In an ever-expanding effort to stuff their coffers with more taxpayer money, the state of Massachusetts approved a new “satellite tax” last summer. As a refugee who was born and raised in Massachusetts, I am very familiar with the state government’s appetite for taxpayer dollars.

It appears that the top satellite TV providers are not about to take this move lying down. In a rare spirit of cooperation, DISH Network and DirecTV have joined to file suit against Massachusetts, calling the new 5% tax “discriminatory.”

The state does impose a tax on cable TV companies and probably other utilities as well, since their lines have to be routed along streets and roads that are considered public property. The satellite companies believe ” and I agree ” that since they are not making use of public property, there are no grounds for the state to impose such a tax.

If the state of Massachusetts is going to start taxing the electromagnetic spectrum, they better figure out a way to start taxing people who watch or listen to any broadcast that is not carried by wires. Perhaps that can add a little bit onto their “excise tax” that all owners of motor vehicles have to pay (at least when I lived there) if the vehicle in question is equipped with a radio!

Apparently, greedy politicians in Florida, Ohio and Tennessee have imposed similar taxes on their residents. Legal action against those states is pending.

Hopefully, the courts will see the flawed logic behind these taxes and abolish them.

I suppose this is what we should expect from politicians when the economy tanks. People are losing their jobs and their homes and they decide to raise taxes. That will be a big help for a lot of struggling families, I’m sure.

The cry babies at the big cable companies must not be happy about the success of satellite broadcasters like DISH Network and DirecTV. They are currently pushing a measure in the California legislature to impose taxes on satellite customers.

Cable company customers in California (and many other states) are required to pay a tax as part of their service, which is due to the fact that delivering cable programming to customers involves stringing wires on telephone polls or underground, which involves the use of public property, including streets.

The satellite companies, who do not encroach on public property in order to deliver programming to their customers, say that taxing them does not make sense. They do not depend on access to public property. Seems like a pretty logical argument to me.

The big cable companies do not let logic stand in their way, however, and I’m sure the big donations they have made to various legislators has no connection to their efforts to tax their competitors. Campaign contributions of $340,000 were handed out by the “cable association” in California between January, 2008 and June 30. In addition, three of the big cable companies, Comcast, Time-Warner and Cox made nearly $1 million in campaign contributions during that time.

Kind of looks like the cable industry was trying very hard to make friends in the right places.

The cable companies claim the new tax on satellite service would help to “level the playing field.” Well, that’s a pretty bogus argument when you consider the fact that the cable companies can also offer high-speed internet and telephone service in addition to cable TV. The satellite companies cannot offer those services without partnering with other companies like AT&T, which once had a partnership with DISH Network.

It appears to me that the extra services that the cable TV companies are able to offer make for a significant advantage when compared to their satellite rivals. Still, new customers continue to sign up for satellite service.

To some of us, a tax on satellite service seems ludicrous. Still, some states have already approved these new taxes. Massachusetts, a state that never met a tax it didn’t like, has already done it. Other states are considering it as well. Hopefully, the people of California will be able to put a stop this money-grab.

See the original story on the L.A. Times for more information.