State Regulators to Telecoms: Hide Those Fees!
A few years ago, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy suggested that employers modify their pay stubs to incorporate The Right to Know Payroll Form In addition to itemizing the "employee' share" of Social Security and Medicare, it also includes the costs to the employer of unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and other government-mandated programs. The theory is that at least some of this money would otherwise flow to the employee, and hence, it is part of a broader government tax system.

Do you think that government officials would be happy with this idea? Obviously not. And it's already been used by telecommunications companies, whose bills routinely have separate lines for FCC access fees, "regulatory assessment fees," and other items.

Today, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, or NASUCA, filed a complaint with the FCC. (NASUCA members are from the offices of various attorneys general.) In the words of the headline writers at the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, "Watchdogs yap at phone surcharges."

Their complaint: these fees are simply part of business, and they should be rolled into one fee charged to the customer. "Phone companies should be banned from imposing an array of surcharges that are labeled so as to suggest the government gets the fees or requires their collection, state watchdog agencies complained to federal regulators on Tuesday." The complaint is here in PDF.

It's true that such items are not going to government coffers, and as such, are not taxes. But some of them are definitely costs imposed by government. I'd say "two cheers for Verizon" and other companies that list these fees on their bills. It's one small step towards getting people familiar with the costs of regulation. The cost of government runs far beyond what we pay in taxes. (permalink)