauthorized use of copyrighted news writing over the Internet. It's yet another example of how these 20-year cycles of technology leave our institutions forever in a state of catch-up.

California does not tax every human activity to pay for spending programs that channel cash to Democratic Party approved charities. That's another net.legend made up by righties looking for scraps to throw at the "Left Coast," as they call it.

The proposal is supported by both parties, including some of the most conservative Republicans in the country.

Succinctly and accurately stated. This isn't a tax going to California but its more of an equivalent licensing fee for internet companies using news articles to go to the news media that originated the articles.

[gounion]

I have my equipment leased to a very large company. I set my own hours and am not under any forced dispatch.
In fact just yesterday I negotiated that starting in July I will only be available 17 days a month 10 months a year. Taking off from Christmas until March.
I also work a tow truck and drive Uber on my time off.
However if in your mind operating a company that grosses over 200k a year does not qualify that person as owning a successful business. I would like to hear what does.

You can gross over 200k a year and go broke. Gross means what you take in. Doesn't mean you have 200k.

People gross over 1 million a year and go bankrupt all the time.

And it's good to do that when you're drawing Social Security, eh?

[gounion]

Actually independent contractors do pay employment taxes. Actually they pay both the employee side and employer side of payroll taxes. I would imagine that Glenn is responsible for his equipment and is on the line personally for any debt on that equipment. Not typical of an employee. So while I know you don’t think highly of independent contractors as you can’t unionize such folks, they are businesses. They aren’t employees.

Again, when you're leasing to ONE company, you are "independent" in name only. You are, in effect, their employee. And many things, such as unionization, is why companies do this. They can slide costs and risk onto the contractor. The contractor is liable for any and all mechanical problems with the rig, and they have to eat those costs.

Glenn has to play by their rules, do what they say. He doesn't have a choice. He's under their thumb. If they don't like it, they can drop him. He doesn't have any rights at all. Hell, they can change his working conditions at will, too.

Glenn wants to pretend he's this genius "business owner" but he's not. He's just another trucker trying to make a buck and mostly succeeding because he IS a good trucker. I won't take THAT away from him. But he's pretending to be something he's not, and that's a businessman.

[Glennfs]

Again, when you're leasing to ONE company, you are "independent" in name only. You are, in effect, their employee. And many things, such as unionization, is why companies do this. They can slide costs and risk onto the contractor. The contractor is liable for any and all mechanical problems with the rig, and they have to eat those costs.

Glenn has to play by their rules, do what they say. He doesn't have a choice. He's under their thumb. If they don't like it, they can drop him. He doesn't have any rights at all. Hell, they can change his working conditions at will, too.

Glenn wants to pretend he's this genius "business owner" but he's not. He's just another trucker trying to make a buck and mostly succeeding because he IS a good trucker. I won't take THAT away from him. But he's pretending to be something he's not, and that's a businessman.

So as a company driver union or not could I negotiate a 17 day work month with January and February off.

I don't know what your definition of a business owner is but, what you described was the definition of a company employee not an independent contractor.

[gounion]

So as a company driver union or not could I negotiate a 17 day work month with January and February off.

I don't know what your definition of a business owner is but, what you described was the definition of a company employee not an independent contractor.

As a non-union driver they can tell you they don't need you but part of the time. But they'd just lay you off, as they wouldn't want to pay your health insurance.

As a contractor, if you don't work, you don't get paid. They don't have to pay your health insurance, you paid it yourself thanks to President Obama and the Democrats, now you have Medicare and Social Security thanks to the Democrats.

[Glennfs]

There are a large group of people who embrace their personal freedom and do not want the government to wipe our asses.

The California liberals trying to end Uber and independent contractors do in their opinions have our best interests at heart.

But the fact is we drive Uber and work as independent contractors no matter the field because our best interests is in doing what we enjoy without big brother looking over our shoulders, trying to protect us from the big bad companies we work with.

[gounion]

There are a large group of people who embrace their personal freedom and do not want the government to wipe our asses.

The California liberals trying to end Uber and independent contractors do in their opinions have our best interests at heart.

But the fact is we drive Uber and work as independent contractors no matter the field because our best interests is in doing what we enjoy without big brother looking over our shoulders, trying to protect us from the big bad companies we work with.

Says the man that is taking Medicare and Social Security. The feds are sure wiping YOUR ass!

[Glennfs]

Says the man that is taking Medicare and Social Security. The feds are sure wiping YOUR ass!

I was forced to pay for both for over 40 years and am still paying for both.

Start a fund and pay me everything I paid I with compound interest based upon the DJIA every year between 1974 and 2023 and I will be fine.

[gounion]

I was forced to pay for both for over 40 years and am still paying for both.

Start a fund and pay me everything I paid I with compound interest based upon the DJIA every year between 1974 and 2023 and I will be fine.

Yeah, or you could have saved money yourself. But you didn't worry about it, did you, because Uncle Sugar had your back.

But how would you get Medical Insurance affordably at 65 without Medicare? Go ahead, explain.

[Glennfs]

Yeah, or you could have saved money yourself. But you didn't worry about it, did you, because Uncle Sugar had your back.

But how would you get Medical Insurance affordably at 65 without Medicare? Go ahead, explain.

No I had no choice the government forcibly took that money from my pay. Then paid me no interest on my money.
Forcing me to support the mist successful ponzi scheme I history. One that will never blow up as long as the government can simply increase the amount you pay in when the fund gets low.

[gounion]

No I had no choice the government forcibly took that money from my pay. Then paid me no interest on my money.
Forcing me to support the mist successful ponzi scheme I history. One that will never blow up as long as the government can simply increase the amount you pay in when the fund gets low.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. Not one payment to a beneficiary missed since 1935.

And again, you've signed up for Uncle Sugar to wipe your butt, so quitcherbitchen.

[Glennfs]

It's not a Ponzi scheme. Not one payment to a beneficiary missed since 1935.

And again, you've signed up for Uncle Sugar to wipe your butt, so quitcherbitchen.

And no ponzi scheme ever misses a payment as long as they can keep bringing in new investors.
SSI raises the cutoff amount. Plus every time the minimum wage increases they also get a boost.
As the economy grows and industry and individuals create more jobs they get a boost.
SSI will never miss a payment because they can simply keep changing things in order to increase their revenue