A new bill is being considered in the Michigan House of Representatives that would levy a tax on phones is coming under fire from Michigan's telephone companies.
The bill would place a monthly charge of $1.35 on every phone in the state including landlines, cell phones, and Voice over Internet Protocol.
The Telecommunications Association of Michigan launched a print and radio ad campaign Thursday intended to raise awareness about the bill and how it could affect Michigan residents if passed.
Called "Hang Up the Phone Tax," the campaign is aimed at informing voters about what the bill does so they can call their legislators, said Scott Stevenson, president of the Telecommunications Association of Michigan.
"The state is trying to shift $200 million on the bills of telephone users," Stevenson said. "This is not the right way to fund the programs they're trying to fund."
House Bill 4852, sponsored by Rep. George Cushingberry Jr., D-Detroit, would amend the Emergency Telephone Service Enabling Act of 1986 to levy a surcharge of $1.35 per month for every phone that can access the state's 911 emergency system.
If passed, the bill would annually raise $200 million for law enforcement and fire services. The revenue would be placed in the Public Safety Fund, which would fund various law enforcement and safety programs.
Those programs, however, are essential and would benefit from the funding, East Lansing police Chief Tom Wibert said.
Although ELPD would not directly benefit from the passage of the tax, it would have a huge impact on the department, Wibert said.
Recent budget cuts to the Michigan State Police have affected ELPD's ability to do business, delaying results from state crime labs and reducing the number of troopers on the street available for emergencies like riots, he said.
"Much of this bill goes toward replacing what has been cut from the Michigan State Police, and that's a good thing for East Lansing residents," Wibert said. "A stronger state police is good for the locals and well worth $1.35."
While the fund could help assist the police department, the increased cost per phone could negatively impact lower-income families and students, Stevenson said.
"People trying to live on a limited budget don't want to pay more for their cell phone bills," he said. "Assuming some of them don't have discretionary income, they may have to drop features or cancel (their contracts). It will raise the cost of having a phone."
Some students, however, don't feel like the additional $1.35 per phone would be that much of a strain but find the prospect of the bill puzzling.
"It isn't that much money," said 2007 graduate Daniel Feldman. "I'd pay it, but I don't see the necessary value of that if you're already paying taxes."
Others, such as interdisciplinary studies in social science junior Michelle Barbaresso, agreed with the idea of the bill but wished the charge was a bit less.
"I'm pretty broke," Barbaresso said. "It would be nice if it were a little less expensive."
Small businesses also could potentially suffer, said Todd Anderson, vice president of government relations for Small Business Association of Michigan.
"It's one of those things that seems small, but it could be a significant tax increase," Anderson said.
For a small business with 20 people, 20 landlines and 10 cell phones, he said the charge would come close to $500 per year, which would be a heavy burden for some companies.
"Michigan's economy is struggling," Anderson said. "We don't feel you can get Michigan's economy rolling based on taxes."
