California Considering More Internet Taxes

dcg writes "San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on how web taxes could help the states, especially California, with its budget woes. One particularly disconcerting comment is from California's Controller Steve Westly. 'In addition to sales taxes, Westly said he is considering a tax on Internet access like those that appear on telephone bills. He also is looking at a tax on software downloads.' Would this affect only purchased software, or could sourceforge.net become a source of revenue for the state..."

Comments

Looking the wrong direction

[jmuzic1]

Amazing how quickly they look to tax more instead of looking at their budget and ridding themselves of all the bloat of government.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[numbsafari]

It's not their fault they have no fiscal discipline!

Get with the friggin' program!

It's the fault of the evil corporatists who exploit the citizens of california by providing them with high paying jobs and great products and merchandise, forcing them into a culture of consumerism. It's the fault of the wealthy exploiters who evade their tax obligations! It's the fault of McDonald's because they sold hamburgers to people who consumed them and got fat and have health problems! The citizens didn't know that eating 3 fatty burgers a day and a large Chocolate Shake with every meal could kill! They were innocent!

It's the fault of the gun companies because they sold guns to the criminals--forcing them to commit crimes and thus forcing california to build prisons!

If only California were more like Europe. Stupid American capitalist bastard! You are so simple! You just don't get it!

Blame someone else, that way you look really intellectual!

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[mAIsE]

an interesting effect would be to see allot of E-Tailers move out of California if this were enacted.

Maybe say to Oregon or Texas, just somewhere more buisness friendly.

Then they would be screwed out of alot more than sales tax.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

In a "democracy" like ours, it's a habit of the
majority of entrenched politicians and parties to
empty the treasury for their favorite constituency. Only now, the government has grown so huge and omnipotent that it no longer matters where the money is coming from in the first place, or where it's going. Pick your favorite political issue, juxtapose it with either "we're raising taxes in order to increase revenues" (during an economic downturn?!!) or "revenues are pouring in like never before", and you've got the perfect excuse to increase the national debt.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[TheJesusCandle]

Not really. Sales tax isnt all that noticible in consumer level pricing of products.

What theyre really doing is covering up a well known and very often exploited tax loophole. Suppose you buy some expensive development software. If you buy it online and have it distributed to you online, you avoid the sales tax.

This doesnt usually ammount to very great savings to consumers, but when your talking about 100,000 dollar products, the tax money is significant to both the consumer and the state.

I'm supprised this hasnt happened sooner.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[$$$$$exyGal]

Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us voluntarily began collecting online sales taxes in most states and all three now charge Internet sales tax in California.

It looks like some big companies decided to voluntarily start collecting taxes, so you can't just blame the government. However, it looks like there is one concrete reason why these companies are starting to tax, and one speculative reason (on my part). First, the article says they are collecting taxes, now, so that the states won't "back-tax" them in the future. Second, I speculate that some of the big companies that are ready to start taxing want to force everyone to start taxing. That way they will have a leg up on the competition. Some companies won't even be able to afford to implement a tax system, they'll just go out of business.

--naked

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Dr.Evil]

Spoken like a true Libertarian (or a demagoguing Republican). There are budget cuts happening all over California. They're coming in public schools, rural healthcare, state parks, higher education, and more. Those are services that most Americans, and especially Californians, think are important. In fact, in order to cover the necessary gap, Gov. Davis has proposed more cuts than new taxes.

Incidentally, I decided to reply instead of modding you down, even though zapping your "insightful" bonus was very tempting.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[jmuzic1]

Correct, Libertarian. Yes, they are (thankfully) cutting many many programs. They just need to stop thinking that cutting programs will solve the problem. They need to start eliminating programs.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

You're responsible for paying taxes on goods you purchase. They're just trying to force the vendors to collect the tax, because no one pays it.
It's pretty stupid anyway. Sales taxes are regressive.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Monkelectric]

I know you think you're being funny, but California's deficit is almost entirely to blame on the price-fixing during the energy shortage which is in fact the fault of, big business.

It is also GW Bush's fault for not intervening (by ordering FIRC to control prices). He chose not to intervene for two reasons: 1: To try to sink Grey Davis (which didn't work), Republicans argued unsuccesfully that the energy shortage was his fault, even though it was a REPUBLICAN governor that deregulated the industry. 2: Enron and other energy companies in which GW Bush is vested in benefited from the energy crisis. Enron avoided bankruptcy for an extra year with the cash from ripping off California.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[zulux]

There are budget cuts happening all over California. They're coming in public schools

Good. There is olny a faint coralation between spending and quality of education.

Germany and Japan spend less, per child, on education and they both kick our asses.

Short answer: fire half of the school administrators, get rid of the retarded children, raise teacher saleries, get rid of the 'team sports', and ban disruptive children permently.

That would solve most of our problems in our education system and we'd end up spending less.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Sam Stephens]

Why didn't California build more power plants instead of buying their energy?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[umofomia]

Short answer: fire half of the school administrators, get rid of the retarded children, raise teacher saleries, get rid of the 'team sports', and ban disruptive children permently.

And where do you suppose these retarded and disruptive children will go? Cutting the bottom tail of the curve only gives the appearance higher quality by increasing the average grade but in actuality changes nothing. In addition, I don't see how banning 'team sports' helps your argument.

I agree we are using our money inefficiently, but your solutions do nothing to solve the problem.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Fastball]

I know you think you're being funny, but California's deficit is almost entirely to blame on the price-fixing during the energy shortage which is in fact the fault of, big business.

This is patently false. The California state legislature voted to cap energy prices for consumers under the guise of deregulation. So you had consumers paying a fixed price for energy despite an energy shortage. And when there's a shortage of anything, prices rise. So there you had Californians paying pennies on every dollar the state of California expended for energy.

California's energy plan was anything but deregulation. You don't get something for nothing, but that's how the California state legislature saw it, and so you have them to blame, not one man in a marble house thousands of miles away.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[rworne]

You can't just slap together a power plant in a few months.

California hadn't built any plants for years before the power crisis, possibly a decade or more. The main reasons are all the environmental studies, regulations, NIMBYism, and protestors.

Californians are just reaping the fruits of their political choices, plain and simple.

Bush and his gang might have left California in a lurch just for "payback". As a Republican living in California, I somehow find all of this less than amusing.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

"get rid" of retarded children? what kind of coldhearted bastard are you?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Graspee_Leemoor]

So I have a new idea- we get all the parents of the children you're referring to, and your good self, and put them in this large room. We tell the parents what you suggested regarding their children.

Then we see after a while who has "fallen accidentally" in the pit of spikes.

graspee

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

This is patently false. The California state legislature voted to cap energy prices for consumers under the guise of deregulation.

You're telling the truth but not the full story. At the time that deregulation was being sold to consumers the cap was considered irrelevant. The two messages hammered into the public's awareness were:

-- The removal of oversight was going to produce such huge competition and cost advantages that prices would go way down (far below the cap).
-- You could choose the source of your electricity (billed separately from power distibution for the first time), so you could decide between cheap power or less cheap green power, for example.

Neither of these lasted. But deregulation did occur and lots of money was made.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[ergo98]

This is patently false. The California state legislature voted to cap energy prices for consumers under the guise of deregulation. So you had consumers paying a fixed price for energy despite an energy shortage.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/22/news-rappleye.ph p

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the better way that it could have been phrased is "reassign children with lower grades into a slower paced school" and let the children that are capable stay in a tougher academic environment. Basically, don't slow lessons down to the speed of the bottom 25% (look at the average grades in high school...A's...tells you that most people find the schools easy). Not everyone learns the same way or at the same pace, so why should we force them to? This of course ignores the political aspect of it, and that people will complain if their children (who would ideally be only the distruptive or slower learning) were not in the "good" schools, those children would be bussed to the "good" schools, and we'd be back to where we are now. The main point seemed to be, rather than throw money at schools (or complain that it has to be), push standards up, and emphasize learning, not who gets on the football team/cheerleading squad.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[zulux]

So I have a new idea- we get all the parents of the children you're referring to, and your good self, and put them in this large room. We tell the parents what you suggested regarding their children.


Woah! Are you clever! Turn the tables around! Wow! I bow down to your superior intelect.

Or somthing.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[satch89450]

an interesting effect would be to see allot of E-Tailers move out of California if this were enacted. Maybe say to Oregon or Texas, just somewhere more buisness friendly. Then they would be screwed out of alot more than sales tax.

San Francisco considers the Sierras "their" playground, so why not move closer to where you play? Nevada welcomes any and all e-business. Indeed, there is a pool of high-tech workers already in place, sufficient housing that is considerably less expensive for employees that move with the companies, crime rates that compare very favorably when compared with the Bay area (for example, there have been seven murders where I live in the past 11 years), an international airport that is underutilized right now, and Internet bandwidth almost for the asking. South Reno is where many e-tailers have already set up shop...but there is plenty of room for more.

One reason that some e-tailers came here is that Nevada has no reciprocal arrangement with any other state regarding sales tax. (Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself.) With less than 2 percent of the population of the United States, our sales tax situation is much more friendly. Instead of hundreds or thousands of taxable areas to track, you only have to worry about 17 areas -- the Nevada counties. Out of state taxes? Right now, you don't sweat it if you are completely in Nevada. Let the other states deal with the problem as they see fit. Until the Feds step in, don't expect Nevada to force the burden of collecting other states' taxes on you. (But get rid of all ties to all other states to make this work.)

The body of Nevada law is MUCH simpler, and the taxes are low. (Governer Quinn is trying to raise business taxes, but the level is nowhere near where California has staked a claim on yourrevenue.) Traffic jams? Where?

The advantage that Reno/Sparks/Carson has over Las Vegas/Henderson is that we don't have an upcoming water shortage. That makes Reno more attractive to businesses currently in the Southland who want to move east to avoid Sacramento's nose in their tent.

Think Reno is too expensive? Consider Carson City. Fallon (Amazon.com and the Navy did). And other places in the Silver State.

If you are worried about the morals of Reno and vicinity, you need not be. During the past decade, the southern part of Reno has become family-friendly. For example, by law there are no brothals in Washoe County, and the "strip joints" are all in the northern, industrial part of the city. There are some parts of Reno where Bay area people would feel right at home, as we have many of the same chain stores and amenities -- but in addition our houses have open space and lawns, instead of the alleys that characterize many of the housing developments in places like Mountain View or the "row houses" of 19th Avenue. You can find schools in which the parents have a lot of say in what is taught in them. Parks? Yes. Ask a Realtor for more information on what Reno and vicinity has for the kids.

If you are rich and clean, consider coming to my home, Lake Tahoe, to set up shop. Incline Village has many people like me just waiting for you to bring your business and succeed. Or, if you prefer a louder lifestyle, consider coming around Wayne Newton's land on the East side of the lake and give Stateline and Zepher Cove a look-see.

It's four hours from where you are now (less if you are on the East side of the Bay) so you can still easily go to the places you know and love, and see the friends that decide to stay behind.

All you have to lose are the individual income tax payments -- Nevada has a personal income tax rate of 0.000%, and even the current Governer isn't asking for a change in that tax rate. Sales taxes are less, at 6.0-7.5% throughout the state. Property taxes are less than those in the Bay area or Los Angeles, according to people who own houses here and "there".

Check it out. Many ex-SF people live here now.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[bigneight]

This isn't entirely true. The CA state government has terribly mismanaged funds in recent years. While state revenue increased by about 20%, state spending increased by almost 40%. The problem is, when they have the money, they throw it away, and when they don't have it, they still throw it away but just up the taxes.

We just narrowly missed having our car tax (registration fee) TRIPLED. The only reason the governor didn't sign it is because he wants the republicans in the Assembly to vote in his budget, which includes increases on just about every other tax in the state.

I guess that's what you get when the democrats are in charge.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[cheezus_es_lard]

Oh come on now. You know that the only reason these online retailers are collecting taxes is so that they can a. keep the cash if never asked for it and b. cover themselves if they get asked for retroactive taxes.. plus while they hold the cash they can collect interest on it.

Sales tax is an un-necessary thing. If America would recognize the benefits of an 18% flat tax system and would decide to return most power to the states, we could afford to feed every hungry person in the US, give jobs to all of the jobless, so on and so forth.

Karl Marx would be proud of us, with our 'graduated' income tax structure.... his communist models use a very similar structure to avoid taxing the wealthy at the top of the pyramid.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[thogard]

And how many plants are in the works now? is it still 0?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Football has proven very valuable to the US. Its a pretrainging ground for cannon fodder and it works very well.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't California build more power plants instead of buying their energy?

By the time the high prices arrived it was too late.
Before that? Well, the state doesn't usually build power plants and deregulation means that it doesn't tell companies what to do any more. The private companies and utilities held off on construction to see what would happen in the newly deregulated environment they had asked for and sold some of their plants to the out of state corporations you may have heard about.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[N3WBI3]

actullay I rather think a large sales tax and no income tax would be better (and by the way more constitutional) but a flat tax is far better than the mess we have now..

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[kien]

I can't wait to visit Nevada. I consider it the GNU/Linux equivalent for a state in the US. Lots of flavors, take your pick. :)

--K.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also GW Bush's fault for not intervening (by ordering FIRC to control prices).

The power crisis was in the winter of 2000. Surely you meant that it was Pres. Clinton's fault for not intervening.

Bush could not have intervened until the end of January 2001, when the power crisis was mostly over.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

> And how many plants are in the works now? is it still 0?

Increases in supply that have already happened (both full time/full size and temporary "peaker" plants were constructed after the crisis) and demand has decreased due to the recession, so zero doesn't seem like a bad number.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, let's cut ALL programs for the poor, let's make education a luxury ONLY for the rich, hell, let's go by the libertarian/republican way of thinking, make everything a luxury for the rich, after all, Dog Eat Dog/Survival of the Fittest.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's right, just dismiss the whole argument out of hand. That's progress. Way to keep the schools broken.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

.

Wherehouse them - that's what we end up doing anyways. They don't seem to mind - they have no real minds to begin with. The less money we spend on them the better.

.

AFAIK, 'team sports' - football, baseball et al are a money drain on our shools and help perpetuate a way of life I find disagreeable - Image is imortant, self-acheivments is worthless, respect authority (the coach), bla bla bla. Teach kids to scuba-dive, fly, or climb mountains and I think we'd be better off.

.

So what you're saying, basically, is that you should be warehoused?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

School administration: It's true that there's some fat here, but that's true in any government division.

Get rid of all the retarded children: Say WHAT? Just because some kids aren't smart enough, they shouldn't get an education? Where do you draw the line? Should anyone with an IQ of below 100 not be able to get a public education? I realize that a disproportionate amount of school funding goes to help the disabled, but I think that's fine. Good students generally can give themselves a leg up. The people who need help deserve it just as much as those who can use it to get ahead.

Raise teacher salaries: This actually, is a good idea. Unfortunately, it costs money. Lots of money. Education is already one of the biggest money sinks in government, and yet per student is often gloriously underfunded. But, as you said earlier, since spending isn't strongly correlated to education, I guess we can deal. Maybe we can just have a few highly paid teachers in college seminar style classrooms. I'm sure this will work well with high school students who are already bored to hell in their classrooms.

Get rid of 'team sports': Look, you may have had a bad experience playing dodgeball, but sports in general help people. Just as music helps develop critical intellectual skills, sports helps improve certain social skills, physical well-being, and motivation.

Get rid of disruptive children: Yes, disruptive children adversely affect the behavior of others. Yes they show little care or want to improving themselves. But what would you do with children who don't want to learn? If you completely cast them away, do you think they're just going to go work at McDonald's happily ever after? No. They'll keep the same anti-social tendencies for the rest of their lives, likely never moving beyond a low-grade education. Also quite possible is a descent into crime.

Sorry, but putting off the problem until problem makers can drive cars, buy guns, and become even more sociopathic than they already are is not the answer.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

fire half of the school administrators, get rid of the retarded children, raise teacher saleries, get rid of the 'team sports', and ban disruptive children permently.

Wow, I guess the line between insightfulness and flagrant flaimbait is indeed thin. Until the part about retarded children sank in, I was more or less agreeing. I am going to ignore the defining of "disruptive" (people do get expelled from schools even now...)

As to the "retarded children", I don't know where to begin.... how do you propose doing that? Shoot them at birth? put them to sleep? Send them to the woods? Maybe send them to jail? Perhaps black or foreign children will be next?

Mind you, I strongly agree that children should be divided into proficiency levels to avoid averaging everybody. As to you, sir... You come to mind as the first person to "get rid of". (and perhaps you were expelled from school: There is olny a faint coralation

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I just don't think retards and delenquents belong in socioty

Well they are in society and you just have to deal. Perhaps Patriot Act 3 will enact a minimum IQ, but that hasn't happened yet.

I don't even mind dealing with the retarded - they're usually fairly decent, or at least as decent as anyone else. Perhaps they're too stupid to scheme properly, so they play it straight. Anyway, they're citizens, and I prefer them to willful idiots any day.

As for delinquents, discipline them young, while they still have a chance. Keep them away from soft-headed social workers and apply some corporal discipline where it's needed. The last thing I want or need is for these kids to get light treatment until they turn 18, whereupon they get thrown in prison (cirminal university) for something that used to get them two weeks in the county lockup. When you think about it, it makes no sense.

I want to see these kids reformed into decent people while it's still possible, and that means starting when they're young. Far better to have somebody doing auto repair or fixing plumbing for $25/hr than rotting in a cell for $30k/yr.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Fulcrum of Evil]

This :giant-room" is fucking huge - it's 10,000 sq feet huge. A small section of the room has a pit of sharp spikes with a warning sign above it - "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!".

The children are ushered in on the side of the room away from the pit of spikes, and get to spend the entire day in the room. Away from the pit of spikes are the bathrooms and eating facilities.

The stupid children fall into the pit of spikes.

The smart ones stay away.

Gee, I hope Johnny didn't piss anyone off that day.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[lpq]

So there you had Californians paying pennies on every dollar the state of California expended for energy

Ever check the prices for electricity around the nation?

Before the energy shortage?

California had the highest rates in the nation. Texas, at the time, had one of the lowest rates. Enron gives away cheap energy to texas to support bush, Bush grabs presidency, Enron tries to bail itself out by gouging Californians -- Bush's enemy, Enron goes bankrupt after California government steps in and negotiates contracts that remove carpet from under enron feet.

So californians, paying pennies on the dollar? You're right. During the energy crisis instead of 1-4 cents/kwh rest of nation pays, we were being charged 20-70+c/kwh...so your damn right we paid pennies on Texas's dollar...and your point?

Seems like the budget problems have gone hand in hand with the recession -- or hasn't anyone noticed that? Why doesn't the State do what every other company does in tight times?

*cut back*...

Noooo....government is a one way affair...just keeps growing and growing...takes on a life of its own...supposed to be of the people by the people and for the people. ... guess last presidential election proves that isn't true anymore...

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[sgups]

And sadly Ontario is going the same way. While industrial and residential consumers continue to be irresponsible in their use of resources like power, water but whine when the bills go up. And what does the Premier do in election year - cap the price retro-actively. So the utilities have to refund the money plus any taxes collected on them.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[goroth]

Germany and Japan spend less, per child, on education and they both kick our asses.

Germany might not be doing as well as you think. See this.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[andcal]

Bush and his gang might have left California in a lurch just for "payback".

Or, Bush and his gang just might have left California "in a lurch" because if he bailed them out of their own mess, other states' crooked politicians may have thought they would have a similar safety net when making similar stupid decisions.

All Bush did was let California's leaders sleep in the bed they made themselves.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[zulux]

As for delinquents, discipline them young, while they still have a chance. Keep them away from soft-headed social workers and apply some corporal discipline where it's needed. The last thing I want or need is for these kids to get light treatment until they turn 18, whereupon they get thrown in prison (cirminal university) for something that used to get them two weeks in the county lockup. When you think about it, it makes no sense.

I agree fully. And odlly - almost everybody else that I know agrees with this sentiment, and yet, as a county, we constantly choose to coddle the little brats.

A mother can't spank her child in public for rear of the abuse-police.

My parent's, on occasion, spanked me raw - an I have thanked them for it. It kept me from doing a lot of stupid things with my life. I doubt I would be the person I am today if my parents diden't care enought to lay down the law.

I feel truly sorry for the childen who don't get the benifit of caring, thoughfull and smart parents.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[kien]

This :giant-room" is fucking huge - it's 10,000 sq feet huge. A small section of the room has a pit of sharp spikes with a warning sign above it - "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!".
The children are ushered in on the side of the room away from the pit of spikes, and get to spend the entire day in the room. Away from the pit of spikes are the bathrooms and eating facilities.
The stupid children fall into the pit of spikes.
The smart ones stay away.
If you're too stupid to fall into a pit of spikes, we'll, good ridance.

Interesting point. I guess it all depends on your definition of "stupid". Obviously, your level of intelligence suggests that illiterate people are stupid.

Well, my level of intelligence suggests that people of your level of intelligence (that do not understand the use of contractions in the English language as evidenced by your usage of "we'll" instead of "well" and "ridance" instead of "riddance") are perfectly entitled to your uninformed opinion...but not before I suggest that you're an idiotic asshole.

You do make a point though...some people shouldn't be allowed to breed. I think your target should be the image that you see in a mirror.

--K.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[_ECC_]

Who is John Galt?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Troll_Kamikaze]

zulux:

This :giant-room" is fucking huge - it's 10,000 sq feet huge. A small section of the room has a pit of sharp spikes with a warning sign above it - "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!".

kien:

Interesting point. I guess it all depends on your definition of "stupid". Obviously, your level of intelligence suggests that illiterate people are stupid.

No, it's not obvious from his comment that zulux believes illiterate people are stupid. The "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!" sign is just there for good measure; any reasonably intelligent child would avoid falling into the pit, sign or not.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is John Galt?

Exactly! Atlas is shrugging in California! And how do they respond? By adding more taxes and regulations! This is one time I'm in favor of more taxes - it will only hasten the departure of business and capital to friendlier environments, and expidite the eventual collapse of the People's Republic of California. I can't wait!

Social Justice is what occurs when a Liberal gets punched in the mouth.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[wattersa]

And no gun control!!! This is sounding better already-- I've always wanted a full-auto MP5!

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[evilviper]

I rather think a large sales tax and no income tax would be better

I see, so taxes should be harder on the poor, and insignificant to the rich. Taxes should encourage people to speend their money as quickly as possible, rather than saving it (not that people need encouragment).

So... TAX INCOME, NOT SALES! It's a better solution in so many ways.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[eht]

If Johnny pissed off enough people for them to throw him in the pit of spieks I don't think society will miss him much.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

If Johnny pissed off enough people for them to throw him in the pit of spieks I don't think society will miss him much.

Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Mitreya]

The "Pit of Spikes Will Kill You!" sign is just there for good measure; any reasonably intelligent child would avoid falling into the pit, sign or not.

As someone has already pointed out: "Hope Johnny did not piss anyone off today"

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you were/are a loser who got beat up by the jocks in high school and now you think team sports should go.

"AFAIK, 'team sports' - football, baseball et al are a money drain on our shools and help perpetuate a way of life I find disagreeable - Image is imortant, self-acheivments is worthless, respect authority (the coach), bla bla bla."

No moron. Team sports teach teamwork(gee why would you need that?),a work ethic and self confidence. They also greatly reward those who excel by giving them greater opportunity both socially and in the education system. Your a tool to even suggest that self-acheivment has no place in team sports. Life is a team sport dicknose.

Re: respecting authority. Yeah because once we get rid of those horrible coaches(mentors/role models) then we'll just have to get rid of parents, teachers, law enforcement and government officials. Then we'll finally be rid of that authority crap.

Your the loser who didn't "fit in" in high school/grade school and thinks those who didn't hide in the shadows with you are the reason for your social failure.

Your theories suck and so do you. Good luck in the real world, I'm sure you'll fit in just fine.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Clockwurk]

"California had the highest rates in the nation. Texas, at the time, had one of the lowest rates. Enron gives away cheap energy to texas to support bush, Bush grabs presidency, Enron tries to bail itself out by gouging Californians -- Bush's enemy, Enron goes bankrupt after California government steps in and negotiates contracts that remove carpet from under enron feet. "

Wow, thats a lot of bullshit and conspiracy theory for one post. First, CA had the highest rates because Californians are morons and made damn sure that any electricity they bought would come from out of state.

Enron didn't have anything to do with it, I haven't heard about Texas having an energy crisis or their rates shooting through the roof after Enron tanked (like they would have if Enron was "giving away cheap energy to support bush".

If CA wanted deregulation to work (which dems. didn't; it weakens government), they needed to do it, not hold energy prices at an artificial low while bankrupting power companies. CA will continue to lose billions or suffer high energy bills until it has more power plants instate, Plain and Simple.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Fastball]

Enron goes bankrupt after California government steps in and negotiates contracts that remove carpet from under enron feet.

Don't be so naive. Enron destroyed itself with foolish business practices, some illegal. Business between California and Enron was not some clash of the titans. Enron collapsed because of its accounting practices and would have collapsed if California never existed. Furthermore, California could have built more power plants to reduce its dependence on energy suppliers. That was an option the CA state legislature dismissed.

To get back on topic though and find common ground with you, Enron is no more. Capitalist markets have that going for them; when a company becomes the Big Suck either because it fails to compete or god forbid cooks the books like Enron, it crumbles and goes away via bankruptcy or restructuring with new ideas and leadership. Governments including California's aren't so quick to reform or fold. We're talking revolution as a means to that end, and nobody wants to see Joe Californian charging up the steps of the capitol in Sacramento with a Glock in each hand and a Venti Latte in the other. Government power has to be limited, and its tax burden on citizens must be limited.

I hope California avails itself of a better solution for its budget shortfall than it did for its energy shortfall.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Reziac]

Never had to scrape by on minimum wage, eh??

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[thomn8r]

That's funny, the previous year, before deregulation, there was plenty of electricity for everyone. In states with deregulated utilities, plant 'outages' increased something along the lines of 70%. It's great when you can manipulate the supply, ain't it? DeBeers learned that one years ago.

These shennanigans and others came out in the Enron debacle, which your Refumblican leader wants to you make you forget by bombing the crap out of some 3rd-world country.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you? Stupid? Where did the OP say to cut education spending entirely?

What he DID say is to start eliminating programs. A good place would be to eliminate programs which cost the state but yield no benefit for it's people -- like health, housing, education benefits for non-residents. It's lovely to take care of the masses when you have the money to do so... it's another to take care of the masses at the expense of your own.

Here's a good example: You're the breadwinner for a family of 4. You make $4000/mo. You have $3000/mo in expenses. Now give $2000/mo to the guy in the white coat outside the supermarket asking for help for the "poor". Do the math. See how long until you no longer have a roof over your family's head.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Reziac]

My tenant is a 9th grade teacher in a Los Angeles area school. Her take: MAIN problem is that teachers are no longer allowed to discipline students, and parents apparently WON'T do it. So disruptive students have become the *norm*.

My own take: First, take a horsewhip to class, regs be damned. Then fire all the admin types -- per last figures I saw, LAUSD spends something like $5 on admin costs for every $1 it spends in the classroom. What's wrong with this picture??

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[rabidcow]

The stupid children fall into the pit of spikes.

I always thought that was why they plant oleander around all the schools here.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[LoneRanger]

"with a Glock in each hand and a Venti Latte in the other."

So three hands? Perhaps these "Californians" should get to work, with three hands I'm betting you could do a lot more.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[captaincucumber]

republican in california? Yeah, right, and I'm a jew living in Saudi Arabia.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[bcboy]

> California hadn't built any plants for years before the power crisis, possibly a decade or more. The main reasons are all the environmental studies, regulations, NIMBYism, and protestors.

This is dead wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. There have been zero plants denied for environmental reasons.

California has more generating capacity than it needs. The "crisis" was created by Enron gaming the markets.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[denny_d]

there's also the prison union playing a part in it as well increasing penalties for low impact crimes to fill the prisons so that more prisons have to be built by private corporations so that more uneducated low wage laborers can work at union jobs in prisons protecting us from their fellow high school drop outs

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[rworne]

California has a long approval process. If you know what that means, it means "environmental impact study" along with whatever permits are required.

It's been commonly said that no power plants were built in the 90s, and the environmentalist websites try to debunk that. After reading what they say, it turns out there were some plants built. All small, mostly non-utility plants.

In this article, near the bottom, it talks about environmental and (mostly) political opposition to natural gas burning power plants that are popular in California.

But we may be both right, here they talk about this:

What most likely stopped many power plants from actually being built is a powerful NIMBYism (not in my backyard) mentality in California that is in no way limited to "environmentalists." Almost no one -- neighborhoods, businesses, golf courses, hotels, etc. -- wants a power plant, a landfill, radio tower, etc. in their backyard. The environmental "extremists" that often oppose such projects no matter what, often team up with local citizens and businesses (i.e., non environmental extremists) to stop the project. However, many projects are stopped by NIMBYism alone (i.e., little or no environmental opposition was present). NIMBYism and Environmentalism are not the same entity, although NIMBYists often use environmental arguments and they
often enlist environmentalists and environmental groups for support. Ask yourself two simple questions: If someone proposed a new powerplant or new landfill near your neighborhood or business, would you try and fight it? Do you consider yourself a
liberal environmentalist?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

...Californians are morons...

Wow....a blanket statement about 39 million people. You a Texan?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[spongman]

California hasn't built any power plants for years becuase they're (we're, ugh) overrun by liberal 'progrsessive' envorinmental freaks who think it's more important to eat raw food, build fucking windmills and tax the people to hell than act responsibly about one of the largest energy crises in the last two decades.

Liberals have their hearts in the right places. The problem is that their heads are too firmly shoved up their own (or each other's) asses.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about this....I'm Fred, the undiagnosed Psychotic kid in Johnny's class, I always wondered if people's bodies twitch after being impailed in a pit of spikes, Johnny is smaller than me and light enough for me to manhandle him into the pit, there are no adults around, I've already decided to kill any of my other classmates that sees me throw Johnny into the pit, Johnny had his back turned to me, bye bye Johnny.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Mard]

Four words: Silicon Valley Computer Party

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[mgs1000]

I would like more information on these so-called "strip joints" in Reno. Are they cheaper than California too?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Sales tax isnt all that noticible in consumer level pricing of products.

What theyre really doing is covering up a well known and very often exploited tax loophole. Suppose you buy some expensive development software. If you buy it online and have it distributed to you online, you avoid the sales tax.

This doesnt usually ammount to very great savings to consumers, but when your talking about 100,000 dollar products, the tax money is significant to both the consumer and the state.

I'm supprised this hasnt happened sooner.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[crawling_chaos]

The problem is that their heads are too firmly shoved up their own (or each other's) asses. So what you're saying is that liberals and conservatives have at least one thing in common?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[geronimo87]

Actually I believe California will be in violation of Federal Clean Air laws if they build any more plants.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

(for example, there have been seven murders where I live in the past 11 years)

Aren't you worried about the cops digging up your back yard?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that their heads are too firmly shoved up their own (or each other's) asses.
So what you're saying is that liberals and conservatives have at least one thing in common?

If we were in meatspace, I'd buy you a beer for saying that. Good man.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[spike hay]

In addition, I don't see how banning 'team sports' helps your argument.

Do you know how expensive team sports are? They teach nothing.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[BitterOak]

I can't wait to visit Nevada. I consider it the GNU/Linux equivalent for a state in the US.

More BSD-like than GNU-like, as you aren't required to carry Nevada's policies to other states that you subsequently visit after doing business in Nevada.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[ergo98]

While industrial and residential consumers continue to be irresponsible in their use of resources like power, water but whine when the bills go up

Nice revisionist history.

As an Ontarian I was well aware of Mr. Harris' sales campaign for deregulation of electricity--REDUCED PRICES: We were promised the idea that somehow by getting countless layers of remoras each taking of bit of the profit, this increased competition (albeit competition using the same power distribution network and the same generation plants...) would lead to reduces prices for consumers. I find it absolutely hilarious how people such as yourself can parrot conservation now when it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with deregulation, and never, ever was it mentioned. Suddenly when it went to hell as a California like mass-fraud began to take place (suddenly in a province with an abundance of energy, the majority of power generation being non-varying hydro-electricity, all we would hear about is the upcoming threat of blackouts...almost like California).

In any case, again I will say that you must be a bit of a sucker: The Tory government price fixed a single element of the electrical bill while continuing the various other spun-off charges and debt-reduction costs. While saps are sure that this is a big win for those "irresponsible" power users, the reality is that the average electric bill is now from 30-60% higher than it was before. You, sir, have been duped.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[sgups]

Sorry,
I think you misunderstood my message. The stuff about conservation was an aside. The thing is with fixed prices, the ontario govt will have to continue to subsidise the power for all users and continue to run up the deficit or bring the surplus down (the deficit/surplus situation seems to change day-by-day). However, by fixing the cost for the end-consumer, the govt. is letting the consumer off the hook for some irresponsible spending for it is the govt. who will have to pay extra.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Fastball]

I was having a creative fit when I wrote that. It's an Irish bull. Something like, "I attacked with a sword in each hand and a pistol in the other." But who among us couldn't use a third hand?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[wattersa]

If you are rich and clean, consider coming to my home, Lake Tahoe

I'm poor and dirty you insensitive clod!

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[smagruder]

It's the fault of the evil corporatists who exploit the citizens of california by providing them with high paying jobs...

Haven't most of those jobs been offshored to India by now?

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[numbsafari]

Oh yeah, I forgot to blame those "filthy dot heads"!

Give me a break, you racist pig! Let the jobs go to India. Do you really want to be employed doing something that should be paying $300/month? I doubt it. *YOU* really want to be doing something that should be paying *$3000/month* OR MORE. And in order to do that you need to pay attention to your education and your experience.

You got into this industry for what reason? Because of the great technological advancements you could be a part of? Of course... that's why you stuck to programming in COBOL for 30 years...

Blaming Indians and the companies that employ them for the fact that you didn't bother to expand your skill set won't get you a job. It'll just make you bitter.

If job security is what you are looking for, there are plenty of stable opportunities available at 7-11. But then, you've probably got your "little reasons" for not wanting those jobs either...

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[satch89450]

I'm poor and dirty you insensitive clod!

Ah, but is your business rich and clean? By "clean" I mean no nasty exhaust or discharges into the sewers...other than the "usual".

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

You can have the Nevada shithole. And while you're at it, you can have Utah as well. Fucking morons.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[smagruder]

Very sad response. That's all I can say.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[N3WBI3]

what the hell are you talking about how would the rich benefit from a sales tax over income? you see if you spen more (as rich people do) than you pay more.

lets say its 20% if your rich and you buy a 300k house you pay 60 thousand in taxes! if youre middle class and buy a 70K house you pay only 14 thousand. you cant hide your income with corporations as the rich do now because no matter who spends it or how they spend it they will pay sales on it.

I love when people poo-poo the sales tax as being unfair to the poor they have never really thought about it they just react. Do you really think someone who makes 100K a year will spend less than someone who make 30K a year? really will the rich start living on hash and noodles instead of steak? will they buy Neons instead of BMW's?

Currently rich people form corporations to hid their own income and pay a lower rate (or give themselves benefits from the corporation (balancing the books so as to show a small profit) and pay virtually no tax. the more realistic solution is a sales tax.

Give it a little thought before you jump all over me.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[N3WBI3]

Growing up my father lost his job at the plant so dont give me shit about how 'you cant know' because I do! I watched him and my mother work their hands to the bone only to pay more than 40% in state and federal taxes!

Do you know why the rich pay little in taxes? its because they work the system and no matter what you do they will find a way to work it. Even with them working the system the top 50% of Americans pay 96% of the taxes (think about how 'fair' that is). If you put in a sales tax (and eliminate income tax) it will be much harder to get around the system because if its you or a corporation in your name taxes will still be paid.

BTW if you make minimum wage you only pay social security not income tax (they are two different taxes) and income tax taken out of your check will be refunded at years end (or if you care to you can file exempt on your W4 and have none taken out).

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[evilviper]

how would the rich benefit from a sales tax over income? you see if you spen more (as rich people do) than you pay more.

No. The rich spend more, but they save a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes. So someone making three times as much money will likely only spend twice as much, meaning that they've just paid 1/3rd less taxes than they should have.

Let's take Bill Gates for example. Since he make Billions upon Billions, but couldn't spend all of that money if he tried, he would only be taxed on the TINY portion of that which he spends, shifting the burden of taxes to those who can't afford to save most of their money, as the rich can.

you cant hide your income with corporations as the rich do now because no matter who spends it or how they spend it they will pay sales on it.

Oh really... So the rich couldn't, say, buy things across state-lines or outside the country to avouid paying loads of sales tax? And that's just off the top of my head. Imagine what an expensive accountant could figure out! Besides, see the above on SAVING money.

I love when people poo-poo the sales tax as being unfair to the poor they have never really thought about it they just react.

The feeling isn't mutual. I DON'T love it when people spread stupid ideas that they haven't fully thought out, or just aren't qualified, and act like an expert.

Currently rich people form corporations to hid their own income and pay a lower rate

Warning!!! Sarcasm!!!
Yeah, only rich people do that. It's not like teen-agers and illegial immigrants are hiding the fact that they are working, and hence their income. I'm sure your completely correct, and it's only a game for the rich.

the more realistic solution is a sales tax.

If, by "more realistic solution" you mean "dumbest idea I've ever heard", then I might agree.

The solution is a flat income tax, and a small sales tax.

Give it a little thought before you jump all over me.

Give it a little thought before you open your mouth.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[smagruder]

I've just decided (from the sick response above) to throw down the gauntlet. I'm tired of seeing my fellow American programmers and our profession being screwed by this unwarranted job exodus. We're SICK AND TIRED of this continual ASS-SCREWING.

Call us any label you like. THIS MEANS WAR. We're taking back OUR jobs.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[N3WBI3]

Give it a little thought before you open your mouth.

Not only have I given it thought but study as you obviously have not! The only people who pay tax under an income tax scheme is the middle class. Its that simple and if you think the shrinking middle class should continue to prop up the poor / corporations go right ahead your every gvt big spenders best friend an uninformed tool.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[numbsafari]

I'm a white, caucasion, male programmer. I was born in Fort Knox, KY to a white, caucasion, male soldier and a white, caucasion, female homemaker. What war? OUR jobs? People like you make this country weak. Pick yourself up and act like a man.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[numbsafari]

Sad? Why? Because you can't face the fact that you are unemployable at the rate you were formerly being paid for the work you were formerly doing? You should be so lucky! Look, when you get a new job doing something that adds more value to the economy than your last one, and you become enlightened to the fact that this makes it not only better for yourself, but everyone else around you, you'll thank the guy that fired you.

Look at the economies of Germany and France if you want a vision of what unions will get you. You think unemployment is bad now....

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[evilviper]

Not only have I given it thought but study as you obviously have not! The only people who pay tax under an income tax scheme is the middle class.

Ah, well be so kind as to post a link to your extensive studies that say the rich can get around any possible income tax rules (in particular, a flat tax)...

The fact that the rich pay less than they are supposed to is NOT news to anyone, but your plan isn't going to help anyone. That's why I mentioned that I would support a flat tax.

I find it amusing that you go on to call me an "uninformed tool", but you don't even refute a single one of my points.

Besides everything I've already mentioned, you don't consider exporters, importers, or private business trasactions (ie. after-market, private sales).

Not only does a high sales tax penalize those with less money, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce, and those with above-average wealth would have more schemes, and easier schemes, to avoid the taxes.

A flat tax really is best.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[dpt]

I just don't think retards and delenquents belong in socioty, let alone in the classroom where they help destroy the education of decent people.

"socioty"? "delenquents"? When you attempt to appear intellectually superior to some group of people, it's important that you get your spelling correct.

What if we eliminated everyone too stupid to be able to use correct English? That would be *you* out, to start with!

As usual for people with these mad fascist schemes, you've just defined "the elite" to include yourself. You would bitch and moan at the slightest suggestion for this kind of scheme if *you* were not one of the select few.

Re:Looking the wrong direction

[Anonymous Coward]

+2 Funny!

Solution!

[swordboy]

Why don't they just tax the tax revenue? There'd be a recursive loop and money FOREVER!

Re:Solution!

[nevershower]

Uh... it'd get to zero eventually if they were rounding. =)

Re:Solution!

[jmuzic1]

They usually do. The lottery is a voluntary tax of which winnings are taxed. The only problem is that the recursive loop is that the contents is a decimal lower than one raised exponentially.

Re:Solution!

[MeanMF]

Why don't they just tax the tax revenue? There'd be a recursive loop and money FOREVER!

New York already does this on certain kinds of car lease payments... No joke.

Re:Solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

The lottery is a voluntary tax of which winnings are taxed.

Except in Canada - no taxes on lottery winnings (or other "windfall") there.

The only problem is that the recursive loop is that the contents is a decimal lower than one raised exponentially.

Also untrue in Canada, because the metric system means everything gets rounded up[*].

So the solution is clear - launder your tax monies here in Canada. We won't mind.

[*] In some cases double and add forty instead - or in addition - to "round up to win" rule. Also tax rules may not apply, or make sense, in Alberta. No warranty expressed or implied. Use at your own risk. YMMV (again, especially in Alberta - please burn gas, create jobs!). Windfall laws may not apply in case of actual windfall on Crown or private land.

Re:Solution!

[baywulf]

You do get taxes recursively. You pay income tax on your salary. Then when you buy something, there is a sales tax. Then the company which got your money pays taxes on it. Then they pay their employees and that gets taxes. And it repeats on an on.

Re:Solution!

[worst_name_ever]

Ah, taxes. The entropy of the monetary universe.

Re:Solution!

[Anonymous Coward]

And people were bitching about dividends, although, frankly, if they were consistent in what they do everywhere else, they would have left that alone. But I like what they did.

Own land? You buy yearly property taxes in most places. Own a car? Some states whop you with car taxes--I saw a friend's bill and thought it was his car insurance bill.

Spend money? That was taxed when you earned it. And when you spent it. And who you gave it to, if they earned an overall profit, will pay tax on it. If you traced back everything, the bulk of what you are buying is probably to pay for someone else's tax along the way just to get the product to you as well as several layers after the purchase (such as the already mentioned income tax of the seller).

The whole concept behind stopping estate taxes, not that I agree, was to stop the taxation (as well as destruction as farms, although they could have done that better by raising the pitifully low cap to something more reasonable, like $25 million).

Re:Solution!

[MulluskO]

Government isn't exactly some sort of monetary black hole, out of which no funds may escape. The government hires resources, pay's its worker's salaries, and then taxes those very same salaries. Still recursive, though.

Re:Solution!

[cgleba]

Unfortunately, if it is a percentage below 100 it is asymptotic :).

Re:Solution!

[rock_climbing_guy]

YES, YES, that's exactly correct! It's asymptotic. Mod parent up.

The amount of tax on paying tax would be A/(100%-x) where x is the rate of taxation and A is the amount of tax originally paid.

Re:Solution!

[yourmom16]

thats why Davis wants to charge over 100% taxes

Re:Solution!

[fiddlesticks]

> You do get taxe[d]s recursively.

not necessarily.

> You pay income tax on your salary.

If you earn above the salary threshold

>Then when you buy something,

if you buy something

>there is a sales tax.

if you live in a state/ nation with sales tax

> Then the company which got your money pays taxes on it.

if they pay tax on the US

>Then they pay their employees and that gets taxes.

if their employees are taxed in the US

>And it repeats on an on.

no it doesn't.

of course money supply is circular, but to imply that because *some* through-choice spending is taxed again (after the original salary has been taxed) it follows that *all* spending is taxed many times ('recursively') is just wrong.

Some consumer spending (after tax at the point of salary collection) is deemed taxable, and some is not.

RTFM

Re:Solution!

[abe ferlman]

So why don't we tax each dollar once when it enters the economy and be done with it? (Uh, that is a joke, in case it's not clear...)

You make it sound so bad. Taxes work 'recursively' because they are based on money either changing hands or accumulating over a fixed period, not merely existing. Taxes work that way because that's the way the economy works- money has value based on who's exchanging (or not exchanging!) it for what.

Re:Solution!

[Sunlighter]

Actually, you could do that. No, seriously! It would be equivalent to the government printing as much money as the economy needs and then printing some more for itself. Of course, you would have constant inflation, but then, the loss of value of your dollars would be exactly the amount of your tax.

Re:Solution!

[debunk99]

You've over estimated the amount of taxes that are paid. Yes, the same money is taxed again and again, but not quite as often as you think.

When you buy something you pay sales tax, the company then pays tax on the money that it doesn't spend on employees and equipment (ie. Profits). The money that they're paying you is a tax deduction (unless you make over $1mil).

Re:Solution!

[blair1q]

That's not any more recursive than paying the production cost of the item you're buying pays the production cost of the parts of the item pays the production cost of the raw materials for the parts etc.

You get an economy when people stop bitching about the circularity of the system and start pedalling.

Re:Solution!

[dnoyeb]

Reminds me of friction. Its the reason moving bodies come to a rest (such as the economy).

doh.

[Tweakmeister]

They don't understand. The more they tax, the more they'll spend. It doesn't take a california blond to figure out the problem.

Re:doh.

[biobogonics]

The more they tax, the more they'll spend.

Remember, Californians wanted to assess property tax on satellites orbiting above them in space.

Tax on Downloads

[cgori]

They are simply closing a (well-known) loophole.

If you buy expensive software (i.e. chip-design tools at >$100k per user) and you take delivery via FTP instead of physical media (CD/tape), you do not owe sales tax. On a big purchase (multi-million $$) the 8% is a BIG deal. It happens a lot in the Valley.

I'm surprised that it took the bureaucrats in Sacramento this long to find a revenue "source" this big.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[ewhac]

"This software is licensed, not sold..."

A popular quote from most end-user license "agreements" (which are all unethical, anyway). Different tax rules apply for license transactions than sales transactions.

Schwab

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Pros_n_Cons]

This isn't something California just thought of ya know.
A new drug dealer usually sets great prices untill he builds up a solid base of customers.

ISP's will charge by the byte, Software leased, Information sold, freedoms of what information is availible will all be cut once people are use to it, peice by peice.

Sounds like a conspiricy unless you've ever read a history book.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[cervo]

The article did not mention if the tax is on commercial software, in which case a sales tax would take care of that. Ie if a company buys a license/something normal taxes should take care of that ftp transfer. If the whining government gets their way with internet sales taxes anyway. Or even a tax on license transfers based on money, if the reply about different taxes for license transfers is true. But the article made a specific point of mentioning download tax. Does this mean that even free software, shareware software, GPLed software, etc. is going to be charged?

The article mentions "In addition to sales taxes, Westly said he is considering a tax on Internet access like those that appear on telephone bills. He also is looking at a tax on software downloads."

What does this mean? Especially with regard to "software downloads". At first I was thinking that commercial software ie you buy windows or something and in the future Microsoft offers a cheaper version for delivery by download and here they have it. Naturally you pay a tax on the commercial price was my thought, but this expression is too vague. It does not limit it to commercial. The tax could be $.50 per software download of any type. Also keep in mind that the country is controlled by big business. Someone like Microsoft could easily pay off the government to make it a reality. A tax on any transfer could easily hurt free software. I download tons of free programs that end up crap and I delete. But occasionally I find that one gem that makes it all worth while. This would definitely encourage people to experiment less and then the company with the best advertising budget would probably win your business, instead of Joe Blow out in the middle of the desert who writes a freeware version of the same program.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that even free software, shareware software, GPLed software, etc. is going to be charged?

Tax rate of 8.25% * $0 for the free software = $0.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[cervo]

True enough but in some places there is a tax per transfer. Maybe for a download tax 8.25% * 64 MB o just .50 / download. Senators, in general, don't know jack about the net as they have proven (see host of stupid laws). The people who lobby for them do.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'll have to ask on that. Tahnks for the pointer.

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Pity they don't tax the licensing (and not the sales...) Might let market forces hurt that license nonsense a bit more :)

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Reziac]

Imagine the strain such a tax will put on Russian FTP servers... ;)

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Arandir]

Hmmm, if the software is taxed, then it must have been sold. Which means the USCC applies. Whoo hoo! Now I can return Windows as defective software and get my money back!

Re:Tax on Downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

If they will tax per download, set up a VPN to another country and get a proxy there; they can't get more than raw volume then. If they want to tax per byte, get an unidirectional satellite ISP which could be possibly offshore (enough if they cover you with their bird's signal), and pay only for the bare minimum of download instructions to the bird's server (kind of like europe-online.com does it).
Fuck the government.

fa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters seem to have a one track mind. The real story here is that the greatest of these united states, California, is deep in the red just like all the other states out there that took advantage of the good economy, and now "GreyDavistan" is going to soak everybody he
can to make up for his mistakes. Boo hoo.

I can't wait...

[swordboy]

With all this taxing crap, I can't wait until the US realizes that they are shooting themselves in the foot!

Re:I can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a huge 10 employee company that has never made a profit moves to Bermuda with a great .com business plan of 'Sell stuff cheap and beat Amazon.com'. Is that something the IRS should be concerned about?

Re:I can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

What I found really interesting is the one guy who renounced his US citizenship to avoid US taxes.

Not entirely a bad idea, except it requires moving out of the country.

Re:I can't wait...

[zz_james]

It's a big wide world.....and contrary to popular belief not everyone hates americans

Overheard

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know as well as anyone how much we owe the tech industry, but what are the geeks going to do if we piss them off with Internet taxes? Leave?"
-- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner

Re:Overheard

[typhoonius]

I'd be offended to be called a geek, but Gray Davis' name reminds me of Final Fantasy.

Re:Overheard

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

While I like the scantily clad women on the beaches, your state does not have a monopoly on that subpopulation. And, frankly, I don't care about the scantily clad while I've got my pron collection.

Re:Overheard

[gearheadsmp]

No, we'll just buy our stuff from stores based in Canada.

Re:Overheard

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of this state, and once I graduate, I'm getting out of here.

Re:Overheard

[captaineo]

Well I know a bunch of people who have left California because of its strict gun laws, and I personally won't consider moving there unless both the gun laws and state/local taxes were moderated. Those are the same reasons why I'm leaving New York State in the near future...

Re:Overheard

[John Jorsett]

"I know as well as anyone how much we owe the tech industry, but what are the geeks going to do if we piss them off with Internet taxes? Leave?"
-- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner

California discovers vast untapped source of renewable energy.

Re:Overheard

[Richie Magoo]

Yes.

How?!

[Velocity4]

Ok, I'd like to ask how the heck you're going to do this without a massive invasion of Privacy?

I can imagine my statement:
You have downloaded: SupAR WArEZ!!! $0.50c
You have downloaded warez, and and broken copyright laws: $5000

Also, doesn't it defy the entire point of the internet? (apart from nuclear safty) a free database of information for the education of the people?

Why doesn't the federal government help CA out, we 'were' a major source of taxes, all we need is a break. Sigh...

Re:How?!

[Kipper the Llama]

Yes, it IS an insane invasion of privacy. But, on the other hand...

Why doesn't the federal government help CA out, we 'were' a major source of taxes, all we need is a break. Sigh...

You're also (and have been) quite a sinkhole too. The only thing that's kept you afloat so long is your insane amount of Congressmen (and thus, Electoral College votes).

Re:How?!

[Sheetrock]

You have downloaded: SupAR WArEZ!!! $0.50c
You have downloaded warez, and and broken copyright laws: $5000
You have downloaded warez, and and broken copyright laws, and then found out the software was the wrong version to partition your 120GB drive: priceless

Re:How?!

[DAldredge]

"Why doesn't the federal government help CA out, we 'were' a major source of taxes, all we need is a break. Sigh..."

Sorry, the federal goverment is too busy spending the 2.23 TRILLION budget to help.

Sure am glad the small goverment GOPers are running things...

Re:How?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just print up more money? Seems like they do this anyways: why bother pretending to some day 'pay it back'? Why stop now? :D

Free cash for all!

Re:How?!

[geekee]

"Why doesn't the federal government help CA out, we 'were' a major source of taxes, all we need is a break. Sigh..."

Why would a Reblican federal govt. help out an incompetent Democratic CA govt. that can't manage their spending and think regulation and higher taxes are the answer to solve all their money problems. How Davis got re-elected after the CA power fiasco just goes to show how out of touch with reality the ave CA voter is.

Re:How?!

[Velocity4]

I hope you don't really want a reply to this, but here.

Inflation.

Money becomes worthless the more you have of it.
Just look at russia.

Re:How?!

[Fastball]

Excellent point about California's # of U.S. Representatives. It will be interesting now to see if California can siphon off more pork from the federal budget than Massachusetts.

Re:How?!

[yourmom16]

Most people hated davis they just hated simon worse

Re:How?!

[Mullen]

California is a Liberal state with a conservitive government in place. We are not going to get any pork. Bush knows he is not going to get California in the next election, so he can send that pork to states that are on the fence.

Re:How?!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

It will be interesting now to see if California can siphon off more pork from the federal budget than Massachusetts.

Well, considering that their economy rivals that of Germany, it shouldn't be hard.

Re:How?!

[.milfox]

Feh. We pay out more in taxes federally than we get back. (Last I heard we got 24% of the federal budget, but contributed 25%)

And our representatives per capita is actually fairly low compared, to say .. RHODE ISLAND!

Now where's my California Republic flag?

Re:How?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see the opponent?

Re:How?!

[geronimo87]

G. W. Bush spent zero time campaigning in California during the last election. Despite this, Simon, a completely incomptetent campaigner, made huge gains on Davis and could have beat him had the Republican Party remembered that California is still part of the US. California's electoral problems are more due to the motor voter laws (absolutely anyone can register to vote), than dumb voters. If the federal govt would (a) ensure that only US citzens are allowed to vote, and (b) actually enforce immigration law, the election results might be quite a bit different.

welcome to Nevada

[technoCon]

how long would it take for every server with any kinda taxable activity to relocate to Nevada? or Vanatu? You can bet that after any government starts taxing something, it'll never be free again. The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is an opening move in the destruction of high tech in California.

My dad worried about out-sourcing union jobs to Mexico. I worry about out-sourcing programming jobs to India. What's to stop the out-sourcing of all the other high-paying professions to low-tax areas?

Re:welcome to Nevada

[jcoy42]

My dad worried about out-sourcing union jobs to Mexico. I worry about out-sourcing programming jobs to India.

And *everyone* should. Here we are in a recession, with *lots* of people are out of work. People aren't consuming. And those with the money would *could* be helping the are sending it off to beef up the foriegn economy?

What the hell is up with that?

I work at large institution who is outsourcing *huge* amounts of developement to a foreign country. Is the code better than americans could write? No. Is there a skill set we are missing? No. Is it cheaper to outsource the development? No (costs associated with bug fixes, an inability to "steer" the developers in a timely manor/mis-communications, and the cost of getting a developer on-site to debug unforseen problems more than make up for any savings).

But we do it.

And since the economy is in the shitter, we get to deal with raising taxes for the people who are already coming up short.

I've got one word: Fucktards.

Re:welcome to Nevada

[spartan]

WRONG! I live in NV and have a purely online sales business (except for about 5-10% mail order) and I'm looking at alternatives. Sure, Nevada has low corporate filing rates and no state income tax. But when the issue is attracting, and maintaining the attraction for customers, having no sales tax is a larger advantage. I think the more avantageuous thing is to offer sales without the burden of sales tax. Therefore Oregon makes great sense to me. And, I'm looking at moving from NV to OR. As our server is colo in NV, I don't know how that will all work - the sale is executed on the server inside NV, but shipped from OR (possibly in the future anyway).

And no jackass, not everyone who lives in NV eats at either McDonalds or a Casino. There are just as many selections of great eating establishments here as anywhere else.

Re:welcome to Nevada

[spartan]

Yes, one other thing - Nevada is one of the 38 states that has formed the consortium of Internet Tax sharing states. California is not one of them, primarily because if they figure out how to make Internet Sales Tax work, they don't want to have to share their much larger portion of it with the other member states. On the other hand, Nevada will have few other advantages over any other state that has Internet Taxes with the exceptions of the other advanatges it currently has, such as lower corporate formation and other fees and quality of life (at least for Northern NV).

Re:welcome to Nevada

[Anonymous Coward]

How about deporting some of the illegal aliens in your state. Who knows how much they cost your state in taxes, let alone the social consequences. Just look around any neighborhood in Calif.-- any neighborhood that is worth living in is surrounded by a gate (or is by the ocean--and even then this doesn't mean it's a good area--Venice anyone?)
I love how they say "conserve water" etc. Yeah right I use all I need because the gov't will not do anything about the swarming invasion.
Additional ideas on how California could raise tax money:

* Start charging a 10% rent tax on all homes that house over 10 persons per room. (This would cause a massive budget surplus!!)
* Start taxing A/C usage (giant backlash)
* Start enforcing the Manditory Auto Insurance Law and write tickets every time (again, budget surplus!)
* Charge all border crossers (both ways) $10 per person (the gov't would be catching people left and right if this were in place!!)

Re:welcome to Nevada

[Kallahar]

You can't just move the server, you have to move your business presence. That means having an office in the location that you're running from. And if you still live in CA (or whatever) then you will have to account for the extra income somehow, and pay taxes on that.

Travis

A tax on sales, connectivity, downloads...

[GMFTatsujin]

They'll also be implementing a double-vision tax for people with more than one eye, who could potentially view internet content up to double the amount of times and still only get taxed for it once.

GMFTaxsujin

Re:A tax on sales, connectivity, downloads...

[r00zky]

*runs to get a spoon before they tax self-surgery too*

Re:A tax on sales, connectivity, downloads...

[Xenographic]

That's why I wear an eyepatch while using the computer! What? You thought I was a pirate or something? :]

Great way to drive Internet stores out of business

[fobside]

I still see the Internet retail stores as a flawed design. Yes, buyers should be paying taxes based on where the product ends up, like any other company that ships products. Though, even without taxes, why would a consumer pay $10 shipping for something he can get a 10-mile drive away? I fail to see how Internet retail really makes it, except in a few rare cases where products are rare.

Who broke the word?

[Anonymous Coward]

The net started as a fringe activity among geeks, and should have *stayed* a fringe activity among geeks. Imagine if we had kept it secret: no spam, no taxes, no newbies. So, who's the traitor who told the first non-geek about the existence of the Internet?

Re:Who broke the word?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason I have become a geek is knowing of the perks of geekdom (by way of people blabbing about the powers of the internet). Sure, all these problems creeped up, but the traitor also multiplied the number of geeks several fold.

Re:Who broke the word?

[Grishnakh]

When something's this good, you can't keep it a secret for long...

Actually, I was on the internet before the www, and while there were some advantages (ultra-fast speed, even compared to now; everything worked, no "404 server error: please contact Microsoft support", no silly MS-only worms DOSing the whole net), it just wasn't all that useful unless you liked downloading Warez, playing MUDs, reading Usenet (which at least wasn't full of spam back then), or chatting on IRC. It was also really useful for people in academia to exchange files, remotely login to other computers, etc.

The WWW is what really revolutionized everything, allowing websites with useful information, web boards to discuss things in specific areas, online merchants which let you buy things you'll never find in a local store, and learn about products you never knew about before, etc. The net is really a revolution in communications, completely changing the way we do a lot of things in our lives. States trying to add taxes to things like software downloads is just so ridiculous; I'm afraid these attempts at restraining the net and taxing it is either going to backfire entirely, or ruin the net altogether (at least in this country). With the importance the net has to the global economy now, especially in first-world nations, but also in many third-world ones, if we screw things up now, the US could easily become an irrelevant backwater.

Re:Who broke the word?

[Anonymous Coward]

ultra fast speed, eh?

you're so full of shit it makes my eyes bleed reading it.

Re:Who broke the word?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"The net started as a fringe activity among geeks, and should have *stayed* a fringe activity among geeks. Imagine if we had kept it secret: no spam, no taxes, no newbies"

Imagine! We'd all be using dial-up which would cost us by the minute to use, p2p would not exist (or there would be a hell of a lot fewer people sharing files), there wouldn't be great news sites like the bbc on the internet, when you applied for a job and said you'd email them your cv you'd get a blank look, newly-released pc games would not have multiplayer over the internet options ETC ETC ETC.

The basic thing is- especially if you are being serious rather than trolling, is that although we now have spam, big businesses on the internet and other insane things, we do have a lot of advantages that we wouldn't otherwise have had.

Back when the www started I used to go out to our university's terminal room and see if anything had changed "on the world wide web". It was possibly to check a large percentage of the www and then go, "oh, nothing's been updated".

And don't even try to force me back to the pre-www days when I thought that downloading a weather picture over the internet that I couldn't even see until I sent it to the laser printer was COOL...

graspee

Re:Who broke the word?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

no silly MS-only worms DOSing the whole net

Yeah, instead it was a silly sendmail worm DOSing the whole net.

Tax on software download...

[gmuslera]

This could be very unfair, how that be controlled? By monitoring access to software vendor's ftp servers? sourceforge? This will mean once and for all the rise of p2p protocols, for a good reason now.

Or counting bandwidth used? This will cause problem with any piece of software that check for updates (antivirus, "smart" operating systems, advertising software/spyware, etc).

At least if they return taxes on received spam some people will not be so angry, in fact, could mean finally that "get rich fast" schemes work at last.

Re:Tax on software download...

[benzapp]

This could be very unfair, how that be controlled?

Enforcing a download tax would be much like enforcing things like a liquor tax or an income tax. There IS something of an honor system in the tax code. You can choose not to pay, and they probably won't find you, but if they do you are fucked. Thats why only small businessmen and drug dealers take the risk. Someone with a large business or a visible business has too much to lose.

There are ways to indirectly find out this sort of information, but it can be done. Look at gangsters getting busted for not reporting income realized from the drug trade.

Re:Tax on software download...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... they might tax perhaps expensive downloads.

I'd see this as something of a bargaining chip (to give up later) or goign in position.

Free(beer)ware is non-taxable in any case.

Re:Tax on software download...

[Tsali]

Paladium will set us free. And Microsoft will gladly collect that data for you.

Oh wait - you're not a megacorporation. You're a consumer.

Sorry. Tough shit. Give me your 7% or I'll sit on your head.

J.

Re:Tax on software download...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. The tax is a _sales_ tax. I know math isn't your best subject, but how much do you spend on Sourceforge? OK, now take that number, and multiply it by x%.

Revenue booster?

[Sheetrock]

Like most people, I enjoy using the Internet on a daily basis but consider it a luxury I could live without. Taxing Internet access makes more sense than taxing phones or food or other staples of life because it is generally the well-off that can afford access to it.

Likewise, Internet sales taxes are desperately needed. Not only are the well-off more likely to purchase things online, but the fact that they can dodge sales tax by doing so while the poor must pay when they go to the local stores is nearly an insult: this is one of those 'rich getting richer' schemes that doesn't get much airplay, but it should.

I'll agree that it's been a pretty fun ride, but we've already discovered that the Internet isn't free. Now it's time for the tax collectors to catch up.

Re:Revenue booster?

[BarrettAnderson]

but the fact that they can dodge sales tax by doing so

sorry, i have yet to find an internet store that does not charge sales tax. every time i've been charged 7.55 (or whatever)% on everything i buy on the internet for state taxes.

and remember, they're still charged shipping, so even if the tax is cut out like you say (which it's not), they're still paying more and getting poorer. If it's a big product and the tax is more than shipping, then the poor person should be smart enough to buy it online. everyone has access to the internet in the united states, unless you live in the middle of nowhere in your truck. just drive to the nearest library or highschool, they'll let you use the internet if you ask nicely.

Re:Revenue booster?

[ejaw5]

Taxing Internet access makes more sense than taxing phones or food or other staples of life because it is generally the well-off that can afford access to it.
Last I checked, I dont pay sales tax for my groceries..at least in my state.

Re:Revenue booster?

[sakti]

Taxing Internet access makes more sense than taxing phones or food or other staples of life because it is generally the well-off that can afford access to it.

And taxing it will make sure it stays this way. Nothing like adding a nice fat tax of to cut off low income access.

Re:Revenue booster?

[apweiler]

I have to disagree on some of this. You're right, stuff bought on the net should be taxed the same way anything bought the usual way is.

But I think that the internet as such - not to be confused specifically with e-commerce - will become more and more (and to some extent, is already) of a 'staple of life', like the phone system already is.

Just one example - I'm in the process of applying to and entering UK university. Right now I'm organizing a trip there to visit some of them before I make the choice. I'm arranging the visits by e-mail - sure, it would be possible by phone, but I wouldn't say this is a luxury, it is a real practical improvement.

I think the net will become much more important, and certainly is not a luxury for many people even now. "The internet isn't free" - well, a lot of stuff is. In cases where money does change hands, taxes should be paid as in regular offline business.

Re:Revenue booster?

[DAldredge]

Hope you don't live in Texas. Taxing groceries and OTC/prescription drugs in being seriously considered.

Re:Revenue booster?

[enol]

You assume too much. I don't know how much you pay for your internet access but it's not terribly expensive to get a monthly connection, perhaps not unlimited, but certainly enough to shop or browse for awhile. It is a luxury, yes, but in this age, it's a luxury that's getting fairly commonplace, kind of like automobiles.

Since this affects where I live (SoCal) I'd like mention that I, as well as others here in LA, pay 8.25% sales tax on EVERYTHING we buy, including food, drugs, etc. It's one of the highest around and certainly, if that internet shipping charge is cheaper than the tax that would be placed on the purchase (which is one reason why I buy a lot from online) it doesn't take much reasoning power (regardless of your income) to see that buying online (and waiting a week) may be worth it.

And if you're really rich, I wouldn't think you would care much about sales tax of your purchases. really, wouldn't instant gratification be worth the local purchase anyway? the people who actually benefited IMO are those who did pinch and shop carefully but this will take away even that small incentive of online shopping.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're messed up. Most wealthy people GO TO STORES. They want the customer service, the interaction.

My parents never shop online.

What you really are saying is that middle class America who owns a computer should be taxed more. Most of the people I've known in my life that shop online are still in school--they don't have money, but they have buying power.

Buying power != wealthy

You've gotta be a bleeding Democrat (not that all Democrats are stupid or unintelligent, but this just reaks, like a fire and brimsone bible pounder is probably a Republican). It's ridiculous to put a class category on computers; Clinton tried, and frankly, while his numbers were accurate, the reason he did was more about educational parity. If he looked at all demographics, he'd see most elderly are less likely to use computers as well.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Graspee_Leemoor]

" Like most people, I enjoy using the Internet on a daily basis but consider it a luxury I could live without. Taxing Internet access makes more sense than taxing phones or food or other staples of life because it is generally the well-off that can afford access to it."

Fuck that- you can't just tax something because you think that it's only well-off people who can afford it,

a) because it's not true- I'm unemployed and instead of going out drinking, clubbing etc I have broadband. It's my only non-essential expenditure. (I don't buy clothes).

b) If a government needs more money and thinks it fair to tax the rich more, then just hike up income tax. You can't just say "oh I think rich people are the ones who go skiing so let's tax skiing..." (Actually I think rich people should pay more in taxes- but with a flat rate of income tax- not the way we have in the uk).

LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE

graspee

Re:Revenue booster?

[workindev]

Internet sales taxes are desperately needed. Not only are the well-off more likely to purchase things online... this is one of those 'rich getting richer' schemes that doesn't get much airplay

This is pure left-wing bull crap. First of all, the idea that rich somehow get off scott-free when it comes to taxes is laughable. The richest 5% already pay over 56% of the entire income tax base (Source). They are not getting any richer because of anything the government does.

Your just playing the same liberal card over and over. Try to convice the poor that the only reason they are poor is because some rich bastard stepped all over them to get rich. It doesn't work that way.

Re:Revenue booster?

[nyseal]

Yes....but the rich are not getting poorer because of some level 80-20 type tax thought process either. The upper 5% SHOULD be paying that much because they make that much more. If the 80-20 rule were to apply to taxation, the upper 20% should be responsible for 80% of the taxes....but we know THAT will never happen; they just won't let it.

Re:Revenue booster?

[unitron]

"Most wealthy people GO TO STORES."

Not if they can help it. Going to stores takes time and that's time that they can't spend making more money.

How do you think they got wealthy in the first place? (See old Midas Muffler ad for context)

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a liberal and I oppose such taxes on the grounds that they are regresive in nature. I also don't much care for taxing income multiple times for the same person.
I must say that not all 'liberals' haven't met a tax they support. I think you simply allowed your resentment of taxation to fall for what is rather clearly a troll.

Re:Revenue booster?

[cheezedawg]

You might want to take a look at the spreadsheet that the parent linked to.

The top 1% of the wage earners in the US account for 20.81% of all income, but they contribute 37.42% of all income tax collected

The 80-20 rule DOES apply here: the richest 25% account for 84.01% of all income taxes collected

The top 50% of the wage earners in the US account for over 96% of all tax revenue

The upper 5% SHOULD be paying that much because they make that much more.

The upper 5% earn 35.30% of the income, and they account for 56.47% of all income taxes. They are paying way more than their share.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Daengbo]

Well, since we KNOW that will never happen, let's just check the numbers from the link given by your parent poster. Total income tax in millions for 2000 (the latest year available): $980,521. Tax paid by top 25% (the closest bracket available): $823,706. That percent again? 84.01%. 84-25. But, you are right, we know THAT will never happen; they just won't let it.
That is all.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh give me a break and quit your whining. A good society should care about the betterment of its lesser citizens, not just care about getting more money to buy bigger cars and shit.

All this crap about taxes being sooooo unfair to the rich makes me sick. Basically, the rich that complain just want to hoarde all their money and give a big hardy "screw you!" to anyone with the misfortune to be poor. If we can make EVERYONE better off, isn't that was a civilized society is about? or is it about buying bigger fucking cars?

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that you were never short on money, my friend. I remember eating ramen, and having trouble paying for videogames. Every small percentage of my puny income mattered. I didn't have the money to own a car.

A few years have passed, and now I give the US government more money every year than I made 4 years ago. If I had to pay the same % of my income in taxes as I did 4 years ago, I'd be able to afford a faster car or a bigger house. However, I don't think that ,when I'm living better than 95% of the world's population, I have the right to whine about my taxes. You could argue that the money is being wasted, but not that many people need it more than we do.

the 30% max income paying 50% of the total taxes? I'd say that a tax system set up like that will only make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
Please, spend your next vacation visiting a slum in Santo Domingo, or even East St.Louis... are all those people useless bums since they are born?
I know is that they are doomed to poverty or crime. Maybe you think they don't deserve better.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The richest 5% already pay over 56% of the entire income tax base

Well, they do own 80% of the country.

Re:Revenue booster?

[John Jorsett]

Since this affects where I live (SoCal) I'd like mention that I, as well as others here in LA, pay 8.25% sales tax on EVERYTHING we buy, including food, drugs, etc.

Prepared food, yes, but even the nutlogs of California haven't (yet) started taxing groceries. By the way, if the Democrats have their way, the sales tax is going to jump another 1%, so you'll be paying 9.25%. If I were running a business like a server farm or other high-tech outfit and had to start paying nearly 10% more for my software on top of the sky high electricity rates (thank you Gray Davis, to whom we owe so so sooo much) I'd be moving it elsewhere right damned quick.

Re:Revenue booster?

[munky222]

while the poor must pay when they go to the local stores funny but i would be considered on the poor side too, but i'm one of those people who dodges sales taxes. because truthfully, if i had to go to the store, using my gas that is outrageously high in price (and this is the cheap shit!), to go pay them for their overhead and then give the state all my change in taxes, i'd be living out of a cardboard box eating out of the dumpster behind mcdonalds. a luxury I could live without yea but what about those individuals whom their lives depended on it. ever thought about that. or the kids who have interest in it, but since it cost more and more for them to get connected they end up going to something else? figuring that i've made myself name near completely broke pushing to advance myself in this field, just to have this as everything else to be shot down by taxes and some crazy californian's will to fuck the rest of us.... and for those talking about current taxes that apply.. most places only charge sales taxes if you're in the same state (which i can understand). but if u r being charged taxes, theres always another company that sells the same exact product (watch, it'll even be cheaper!) and no taxes if ur really trying to avoid it. but personally.. i'm just going to laugh my ass off when this whole thing flops... somebody's not getting re-elected....

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOSH

Re:Revenue booster?

[legojenn]

(IANA) I am not an accountant, but maybe you could get a 400 mile long extension cord and plug it in to Nevada? It would save you that extra 10%. Seriously though, what is to stop a company from let's say, setting up an office in Nevada and doing their procurement through that office and sucessfully evading that tax? Could it be as little as a post-office box?

Re:Revenue booster?

[John Jorsett]

If you buy something in another state and then bring it into California within some amount of time (not sure exactly how long, 90 days maybe), you're supposed to pay California a 'use tax' that's the same as the sales tax. A company trying to launder stuff through a no-tax state would be found out and fined.

I know that some individuals establish addresses in other states and get credit cards issued there. They then make online purchases at that address for shipment to their California address. I think as an individual you can get away with that, since it's tough for the state to detect.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Carmody]

Prepared food, yes, but even the nutlogs of California haven't (yet) started taxing groceries

No, they haven't. But the conservatives of Texas are trying to start taxing groceries. Does that make them "nutlogs"? Or do you only call people names if... well if Rush told you to?

The conservatives of Texas are trying to start taxing groceries. What is your reaction? Where is your invective? Where is your outrage?

Re:Revenue booster?

[Jodka]

Like most people, I enjoy using the Internet on a daily basis but consider it a luxury I could live without.

People use the internet for work, education, shopping and enjoyment. That overall the predominent use is enjoyment is a fiction invented by you to bolster your argument for higher taxes. That fiction should not be mistaken for a fact or statistic.

Taxing Internet access makes more sense than taxing phones or food or other staples of life because it is generally the well-off that can afford access to it.

Raising the price of internet service with taxation makes internet access less affordable by the poor, the group least able to withstand price increases. The wealthy, of course, could afford to pay the tax. So by enacting an internet tax, you help to selectively deprive the poor of internet access.

Not only are the well-off more likely to purchase things online...

Again, you seem to be inventing fictional statistics here. Can you site the source ?

but the fact that they can dodge sales tax by doing so while the poor must pay when they go to the local stores is nearly an insult: this is one of those 'rich getting richer' schemes that doesn't get much airplay, but it should.

When internet sales are not taxed, everyhone pays the same tax on the internet sales: none. If you are wealthy, you pay none. If you are poor, you pay none. That's what "no tax" means.

You are inventing a complictated story, supported by your own made-up statistics, to contradict the obvious fact that "no internet taxes" means nobody pays internet sales taxes, rich and poor alike. Your claim that there is a sales demographic showing that only the rich shop on the internet looks suspicious. Who buys the used kitchen mixer on eBay for $2.77 ? Is it "the rich". I suggest you visit eBay, take note of what is bought and sold there, and consider how plasible is your lie that only the rich shop online.

Untaxed internet sales are a rare example where the group who earns above the mean income is not getting totally screwed. According to the IRS, the top 50% of income earners contribute 96% of all tax revenues. Because we (the upper 50%) pay almost all of the taxes, almost any tax cut will benefit us. To oppose a sales tax cut because it benefits "the wealthy" is to oppose all tax cuts.

Untaxed internet sales are a rare example where the group who earns the least can avoid painful sales taxes. Lower taxes help both rich and poor, and everyone in between.

I'll agree that it's been a pretty fun ride, but we've already discovered that the Internet isn't free. Now it's time for the tax collectors to catch up.

"I'll agree that it snowed in Denver this morning, but at one time some people thought that the moon was made out of green cheese. Now it is time for ketchup to be sold only in 8-oz bottles".

Some people have no grasp of syllogism. Put down that Jon Katz Handbook of Argumentative Logic for a moment and let's decode your statements:

1- People have liked the fact that there are no internet taxes.

2- The author and some other un-named group at one point believed that the internet was free. They have since realised that they were mistaken.

3- There should now be internet taxes.

Maybe you didn't notice, but you are not making sense. The first statement seems to be in opposition to the concluding statement. The second has no relevance at all, except perhaps to suggest that you must be kind of an idiot if you ever thought that internet was free, so maybe we should not trust you on the tax issue.

Your nefarious scheme is obvious:

1- Enact internet taxes because the rich should have to pay. We can't have the rich getting richer. If we fail to constantly raise tax rates, then the rich might get richer. Better raise taxes !

2- Additional taxation raises the total cost of internet service making it difficult for the poor to afford internet access. Higher taxes stifle the innovation which pushes down consumer prices. In this way, you push internet service out of reach for the poor.

3- Becasue the poor do not have internet access, create a vast, wasteful government bureaucracy to provide inferior internet service to the poor. Make sure that the agency is large enough that the loby of its own employees is a sufficiently potent political force to perpetuate the agency.

4- As the government internet service provider grows more wasteful, it will be difficult to cover up that fact. Grant the agency no-interest government "loans" but do not collect them. Devise indirect forms of taxation to hide the losses; Pass laws which mandate that private telecoms must lease infrastructure to the government at below market rates. Call this "deregulation".

5- Private corporations will either go bankrupt by providing service at a loss, or they will cheat. If they cheat, then fine them for cheating until they go bankrupt.

6- After you have driven private service providers into bankrupty you will have proof that "the market does not work" and that deregulation failed. Use this argument to expand the government agency which provides internet service for the poor into a monopoly service provider for the entire market.

7- Whenever the government ministry of internet service negotiates contracts, extort campaign donations. If your corruption is exposed, then extort more contributions so that you can overcome the negative publicity by purchasing additional campaign advertising. Because you are a monopoly service provider, anyone who wants internet service must go though you. This gives you good leverage when extorting tribute. So be sure to extort enough that you can affored to smother all reports of your corruption with counter publicity.

8- If political opponenents keep harping one your corruption, point out that they are part of the vast right-wing conspiracy which seeks to to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, there is a word for what your describing. Its called socialism.

Re:Revenue booster?

[John Jorsett]

The conservatives of Texas are trying to start taxing groceries. What is your reaction?

Anyone wanting to impose sales tax on groceries (I'll have to leave as an unproven assertion your claim that they're 'conservatives' -- I suspect what you mean is that they're Republicans, which is a completely different thing) a bunch of cretious dickwads, that's my reaction. Unlike the attachees of the liberal hive mind, I have no problem denouncing friend or foe if they're going against my beliefs. I was one of the people who helped run the corrupt Republican Insurance Commissioner out of California. I'm still waiting for the Democrats to do the same for the equally-corrupt Democrat governor.

Re:Revenue booster?

[Carmody]

Anyone wanting to impose sales tax on groceries (I'll have to leave as an unproven assertion your claim that they're 'conservatives' -- I suspect what you mean is that they're Republicans, which is a completely different thing) a bunch of cretious dickwads, that's my reaction.

Fair enough.

Unlike the attachees of the liberal hive mind, I have no problem denouncing friend or foe if they're going against my beliefs.

You are way off base here. Al Gore would have won the election if the liberals had not denounced him and ultimately voted for a third party. Bill Clinton certainly was criticized in liberal journals and articles, and many people call him a Liberal. (What they usually mean is that he's a Democrat, which is a completely different thing.) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are often denounced by liberals, as is Catherine McKinnon. (sp?)

Why is it that you can't give the same respect to Liberals that you wish liberals to give Conservatives? Can't you disagree with them without invoking a mythical "hive-mind"?

Touchee on my confusing "Conservatives" with "Republicans." Now can you agree that not all Democrats are liberal, and not all liberals are Democrats?

Re:Revenue booster?

[John Jorsett]

You are way off base here. Al Gore would have won the election if the liberals had not denounced him and ultimately voted for a third party.

Perhaps, but that's the way it goes; Nader did run. Had Perot not run, Bush the Elder probably would have won against Clinton, and we might not even be talking about Gore (or Bush the younger for that matter -- who can say what alternate reality would now exist?).

Bill Clinton certainly was criticized in liberal journals and articles, and many people call him a Liberal. (What they usually mean is that he's a Democrat, which is a completely different thing.) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are often denounced by liberals, as is Catherine McKinnon. (sp?)

I can't speak for everyone on my side (which is more libertarian than conservative), but I personally think of all those people as belonging to the Hustler party. I don't think there's a principle that they wouldn't compromise if it meant more power to them. And there's plenty of them on the other side as well, so a pox on all of them.

Why is it that you can't give the same respect to Liberals that you wish liberals to give Conservatives? Can't you disagree with them without invoking a mythical "hive-mind"?

A bit of hyperbole, but grounded in truth. The Democrat party is dominated by liberals, but the Republicans are more willing to put up with different ideas. As one small example, no Pro-Life speakers were permitted at the last Democratic National Convention, while there were a number of Pro-Choice speakers at the RNC. Opposition to established doctrine in liberal circles gets one treated like a heretic and excommunicated.

Touchee on my confusing "Conservatives" with "Republicans." Now can you agree that not all Democrats are liberal, and not all liberals are Democrats?

Sure. I'd happily vote for a Zell Miller. However his type are getting scarce on the ground, having either been voted out of office or having switched parties, whereas there are lots of liberal Republicans, like Olympia Snow and John Warner.

For Those Of You Here In Oregon

[mrs clear plastic]

Please don't be suprised to see the same thing
happen, or at least, proposed here.

Measure 28, a temporary income tax hike,was
defeated during a special election in January.

The state is looking at some very serious cuts,
including literaly putting some mental patients
out onto the streets.

Things are getting so desparate here that I
would not be suprised that something like this
does not happen.

In fact, I think that I should be suprised that
it has not been at least proposed by now.

Mark

Re:For Those Of You Here In Oregon

[ArsonPanda]

I really don't see how they're going to manage this without having to monitor everything I view on the net. Unless they plan on demanding everyone who sells anything on the net from anywhere in the world has to report all sales to them, and that'll work just peachy, right?

I for one said yes to 28.

Re:For Those Of You Here In Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that in Oregon, it would take a change in the state constitution to allow a sales tax. Some sort of internet access tax however....

Re:For Those Of You Here In Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a terrific strategy, one of the best I've heard.

"No new taxes, huh? We'll just release some mental patients and see what you think...."

(Sadly, this makes fun of mental patients.

Re:For Those Of You Here In Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been to San Francisco? The mental patients are already living on the streets.

I have a better idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better idea for getting California out of its budget problems. Shake Gray Davis upside-down until his campaign donations fall out.

Re:I have a better idea!

[DapastryChef]

You got that RIGHT!

Re:I have a better idea!

[wayward_son]

If Gray Davis is that incompetent and that corrupt, then how the hell did he get reelected?

Re:I have a better idea!

[sconeu]

Because Bill Simon ran an incredibly incompetent campaign.

Re:I have a better idea!

[Reziac]

IMO it was more because we were offered a choice between a crook and a slimeball (you decide which is which!) and more folk chose to go with the known evil than the unknown evil.

Re:I have a better idea!

[sconeu]

There is that, too...

Internet Access Tax

[Student_Tech]

If I pay an internet access tax like I do the 911 tax, does that mean that I will no longer have to pay for internet to some ISP, instead I will just get it?

Re:Internet Access Tax

[unitron]

"If I pay an internet access tax like I do the 911 tax, does that mean that I will no longer have to pay for internet to some ISP, instead I will just get it?"

Of course not, you'll be paying a tax above and beyond the price you pay to your ISP for the privilege of being able to continue to buy internet service from your ISP at the same or a higher price (There's bound to be something in this plan that gouges money out of the ISPs as well, who will have to pass the increased cost of doing business on to the customers.)

Re:Internet Access Tax

[Suicide]

If I pay an internet access tax like I do the 911 tax, does that mean that I will no longer have to pay for internet to some ISP, instead I will just get it?

Do you get free phone service for paying the 911 tax? You pay a local phone company for your phone service and you pay a tax to support 911. Now, you'll pay an ISP for your internet, and pay the government a tax... for no extra service.

Intrastate vs. Interstate

[phriedom]

I can understand why a California resident should pay sales tax for goods they buy from a California company on the Internet. The thing that wasn't clear to me from the article is: Is California going to ask that residents of other states pay CA sales tax on goods the buy from a CA company on the internet? The article seemed to hint at that possibility.

If it comes to pass, I predict the rise of an Online-only retailer in Oregon. The ads will say "Come shop in Oregon, where we don't have any sales tax." Powell's will get a leg up on Amazon, who will complain mightily.

Re:Intrastate vs. Interstate

[Anonymous Coward]

Is California going to ask that residents of other states pay CA sales tax on goods the buy from a CA company on the internet?

Cross-state taxation is prohibited under the constitution . . . although that seems to be a piece of toilet paper nowadays.

Re:Intrastate vs. Interstate

[Anonymous Coward]

Alright, here's what I don't get. The constitution prohibits state A from taxing a citizen of state B unless the citizen physically enters state A. We all know if you telephone an order into Lands End you don't pay Wisconsin sales tax unless you live in Wisconsin. For simplicity, we'll ignore the fact that Land's End now has a physical presence in three other states.

I get that Wisconsin can't tax citizens telephoning orders in from Colorado, what I don't get is why a state doesn't tax the merchant instead of the purchaser for every sale the merchant rings up. Who cares where the customer is? The state has taxing authority over the merchant not the buyer.

Also be aware that most states with sales tax also have another tax (variously named in the several states) designed to capture out-of-state purchases by its own citizens. Here in Texas our state comptroller has used Federal Customs declaration forms to discover purchases its citizens have made abroad. Under Texas law we are also liable for the tax when purchasing goods from other states. The tax owed on these external purchases is coincidently the exact amount of the state sales tax. I wonder if the comptroller is revenue sharing with the local governments or just keeping it all for themselves.

Well if you didn't spend all your money

[The Analog Kid]

If the towns didn't have to spend all their money on useless renovations(god forbid they lower taxes) we might not have these fiscal problems that we have and the economy may be in better shape.

Qualifying 'internet download'

[Silvers]

I would like to know what exactly he considers an internet download. Because technically, almost everything that flows through the Rx pair on your NIC is a download. So, taxing slashdot index.pl for every view? Or maybe only 'programs', but then are java applets and client side web code considered programs? Or how about online games, would those be taxed per connection, per hour?

I can only see that part failing miserably, or if it doesn't, that man is going to lose his office quickly.

Re:Qualifying 'internet download'

[Thing 1]

I would like to know what exactly he considers an internet download.

I'm no politician, but I would imagine he's talking about software that's purchased and then downloaded, with no physical delivery of CDs or other media.

Taxing any activity in which $0 exchanges hands sounds a bit absurd, so I would bet your Slashdot index.pl loads are safe. For the time being.

Re:Qualifying 'internet download'

[moncyb]

Taxing any activity in which $0 exchanges hands sounds a bit absurd,

Obviously you don't know much about California. ;-)

way to kill online commerce

[jbwiv]

Yes....let's tax an already struggling marketplace in its relative infancy. Makes a lot of sense. That should do away with it pretty quickly.

One of the main reasons non-techie folks are tempted to shop online is the lack of taxes. If this move was inevitable, I'd have preferred to see it years down the line, when e-commerce had matured somewhat.

And a tax on internet access is ridiculous...downloads, just plain silly.

Oh well...if that happens, I'm off to the underground....feeling perfectly justified in stealing tax-free access >:/

Will lose more business for California....

[jsimon12]

All this will do is accelerate the exodus of high tech firms from California. Many companies are already moving operations to cheaper states, Sun for example is moving a lot of its operations to Colorado. All this taxing is going to do is accelerate that process and leave California with a smaller tax base in the future. Few politicians seem to think more then 2 or 4 years down the road, basically what they need to do to get reelected.

Re:Will lose more business for California....

[Anonymous Coward]

That effect has already happened to New York City. A lot of the downtown businesses simply left after huge tax increases, thus decreasing the tax base.

State business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Raise taxes
2) ???????????
3) Profit!!!!!

Seriously though, governments and .coms are the only entities which blow through hundreds of millions of dollars and produce no results.

Re:State business plan

[La Temperanza]

IMO, more like:

1) Milk money from everything that cant or wont sue (schools and kilobytes... but no axe murderers serving 25-to-life)
2) ???
3) Profit!

Re:State business plan

[SpaceCadetTrav]

You don't really need step two.

How are they planning to tax, though?

[drinkypoo]

Is it flat? Is it per unit? What are the units, minutes or megabytes? Et cetera.

What the fuck is going on with the American economy anyway? We should have been able to recover from the dot-bomb by now, what the fuck is Bush up to in his ivory tower anyway? The national standard of living is steadily declining...

Re:How are they planning to tax, though?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it.... Just blame it on Bush again, and make yourself look like a raving moron.

Where has this plan been proposed??? That's right.. In California (Possibly the MOST liberal state in the Union.)

Re:How are they planning to tax, though?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly do you propose George Bush do to alter the economy?

George Bush can't make up for the fact that California was infused with massive amounts of investment capital, started spending large amounts of tax dollars, neglected to pay for previous recession expenditures, and then lost the revenue stream as companies failed.
there really is rather little the Government can do to pickup the economy. People need to be productive.

Re:How are they planning to tax, though?

[legojenn]

What the fuck is Bush up to in his ivory tower anyway?

I always thought of Ivory Towers as places where intellectuals do their thing. It would be the last place I would expect to find Mr Bush.

To my california representatives

[t0qer]

Dear sirs,

I know you are looking for an alternative source of revenue for the state. However I feel that an internet tax will only stifle a already hurt sector of the economy.

Driving up the 101 by where I live, I see thousands, if not millions of square feet of office space empty. If you had not worked here during the boom you would not know that at one time these offices were filled with people paying income tax to the state.

Which brings to mind a question for me, what happened to the 100k in taxes you took from me over a 3 year period between 1997-2000? I know I was not the only person who contributed that much in taxes, yet I only got 6 months unemployment and still can't find a job in IT. Why should I try and go into another career? I'm 30 years old, this is what I trained for, and right now my skills are being severly underused.

So again, please don't add more gas to this fire by taxing an already hurting economic sector. We're suffering out here in Silicon valley living month to month on the small consulting jobs which are nothing more than a handout compared to a real paycheck.

And yes John Katz, i'm still eating ramen.

Re:To my california representatives

[rossz]

Ditto. My unemployment benefits are gone. Nobody is hiring. I'm 43 and can't easily retrain (especially since I have no money to pay for retraining).

California is already one of the highest taxed states in the country. We have sales tax, income tax, employment taxes, and anything else you can think of. We also have idiots like Davis and his cronies sucking money into their personal black holes.

Special note to Governor Davis:

Here's a simple lesson in economics. When there is less money to go around, you must spend less! Even my 12 year old daughter can understand this basic concept. Stop trying to figure out how to squeeze more money out of me, I don't have any. Stop driving business out of the state and you might be able to collect some income taxes from a few hundred thousand currently unemployed tech workers. Then you can piss it away with more of your pork-barrel projects that you use to pay off your political pals, you criminal piece of shit.

Re:To my california representatives

[QuessFan]

<i>Driving up the 101 by where I live, I see thousands, if not millions of square feet of office space empty. If you had not worked here during the boom you would not know that at one time these offices were filled with people paying income tax to the state.</i>

Consider Steve Westly made his fortune with Ebay before ran for public office, I think it's very safe to know what 101 is like during the boom.

Don't you remember when discussing internet Sales tax, how many slashdoter mentioned that they would shop on ebay to avoid sales tax?

He didn't get Stanford MBA for nothing.

hah

[selfdiscipline]

the bloat doesn't rid itself!

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[benzapp]

My dad worried about out-sourcing union jobs to Mexico. I worry about out-sourcing programming jobs to India. What's to stop the out-sourcing of all the other high-paying professions to low-tax areas?

You know, your first two sentences make sense.

But that lest sentence is HORRIBLY misguided. If you honestly believe taxes are at all related to businesses moving jobs oversees, you really need to catch up on modern times. India is practically a communist country, and let me tell you their taxes and government restrictions are far more oppressive than in the US. But they have lots of people. People are just like any other resource, thus the term human resource. When the supply far exceeds the demand, prices drop.

Even Adam Smith realizes this one and advocates tariffs as a result.

FYI, Nevada has in the worst fiscal shape in the whole of the US, even worse than California. And besides, jobs will never move too much to that state because its a hell hole. They would never be able to attract the talent they are looking for. Some REALLY want to eat at other restaurants besides casinos and Applebees.

Steve Westly really wants to be governor.

[mikeophile]

I think he might be making noises about adding an internet access and download tax in order to appear more fiscally conservative than Gray Davis. If he actually implements such a tax, it would probably sink his chance at winning the election.

Re:Steve Westly really wants to be governor.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wesley cannot be in any way considered fiscally conservative. He would have to drop the California budget back to mid 1980 levels to be conservative and that is not going to happen until the jack-booted liberal busy-body thugs have ruined the state.

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[exhilaration]

Though, even without taxes, why would a consumer pay $10 shipping for something he can get a 10-mile drive away? I fail to see how Internet retail really makes it, except in a few rare cases where products are rare.

Easy! In response to your question, because people are lazy. I'm going to be ordering a $7 part for my Nokia cell phone (for which shipping will probably be more than $5) because finding a local place that sells that piece of circuitery is too freaking hard!

Another reason Internet retail works because the operating costs are so low - all you need is a good web designer to make the business you run out of my kitchen look like a Fortune 500.

Most consumers won't care that the cost of $100+shipping DVD player is now $106+shipping.

LEARN BASIC CALCULUS YOU MORON

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of a converging series??

New Hampshire?

[Mitreya]

All I want to know is how NH managing to survive? The have 0% tax... (I am sure there is some catch, but I don't live in it, so I don't know).

Re:New Hampshire?

[cgori]

Simple -- high property taxes. It's the way all low/no-sales-tax states make money.

Re:New Hampshire?

[Grishnakh]

I don't live there either, but I'm guessing it has something to do with getting used to a situation. For instance, a smart person on a low income adjusts to this income level, making smart purchases, only buying what they need, not wasting money on stupid things they don't, etc.

But a rich person who's never had to worry about money (or someone who's become accustomed to being rich) won't be like that: they'll waste money on all kinds of stupid things they don't need, like a Lexus SUV instead of a Civic, $30 soap bars from the department store instead of Ivory or a generic brand, $50 hair-salon shampoos instead of Head and Shoulders, an expensive house that was the maximum amount they could get a mortgage for, etc.

Cut the poor person's income a little, and they won't complain much because they already had put themselves in a state where it wouldn't hurt them: their house/shack is paid off, they bought their car with cash, etc. Cut the rich person's income a little, and suddenly they can't make the house payment or the SUV payment. But they're so used to the $30 soap bars and dinners at expensive restaurants that they can't cut most of these frivolous items in order to balance their budget, and they're up to their eyeballs in debt anyway so it probably wouldn't be enough.

Everyone knows that governments are amazingly gifted at wasting money; I think NH just never had much money to begin with, so they never got in the habit of wasting so much.

Besides, I'm sure they have some taxes, such as gasoline and property taxes. These aren't affected by the economy, unless people suddenly stop driving or move out of the state.

Re:New Hampshire?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Usually income tax.

I'm actually not familiar of any STATE with propety tax. I think that's a county/city thing.

You do get 'tax havens', of sorts, when a no-income-tax state abuts a no-sales-tax state (I believe the TN/KY border has this situation).

Re:New Hampshire?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes very high property taxes, don't let the 10% tax cut on them fool you, they re-evaluated most/all homes. an average of 17% hike in the worth of the houses. our house went from 300,000 to 450,000 sisters from 80,000 to 300,000 ( tho they fixed, and added to that place.) don't forget the fee's here glads trashbags get left on the corner on trash day. you have to pay 13$ or so for a pack of ten regular sized trash bags. oh and go dumping your trash into a company dumpster? get a visit from police ( wich is what happened to the GM of our store, dumped a couple old briefcases into our dumpster and we had police show up. he had to take them out, and dumped them in the dumpster of a differnt on of our store across the state line in main.)

Re:New Hampshire?

[Reziac]

Not only that, but I suspect California's gov't got used to the high living provided by all those extra taxes from the brief boom before the dot-bomb hit. Now all of a sudden those people are unemployed and no longer paying income tax (not to mention no longer spending the rest of their income, therefore paying sales tax) and a major chunk of tax revenue went bye-bye.

And running businesses out of state by raising taxes and the general cost of doing business will only exacerbate the problem. But does our moronic state gov't see this? Hell no... :(

Government Calculators Need A Minus Key

[toupsie]

Why is the solution to all Governmental budget crisises is to find new and creative ways of nickle and dimeing citizens no matter what they do? Gov. Davis has sunk California into a massive deficit that its is larger than the rest of the US states, combined! Socking the California citizen in the pocketbook because of his poor management.

If my family has a budget crisis, we cut expenses. You can't always get more money but you can always find places to not to spend it. When Government says its cutting spending, it generally means they are cutting the rate of growth not its actual size.

Too bad this will never happen. Too many people are interested in taking other people's money for their own causes and politicians are more than happy to assist -- both parties.

Re:Government Calculators Need A Minus Key

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be mistaken

California has a deficit of about 27 billion the US (before counting any war costs) has a deficit of 50 to 200 billion.

And California is cutting in to expenses (health, education and etc) as well as taxing more.

Re:Government Calculators Need A Minus Key

[toupsie]

You seem to be mistaken. California has a deficit of about 27 billion [reuters.com] the US (before counting any war costs) has a deficit of 50 to 200 billion [reuters.com].

You seem to have a low level of reading comprehension. I said "US States" not "United States". This would mean the states not country's deficit combined. California is only cutting the rate of growth of its programs. Nice try, Davis still sux.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Large states tend to get less money back from the federal government than they send there, because of the undemocratic nature of the US senate.

Enron et al.

[wytcld]

California is in the hole because they allowed themselves (with the insistance of the Bush government) to be ripped off for billions by the Texas energy firms. Trying to recover the losses to the mostly-criminal energy sector by going after the mostly-ethical tech sector is really, really wrong. California has to go after the thieves that done it to 'em, not round up the innocent and good-willed in order to make up for what they lost to the thieves.

Re:Enron et al.

[mako]

First let me say nice troll.

This is of course patently untrue. California is in this position due to mismanagement. Gray Davis is a moron. California wanted to purposefully make deregulation look like a failure so they passed laws doomed to fail. Combined with the inability of utilities to build power plants due to the Green i.e. Communist (all environmentalists hate private property rights but this is another topic) policies in place.

So the people of California got a wonderful lesson in supply and demand. Unfortunately instead of learning their lesson they whine and cry like the children they are.

Re:Enron et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it.... Just blame it on Bush again, and make yourself look like a raving moron.

Where has this plan been proposed??? That's right.. In California (Possibly the MOST liberal state in the Union.)

Re:Enron et al.

[Grishnakh]

Personally, I think California should secede from the union. They're already the world's six-largest economy, if I recall correctly. The other western states, like AZ, NV, CO, NM, OR, WY, ID, and MT could join them. People and attitudes between the east coast and the western states are so different, it'd be better if they were separate.

Besides, if the government in DC tried to stop us, we've got the UFOs in Nevada and Arizona, so they'd be no match for us!

Re:Enron et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see any irony in calling Californians crying children in the same message in which you call the previous post a troll?

I had a good laugh reading some of your previous posts, though. What are you, like, 17 or so?

Re:Enron et al.

[scoove]

Personally, I think California should secede from the union.

Can we give them a big push and accelerate the succession?

We've got a similar issue in Nebraska, although it's on a smaller scale. Overspending during the past years and funding of every special little project was the norm by *both* parties (and given the Republican dominance in the state, more of the blame should lie there).

The solution? Taxes everywhere. Raise income tax. Sales tax. Property tax. My truck licensed in Nebraska was $450/year for plates. Across the river in Iowa, it's $85 (and $30 in South Dakota). Better roads? Hardly! After all the tax announcements, now it's new service fees - except none of them make any sense. $2 per vehicle registration to add employees at the attorney general's office? What, government isn't big enough already? New bilingual government proposals - wouldn't now be a good time to tell those new citizens that English /is/ the language they're supposed to learn to be successful instead? New spendings to subsidize in-state tuition for illegals, while the university system is being radically downsized? Our government has simply gone wacky.

Interestingly, many in government misperceive their citizens money as government property, and subsequently neglect the possibility of circumvention (You're always free to act, but never free from consequence).

We're taking away a dozen jobs from the state of Nebraska and encouraging employees to relocate across the river. For every one I remove, it'll take several dozen to replace it - not factoring the multiplier effect the loss will have on other service businesses.

*scoove*

Re:Enron et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

First let me say nice troll.

all environmentalists hate private property rights but this is another topic

You voted for Bush, didn't you?

Unfortunately instead of learning their lesson they whine and cry like the children they are.

Hi, California resident here. When did I whine and cry like a child?

Re:Enron et al.

[Edmund Blackadder]

That may actually be a good idea... California is one of those states that really gets screwed in the federal system. It is the union's most powerfull economy so the burden of paying federal wellfare to the federal wellfare states falls on its shoulders (inst it ironic that it is those federal wellfare states that say they are conservative and hate wellfare and keep complaining about hippies in san fran)

If that is not enough the fed government has allowed special interests to bilk california on goods it imports, such as power and corn. And once again conservatives from southern states that love the free market so much are not willing to allow the free market to price their agricultural products.

Of course i am not seriously suggesting this. But i think it is about time californians demanded more of the federal system.

Re:Enron et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

and accelerate the succession?

Secession, dipshit.

Re:Enron et al.

[Anonymous Coward]

Secession, dipshit.

some people can spell. others can think. guess we know which one you are. shipdit.

Re:Enron et al.

[bcboy]

You absolutely don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

There haven't been any proposed powerplants denied due to environmental concerns.

The laws regarding deregulation were written by industry insiders and pushed through by Pete Wilson.

And the energy crisis that put California in debt was manufactured by Bush's pet criminals at Enron, as was detailed when that company finally imploded.

Re:Enron et al.

[SN74S181]

You believe that shit?

Or are you one of the people pumping out all those lies?

mail order tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question, is why?

a mail, phone & fax based mail-order company doesn't have to collect sales tax (in many cases)

an internet based mail-order company should have to collect sales tax

Will this just move orders from a website to the telephone, driving up order-taking costs?

"software" ?

[syukton]

a tax on software downloads? what do they define as a 'software download' ? If I download a non-binary-compatible software application (like a macintosh formatted binhex file, which is opposite-endian from the intel platform, although I forget which end is which presently) which will not run on the platform I downloaded the file with, is it classified as a software download even though to me and my computer it's just nonsensical raw binary garbage? Also, bios updates- are they software? how about drivers? powerpoint presentations? where's the line going to be drawn and who's going to draw it?

Taxes - sales and internet

[Anonymous Coward]

California, like many other states already has a "use tax" - in which cases the consumer is supposed to pay the SAME tax rate for an item purchased outside of the state as he would if he had purchased it inside the state. The trick for Ca is actually collecting on it.

Corps w/"locations" in state - are supposed to collect sales tax. (this sometimes HURTS in state companys which provide services to out of state corps - as say running a call center in Ca could be counted as a having a in state location .. thus the instate corps lose contracts to out of state corps :-(

For practical purposes - it is VERY hard to handle all of the different taxes rates which one may have to collect per each state, as you can have MULTIPLE tax rates within a ZIP code! Yes - it's ugly enough to deal with ONE state - but then to have to deal with them ALL! YUCK - what a mess - and the rates can change at different times!
The fix is to simplify the tax rates - which there is some attempt - but whenever it comes to attempting to split tax funds there's gonna be trouble.
Also - different items maybe taxes differently! Example in CA - they had (still do I think) a junk food sales tax - cookies are taxed, crackers are not (in general food is not taxed unless it is prepared for you.). OK - you may say - but Perhaps other states do the same - BUT define cookies differently!
YES - imagine the horror in attempting to sort all of this out.

For Fairness purposes - if you're an out of state company - the taxes you collect are supposed to help pay for the states infrastructures you maybe using - well - kind of sucks if you're end up collecting taxes for a state which won't help you with services those taxes pay for.

From a practical matter - mail order/catalog houses and those doing e-commerce - already have to deal with shipping costs - adding local taxes (based on the shipping address) would probably reflect a large shift in their revenues - seriously hurting the internet commerce and mail order commerce. (granted local biz would be happier - as they may see more customers - but then again most local biz are just very large corps - whereas - you can still find a lot of mom-n-pop sort of catalogers)

Calif - and other states - SHOULD NOT be taxing internet access - THAT's just wrong! I mean it's bad enough that the num-nut politicians push for laws which are LAME and cost citizens money w/o significant benefit - example of California making Olympic pistols illegal - they're defined as assault weapons - since the magzine is in front of the trigger (for balance purposes) and are NOTHING close to a machine pistol! You can find LOTs of lame laws if you look! (hint titles sound good - but the details are rotten - but then if you're reading this you should already know that - afteral You'll see lots of stuff on /. about lame laws)

It's bad enough in California that you're supposed to be charging SALE taxes on the USED stuff you're selling at a garage sale! COME on! If I haven't added value to it, it shouldn't be taxed! (granted most people are criminally getting away with this .. but then maybe one day they'll be getting you! Hence why I am NOT using my Nick!)

What Counts as Software?

[ssafarik]

When you're taxing "software downloads", where do you make the distinction between non-executable data, and executable software? Does a document containing a macro count? If I sell you a .pdf file, doesn't it "program" your computer to show you the document? The distinction between data & software is a hazy one.

Edit

[Anenga]

(From 11 to 22, I believe).

That's per credit, BTW.

California won't fix its problems

[ShatteredDream]

Instead of scaling back its operations and looking for useless projects that could be eliminated to fund core services, the state blithely adds new taxes. Why not just do something really progressive like *gasp* privatize the public healthcare and housing services. Let poor citizens in good standing keep their houses, apartments, etc that they get from public housing. You want to give them a sense of pride? Do that or give them a really really small 0% interest mortage on it to the tune of say.... $50-$100 a month. That way they're paying their way like everyone else and surprise, surprise the rest of California isn't paying for them anymore, and is now getting money back!

California is what Socialism on a greater scale in the US would be like. Non-essential public services such as free healthcare for the indigent, public housing and welfare services aren't here to actually fix a problem, they're here to punish the middle and upper classes. Don't give me that bullshit about "that's not really Socialism." No shit sherlock, Socialism exists only on paper and in the head of utopian hippies who are pathologically incapable of dealing with reality. The reality is that big government destroys civil rights and encourages violence. You want to make a difference? Vote for a Libertarian and take that percentage of your income that would have gone to welfare and give it to a homeless shelter or a free medical clinic. Those people genuinely care. The money won't get lost in a bureacracy and will actually help the poor.

I live in Virginia so I can only watch CA's problems from afar. CA's problems are of their own making. The people of california deserve this problem. I have no respect for a group of people that have police departments as institutionally corrupt as the LAPD yet have enough faith in the government that they think gun control will protect them. You can't trust your own fucking cops and yet you give up more rights to big brother. What will it take Californians? Bin Laden getting ahold of a stolen nuclear weaponing and vaporizing LA for the majority of you to realize the government can't provide for and can rarely pre-emptively protect you?

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, all that work to type that out and all you did was troll--next time you might want to do a ctrl-C, ctrl-V if your going to troll, and then wait 20 seconds, its a lot quicker and less work

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Bin Ladin nuking LA would be a Good Thing[tm]. That's where the RIAA and MPAA reside, along with their media cohorts.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you point out a real world example of a libertarian government for me, please. I would like to know what source you use to make such strong assertions about what life would be like under such a government.

Thank you.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

"You want to make a difference? Vote for a Libertarian and take that percentage of your income that would have gone to welfare and give it to a homeless shelter or a free medical clinic. Those people genuinely care. The money won't get lost in a bureacracy and will actually help the poor."

Yes, it will.

Even if by some grace of the Dark Lord, a Liberarian sat upon the White Throne^H^H^H^H^H House, the government would not be entirely Libertarian.

Even if it were, no Libertarian would have the same exact goals as any other - just as no Republican, no Democrat, no single man, have the same goals as any other.

Republics breed beauracracy and waste. A fair trade for what they give - the power to hold a bloodless revolution through voting.

Anyhoo, with such marginal voter turn out, everything must be fine as it is - if it weren't, people would vote the current crop of politicians out of office.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Slashdot,

Stereotypes are bad.

Anonymously Yours,
The Clue Fairy

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the RIAA is located in Washington, D.C.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[bcboy]

It's "problems" are 1) electing Pete Wilson, screwball conservative who destroyed the power infrastructure through cracked deregulation schemes advocated by energy companies (notably Enron), 2) criminals in Enron gaming the market after Wilson set it up, and 3) King George refusing to do anything about his home-grown Texas criminals.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[SN74S181]

Sorry.

Your 'blame Enron and the evil Big Busine$$' bullshit might look good on the bulletin board in your union hall, but it doesn't play out in the real world.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Carmody]

No shit sherlock, Socialism exists only on paper and in the head of utopian hippies who are pathologically incapable of dealing with reality.

And in Scandinavian countries with an incredibly good quality of life, and personal freedoms that would give a Libertarian an Adam-Smith sized erection.

Read a book, jeez.

The reality is that big government destroys civil rights and encourages violence.

Really? Why is there more violence in the United States than there is in countries with much larger governments? Singapore is hardly a land of "small government"

I don't believe in socialism, but you are making statements that are not only false and dogmatic, but more than a little stupid.

You want to make a difference? Vote for a Libertarian

Yeah, that would make a HUGE difference. Talk about somebody being completely unrealistic.

homeless shelter or a free medical clinic. Those people genuinely care. The money won't get lost in a bureacracy and will actually help the poor.

Homeless shelters used to have a lot more support before the Libertarians got involved with government.

You can tell the hypocrisy this way: The PATRIOT act passsed. Did they go out and fight the Republicans? Did they say anything bad about GWB? A few did. One article I read was shocked (shocked!) that GWB turned out to be WORSE for the Libertarians than the "clintonistas"

Anybody with half a brain knew that GWB was out for civil rights... was out to take our American freedoms away from us. But the Libertarians? They either didn't vote (THAT showed them) or voted for Bush. And they will still not admit that as much as an ass that Gore was, we would not have anything nearly like the PATRIOT act or operation TIPS under him. They fucked up big time, during the one time in history when they could have made a difference, and now are acting like petulant babies, threatening to take their ball and go home.

The Libertarians? Read "The Prisoners Dilemma", look up the big words, and then get back to us.

Re:California won't fix its problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man - I am not a fan of Republicans but , oh well, I cannot put it any other way - you are a complete moron with no brains whatsoever.
You see , Democratic party is where it is because of fuckers like you.

California Considering More Internet Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

California Considering More Internet Taxes!!! more like celda

Here in BFE.....

[simetra]

The main incentive to buy online is that the prices are so much better, even after adding shipping/handling. Even though we have no sales tax here. Plus, the retard local business owners here, generally speaking, are lazy, and not at all clued-in to the customer service idea.

The 1 thing that makes me buy locally vs internet is speed. If I need something right away, I'll drive to the store and get it. If it can wait, I'll get it online.

Re:Here in BFE.....

[Rip!ey]

Plus, the retard local business owners here, generally speaking, are lazy, and not at all clued-in to the customer service idea.

Wow! I can't help but comment on this.

As an Australian, I come across my fair share of Americans, either visiting or working in my country. As somebody who worked (before I returned to study) in a customer service orientated role for my company, I would have to say the the customer service expectations of most Americans I met (surprisingly many) are far above and beyond that which my fellow Australians expect.

It suggests that Americans ask a lot more of others than they do of themselves.

I'm not trying to troll or anything, just making an interesting (and somewhat off-topic) observation.

Flat Rate tax would be a nice idea

[nich37ways]

In Australia at least, we have tax collected on all purchases from Australian companies distributing goods and services to people located in Australia.

Ie. the GST (Goods and Servicecs Tax), similar to VAT in England, and other systems around the world.

The Americans really need to implement a flat tax rate across the country at a federal level for this kind of thing.
Having lots of different tax rates is fine if you are only selling your goods in one area, or you are big and can afford the complex tax software.

An internet tax system will hurt small businesses unless it is a simple flat rate everywhere, or tax is played from the purchase point.
ie. Order from New York pay New York tax, although this system would be rorted as well as companies move to areas with the lowest tax rates.

Re:Flat Rate tax would be a nice idea

[doormat]

The problem with some sort of VAT or GST is that local govts often use sales tax to fund local projects. Where I live, in the past few years sales tax has gone from 7.0% and will soon be at 7.5% because we need the money to build new water intake lines from the lake and more higways. If we couldn't adjust the local sales tax, we'd be screwed.

Its a degree of flexability our county most definately needs.

Re:Flat Rate tax would be a nice idea

[legojenn]

I don't know a lot about the US system of government , but what I do know is that it would probably require a constitutional amendment transferring that form of taxation to the Federal government. The americans aren't to keen on amending the Constitution. How many amendments in 220 years (The war of Independence ended in 1773.)? Fourteen or so.

you're already paying tax

[korgull]

In case you pay for an internet connection that probably already includes taxes, just like any other product you buy. At least in the country where I live it does.

If they want Silicon Valley to pack up and leave..

[sulli]

then they can just go right ahead.

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[doormat]

FYI, Nevada has in the worst fiscal shape in the whole of the US, even worse than California. And besides, jobs will never move too much to that state because its a hell hole. They would never be able to attract the talent they are looking for. Some REALLY want to eat at other restaurants besides casinos and Applebees.

Well, the restaurants arguement is right. I'll give you that. Fine dining outside of a casino is hard to find...

But NV does have no corporate or personal income taxes. Thats its strongest point. One of the things that made me proud was that Vegas was home to Westwood Studios. At least until a few weeks ago when EA decided to close down their center here in vegas.

Its weakest point is public education. Parents who treat schools like daycare centers, give teachers no respect, and then complain about their kid not learning.

This will be a mistake...

[Billy the Mountain]

In addition to sales taxes, Westly said he is considering a tax on Internet access like those that appear on telephone bills. He also is looking at a tax on software downloads.

Heh, software downloads would undoubtedly apply to JavaScript, since JavaScript is software. I can see it now, Granny blunders into a porno site and after experiencing a JavaScript blitzkrieg winds up owing the state of California $47.86.

BTM

Re:This will be a mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you pay for JavaScript?

<ALL CAPS>

URGENT BUSINESS OPPORTUNIY

Dear Billy the Mountain

I got your name from a business reputable source, and am now contacting you with the utmost confidentiality trhough this secure channel beacuse the offer I am about to make, must be held in the deepest trust between us.

I am William Sankoh, a former employee of TotalFinaElf Petroleum, Nigerian office. During my tenure in this company, I have been able to collect 50 million dollars American from inflating the price of oil smuggled out for the Iraqi governemt. This money has been kept secretly by my company in an account that I have access to. I have an opportunity to move this money out of Nigeria by the end of this month, before the monthly audit. The company does not know that I still have access to this money, and if they go missing, they can not investigate further. This is because the Iraqi government does not know about the inflation of prices, and the United Nations does not know about the entire smuggling operation. I am currently looking for a trusted party in Europe or the United States that would be able to provide a bank account for this money outside Nigeria, against a 20% ($10 million) share of the sum ($50 million) plus all expenses. I ensure you that this transaction will be risk-free to both of us, because of the reasons that I have allready mentioned.

Please contact me immidately with details of the account. Since you are the only one I have contacted about this, you must tell me immidiately if you will not accept this offer. I must look for other options if you do not contact me within 2 days, because the opportunity will be lost by the end of the month.

God is grate!
William Abacka
</ALL CAPS>

Re:This will be a mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Granny blunders into a porno site"

Heh heh. Yeah, I keep stumbling into those, too.
Damn you, porn sites! Damn you to hell!

It's called gas @ $2.00+ per gallon...

[Anonymous Coward]

$10 shipping and handling fees might be a better deal...

Better sources of tax income!!

[bigox]

Let's tax all political contributions!

Bribes must be doubly taxed!

and yet the don't cut anything they should cut....

[Shivetya]

There are literally hunderds of programs that they should cut but they don't. However being the typical politician Gray has decided to piss people off into allowing him to tax ANYONE and EVERYONE by raising the spectre of nuking those prized programs.

In other words, Gray is doing what he has always done. There are two kinds of government employees. Essential and non-essential.

That should be an indicator of who needs cut.

For comparison, a local county is 67 million in the hole. They refused to cut their arts budget of 6 million, now tell me, whats more important? Buying art from people who can't sell it otherwise, or paying teachers?

That is the biggest difference between libertarians and those other two. Governments currently spend money on stuff they have no business doing so. But they have the guns to back them up, the idiocy of the general public to hide behind, and many cohorts in the press and special interest groups to run cover for them.

Oracle

[SashaM]

Well, they have to get the money to pay for all those Oracle licenses somewhere...

It seems funny...

[Retarded Penguin]

...that all of the budget cuts come out of education, law enforcement, highway improvements, etc etc but the prison systems budget has stayed the same for so long. I think the solution here is not to tax the internet but to slim the beaurocracy down a bit. California is notorious for its bloated government (believe me, I live here) and I believe it is time that notion is changed.

Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracters?

[Viewsonic]

Makes no sense, especially when the jobs can be filled by part time high school kids. When it comes to budgeting state jobs, they really have NO IDEA how to go about it. I think they look at what other companies are paying employees and tripple it! WHY?

Bad idea

[AndrewM1]

Well, this dicussion seems to have found more holes in the internet tax than swiss cheese. I hope someone in the Californian Government reads Slashdot!

crazy

[mastergoon]

sounds dumb to me government does waste too much money

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Anonymous Coward]

* don't have to drive, no wear on the car, no gas ($1.50 saved)
* no local tax (say $100 item, that's $6 where I am)
* don't waste time getting the stuff (next day delivery is under $12 at most places, free shipping is commonplace)
* usually internet stuff is far cheaper (DVDs are easily $8 cheaper on many titles, computer hardware easily 100s, and that's if the place has them (ever see a place nearby farm country sell anime or some obscure title you want? heck, even a decent collector's set? not))
* save time shopping (I can hit multiple sites in under 5 minuts and do a price comparison AND check out in under a minute--try that at Walmart sometime)
* I can find what I want with minimal effort; no yellow pages, calling, asking for stock and quality, going without reviews, etc.

I spend about 90% of my money on internet sites. If they start taxing, I would definitely buy less but NOT shift it over to the retail stores; a lot of what I buy is due to convenience and the low cost, not utter necessity, and my buying power would be reduced overall (due to the taxation).

In many ways, particularly DVDs, I would be economicly incapable of buying the amount of DVDs I do at retail stores prices, not to mention finding the titles I want (speciality stores do not abound where I am), and if you figure in time, geez, I don't have hours to go do special orders anyways, and you're talking 2 trips and probably a mess of phone calls.

Frankly, internet taxes are a stupid idea. 2 years ago, they were saying how fragile the new economy was. But the talking heads changed their tune when the budget hit and the economy became more down.

btw I realize not everyone is like me and most people spend the majority of their money in typical brick and mortar.

How about going after the Tax Cheats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could start taxing groups who have special exemptions such as religions.
The American Constitution provides for freedom of religion in the United States. Its first amendment concisely spells this out: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."
So why do we have laws exempting these groups from shouldering their share of the burden of society. If they use city services, it is only right that they pay their fair share. To not do so is theft, irregardles of any special exemption they may currently have.
Would making rape legal, make it right? Allowing some groups to take without paying is no more right. As the Constitution says, government should make no law allow a religion special privliges privileges. What next, will these groups be allowed to do as they will, take what they want, because laws prohibiting them would void the free exercise of religion? Next thing you have 911 allowed as an expresion of a fundamental religous group that is exercising their religous jihad!

Re:How about going after the Tax Cheats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could start taxing groups who have special exemptions such as religions.

Non-profit organizations are generally exempt from federal, state, and local taxes. This is true whether they are a religious group or not.

Re:How about going after the Tax Cheats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one, moron. Since religious institutions exist off the donations of OTHERS, they ARE paying their fair share of taxes because they are getting donations from people who have already PAID THEIR TAXES. Blithering idiot. Every time there's a budget crunch, some MORON decides "oh, let's tax the shit out of the Salvation Army! Damn donations are FREE MONEY!!!" So WHAT if the church has oodles of money from its paritioners....that money has already been TAXED. Idiot.

Re:How about going after the Tax Cheats?

[beakburke]

in most places they do have to pay property taxes. they just dont have to pay income taxes on their income because they are nonprofit.

Dept. change

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't this be from the "overspending state governments dept.", instead of the "got to pay off the theieving energy companies dept."???

California's deficit is equal to 1/3 of ALL the deficits for ALL 50 US STATES combined!!

Its been said before....

[Anonymous Coward]

Legalize Marijuana and then tax that--everyone who was afraid to smoke it before as they might get caught will go buy some--oh and you'll also have to stop drug testing at the workplace, it would also help the war on drugs...now why don't we do this, i wonder why those people who did drugs in the 60s and 70s are now saying drugs are bad mmmKay..

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[localman]

As an employee of a profitable online retailer (admittedly a rare beast) I would say that convenience and selection play a large role. The product doesn't even have to be that rare (my company sells shoes). It can be a pain to find a specific thing out in the world if you know exactly what you want - online it can be a breeze. In the real world, even if you know where it is, a 10 mile drive and purchase can take 30 minutes of your time, wheras an online purchase can take under 10 minutes - although you do have to wait for delivery... but it's still a net gain in many circumstances.

All I can say is that a lot of people find value in online retail. If the retailer is smart at keeping their operational costs low, they can be quite successful.

Blah Blah Blah Adam Smyth said this, Adam Smyth sa

[Anonymous Coward]

Adam Smyth said this, Adam Smyth said that, the invisible hand, blah blah blah...Adam Smyth said those thing what about 100+ years ago? Its a TOTALY different world today pal. Everything can(and IS) manupulated. There is NO such thing as "free market" No matter how MUCH you want to try to tell me there is one.

The wrath of the geek

[CleverNickName]

"I know as well as anyone how much we owe the tech industry, but what are the geeks going to do if we piss them off with Internet taxes? Leave?"
-- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner

"Why does my homepage say '3y3 0wnZ0rr j00 gr3y d@v1Z!'? What does that mean, exactly?"
-- California governor Gray Davis, looking at his computer in three months.

Re:The wrath of the geek

[Uart]

You really think it will take you 3 months to hack his webserver? I know you can do better than that ;-)

Re:The wrath of the geek

[Tackhead]

> I know as well as anyone how much we owe the tech industry, but what are the geeks going to do if we piss them off with Internet taxes? Leave?"
> -- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner
>
>"Why does my homepage say '3y3 0wnZ0rr j00 gr3y d@v1Z!'? What does that mean, exactly?"
> -- California governor Gray Davis, looking at his computer in three months.

"Why does my CA tax return have a new line with the instruction 'enter all remaining assets here (wh0z 0wnz0r1ng n0w, fux0r?)' line on it?"
-- The last Kalifornistan geek who hasn't already left for Nevada, puzzling over his 540 (CA State Tax form) in four months.

Re:The wrath of the geek

[.milfox]

*lol* :p

Hey, I got all my CA tax back this year, nice thing about being .mil and stationed in another state (but still being a CA resident) ;P

Mind you, I did give some of that refund back.. oh, what was the checkblock, CA Endangered Species Fund. :P

*G* C'mon, let's use our market power and do even better things to the rest of the country, like make SUV's have fuel economy standards! Muahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Re:The wrath of the geek

[Tackhead]

> Mind you, I did give some of that refund back.. oh, what was the checkblock, CA Endangered Species Fund. :P

Hey, your money, your prerogative. The one thing I actually like about the CA forms is that there's that list of "tax-me-more" options. You wanna donate to something with a big enough lobby to referendum its way onto the 540, go ahead.

I'd like to go the next step and see a "please allocate 1% of my already-owed tax dollars to one of the following programmes", followed by a list of programmes/departments.

(Yes, one of Evil Master Plans(tm) is to referendum that 1% to 75%, and to expand the list of programmes/departments to include everything. The spotted owls, the public schools, the roads, the military, the cops, and NASA - if people want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em. Year 1 might see almost no military spending, but that'll self-correct in Year 2 when people realize it's gonna take $300B/y for the Army Corps of Engineers to clean up the poop from 500,000 goddamn owls per acre. :-)

Enron was not the problem

[mpthompson]

Yes, Enron and the whole power debacle had its role, but only a minor one. The real root of the problem is quite simple. While the Internet bubble was pushing California state income tax revenue to unsustainable levels the state government grew to consume every penny of revenue that came in. Now that the bubble burst the state is starved for revenue. Last year Gov. Davis signed a $75B budget. This year the proposed budget is $62B including $4B increase in income taxes and other fees. Roughly a 22% year to year decrease in revenue, but back to roughly what the budget was in 1999.

Virtually every tax paying citizen and business in California is seeing their incomes and revenues reduced in a similar manner. In many cases the reduction is MUCH greater than just 22%, but we are all dealing within it our own manner. It's time that both the federal and state governments learn to have the same basic fiscal responsibility asked of citizens and business in boom and bust cycles.

During the boom there were proposals to actually give tax rebates back to the taxpayers because we were simply paying more than the state government needed to run operations. In retrospect, this would have been the wise thing to do because it would have put some brakes on the state government growing to an unsustainable level. Instead, we are now seeing the politicians scramble to protect their favorite pork projects while funding for basic services such as schools, public safety and other public infrastructure are reduced to level less than they would have been had the boom never happened.

Too often it seems people are quick to criticize those who want to see smaller government or at least put severe limits on its growth. Often there are good reasons for doing so other than the accusation such people are stingy, selfish or worse.

Any one actually interested in seeing the numbers may be interested in this link. Check out the Chart A, Historical Data, General Fund Balance document.

Not budget cuts, only reductions in budget growth.

[voisine]

Actually the budget is being increased by 6.6%
as opposed to the planned 13%. In newspeak
this translates to budget cuts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-14-spe nding-usat_x.htm

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, why aren't catalogue companies a flawed design as well? Not everyone lives somewhere where everything they want is available within a 10-mile drive.

And when was the last time you walked into an establishment selling (books / cds / dvds / etc.) and found almost any title you could name instead of just the best sellers? Amazon's warehouses have them though, and it's much easier to find a title in their search engine.

It's also significantly cheaper to do business out of a warehouse than retail space. With the reduced overhead prices can be lower than the store on the corner.

Lack of taxes is far from the only reason to buy online.

Pay the Piggies

[BigLonely]

This could be a way.... a "legal" way (because the piggies make such laws), for capitalist piggies to make 'free and open' Open Source pay THEM..... What irony! It's just like business-minded pig head, vultures to interfere with freedom in this way. Imagine!!! Paying extra taxes to download Debian/GNU software! And should we feel sorry for all those poor hapless Windows users and servers out there who are obliged to patch their systems every five minutes via taxed downloads? Nah! And what about spam? We could end up paying for the privilege of downloading hundreds of spam emails each day.

see

[koan]

This is what happens when you talk to much, we had to go and talk about the internet and now everyone wants a slice =)
If they do it in a flat tax per month added to the ISP's bill (like they do with the phones) then I'm not too pissed.
However if they charge by bandwidth used then I would be upset.

Re:Thank you Gov. Davis and the Democratic party

[Anonymous Coward]

Davis' policies caused a power disaster in CA

I believe it was Enron and energy deregulation that caused the power disaster in CA. You know, Ken Lay and other good friends of Gearge Bush?

Unbelievable

[M.C. Hampster]

It's unbelievable the amount of ignorance that exists when it comes to the California energy crisis.

First, I would like some sort of explanation and proof that California's deficit is almost entirely to blame on the energy crisis? Is the fact that most states are experiencing deficits also do to the California energy crisis? Or, perhaps, it has something to do with the fact that our economy has slowed down. Or the fact that during the 90's the Californian State Government increased spending way past inflation.

Second, the "deregulation" scheme enacted by the legislature was hardly a joke. They did not setup anything even remotely recognizable as a free market system.

Third, GWB and FIRC ended up setting price controls.

Fourth, GW Bush was not and is no longer vested in energy corporations.

Do you wish for me to continue? I'm not some huge GWB or Republican drone or fan, I just hate seeing all the FUD that surrounds the entire energy issue.

Re:Unbelievable

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the fact that during the 90's the Californian State Government increased spending way past inflation.

Bloat undeniably happens. But you act as if spending rising faster than inflation is automatic proof of waste.
Consider putting off fixing your roof for a year for lack of funds and then having to coincidentally fix the roof, replace your car, and feed new twins in the following months -- your spending would also go up faster than inflation.

The San Jose Mercury News recently ran some articles on how much of the growth in spending was due to paying for the "deferred maintenance" of the last recession and to the growth in California's population. I hadn't seen this information before.

Re:Unbelievable

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Fourth, GW Bush was not and is no longer vested in energy corporations.

Nice of you to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

Re:Unbelievable

[M.C. Hampster]

Nice of you to contradict yourself in a single sentence.

In that sentence, I did not and I no longer will contradict myself.

Re:Unbelievable

[Brat Food]

I would like some proof that bush is no longer vested in any way with big enrgy.

For that matter, lets look in to cheney.

Not vested means he also has no "good friends" and campaign donators in that bunch. It means he owns no stock or any company that benifits from the companies in question.

GWB and his posse is also were the ones who said there was no price fixing going on the whole time, even though now execs are coming forward ADMITTING to it.

You dont need to be a GWB fan to get your facts wrong.

IMPEACH GRAY DAVIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

before he drives the whole state into bankruptcy!

Re:Thank you Gov. Davis and the Democratic party

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for reminding us how democrats have a scapegoat for every dumb move they do.

How much is enough?

[nyseal]

I thought this country was derived from one of the facts that we can't have taxation without representation. We, as a country, seperated ourselves from a dictator because of taxes yet that seems to be the only way our government can support itself; especially with Senators & Congressmen who can annually vote themselves a raise within a recession....must be nice. In my opinion, representatives of government should be working for the legal minimum wag (which THEY set); they're public servants, not elected Gods. Now, you and I are taxed 24 hours a day on everything from income to spending; think about it....what AREN'T you taxed on? Now they want MORE? Call it what you will....but this country is stepping back centuries into a time when there was a king. The president is the king with all the senators & congressmen as his lords. It pains me at election time because I know for a fact the dirtball, scum sucking POS electee will vote himself a raise come the next convene of congress or the senate. Why should I even vote? My taxes go up, my income goes down and all the while Bill & Hilary enjoy secret service protection at my expense. Please. Sorry for the rant, butI needed to get that off my chest.

How in the fuck could they tax software downloads?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I pay a fee every time I do a 'cvs up'?

Patently false? Not quite.

[forii]

This is patently false.

Patently False?

Not

quite.

Sure, California's scheme for "deregulation" had some major flaws, but that doesn't excuse Enron, as well as other energy corporations from committing wire fraud, to the point of almost bankrupting the state.

You Need to Prove He Said This

[VividU]

How lame. An AC attributes a quote to the Governor of California overheard at a "private dinner" and it gets modded (+5). It's actually more revealing of the type of morons that frequent this great site than any thing the Gov. supposedly said.

Re:You Need to Prove He Said This

[Anonymous Coward]

Sense of humor? No?
Socialist zealot? Yes.

Re:You Need to Prove He Said This

[greenrd]

Uh... I could be mistaken, but I think that was what we humans normally refer to as a "joke" - I don't know if you've heard of such things?

Re:You Need to Prove He Said This

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to see a real joke, look in the mirror.

Social Justice: When a Liberal gets punched in the mouth

I don't mind a tax on commerce...

[tuxlove]

... but I do mind a tax on "downloads". What a load of BS. How do these techno wizard politicians propose to do that? Just what *is* a "download" anyway? Reading a web page requires a download. Getting a PDF document from anywhere on the web is a download. FTPing the source code of somebody's hobby programming project is a download. Snatching pr0n off the web is a download. Doing a "whois" for some domain you're curious about is a download. Will this all be taxable? That would be asinine. So how does one differentiate between a taxable download and a nontaxable download, if there will even be such a thing? This kind of garbage is going to kill the Internet, or at least the Internet in CA/US.

I, for one, will colocate a small server outside of CA if this happens, simply for the purpose of serving my downloads/website, and for downloading stuff (rather than to my workstation at home in CA).

socialism doesnt only exist on paper

[Anonymous Coward]

you may have heard of some counties with names such as switzerland, norway, swiden and so on. by yours and many other people, those countries are all socialistic. surprise surprise, people in them enjoy a rather high standard of living, one of the highest in the world as a matter of fact. imagine that!

correction: only communism only exist on paper.

money money money

[jdkane]

Collecting Ahead of Time
Wal-Mart, Target and Toys R Us voluntarily began collecting online sales taxes in most states and all three now charge Internet sales tax in California.

So if the government doesn't come after them for back taxes, then they get to keep the current sales tax. That means more money for the online entities that start charging tax sooner.

Charging for downloads? I usually don't complain, but that sucks. There's one good drawback I can now quote for living in a capitalistic society.

Who gives a flying

[Anonymous Coward]

fart. I've already taken California's star off of my flag. They are so far left the governor should change his name to "Red" Davis.

If the rest of the country could vote out a state, California would be long gone.

California voters made their mess; let them live with it.

Site your servers in Delaware!

[Anonymous Coward]

If servers were located in Delaware, they would benefit not only from a friendly climate, but by the lack of any sales taxes. Delaware has none. (This has historically been maintained by a certain emphasis by state legislators on extracting money from out of state...the state is only a few miles wide...by allowing merchants in-state to offer lower effective prices than those in surrounding states. Every now and then someone suggests a sales tax, and is roundly shouted down. I expect the no-sales-tax situation to continue indefinitely for that reason.

Re:Looking the wrong direction (ex post facto)

[evilviper]

they are collecting taxes, now, so that the states won't "back-tax" them in the future.

It's called ex-post facto. You cannot be held responsible for laws that do not exist yet.

Perhaps there is something incredibly special in tax-law that it is allowed to circumvent that section of the Constitution, but I would sincerely doubt it.

Of course, I am neither a llama nor a lawyer.

Here's the appropriate quotations:

Article I Section 9:
"No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Article I Section 10:
"No state shall" [...] "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Re:Thank you Gov. Davis and the Democratic party

[DapastryChef]

Amen!

A big thanks to all those who voted for Gray Davis

[rspress]

Well we have all those people who voted for Gov. Lowbeam. I think all those that voted for him should pony up the tax money. When a Governor goes from a 10billion dollar surplus to a 35billion dollar deficit in 4 years and STILL wins re-election it goes to prove that there is nothing dumber than a California democrat.

Cowboy Neal...

[ewhenn]

... will pack up and leave if this goes through. No more downloading Hank williams CDs.

Tax Sex

[attobyte]

I think they should tax sex then they would have no budget problems!!!! :)

Atto

Re:Tax Sex

[biobogonics]

I wish I could find a reference to it, but about 20 years ago, a hilarious memo circulated on what appeared to be official state letterhead in Wisconsin announcing the "pecker tax". Complete with tax forms and a tax schedule, based on length, it warned taxpayers to not to "request an extension."

There is sales tax on the internet

[unborn]

...if the retailer and the customer are in the same state. And there is no tax if they are in different states. In fact, this is valid for over-the-phone purchases as well (anyone ordered flowers to a different state?). If they decide to tax all internet sales, then they should also tax all telephone sales.

Anyone know why interstate purchases are not being taxed? ( No, I am not in support of interstate taxation )

---
The Pig, if I am not mistaken,
Gives us ham and pork and Bacon.
Let others think his heart is big,
I think it stupid of the Pig.
-- Ogden Nash

Re:There is sales tax on the internet

[rela]

Some states have what are called "Use Taxes", where if you purchase something from an out-of-state retailer, you must caculate, report, and pay the sales tax you would have paid at a local retailer on your income tax return.

"Must" being in the legal sense of the word, realistically I have no idea how many people actually comply.

basic econo ramblings

[zogger]

--the US is being mostly maintained by it's position as the world default trading currency. In particular pegged to oil being bought and sold in terms of barrels versus "dollars". Lately there's this new currency called the euro, which is slightly backed by gold. Iraq was the first muslim oil producer to demand payments in euros. Hmm, one of those coincidences no doubt.... Japan holds the most US debt paper and cash by a foreign nation, but they more want/need oil then US dollars and have been quietly withdrawing sums and re investing, ditto the oil producing nations. We've been running a trade deficit with many nations, notably mainland china. All these nations have more or less noticed that by continuuing to use the dollar as a unit of trade, that all the US has to do is..print more dollars, to the tune of..I forget, it's trillions and trillions, none of it really backed by anything other than inertia. In short they have been paying for a lot of our "prosperity". A lot of it. The dollar has been "falling" that means losing worth in the terms of international money people in relation to other currencies. The Fed has been allowing this to happen for two reasons, they just can't justify printing more money, and no one really is all that jazzed on our money now, it's like the lesser of a few other fiat evils. It makes our exports marginally cheaper, but as we produce less and less, that's less and less valuable. As we buy more but the dollar is worth less, that stuff will cost more, and the only way to offset that is to print more money worth nothing and the cycle continues, and everyone is tired of the cycle now.

Now it gets even more interesting. There's a new currency on the block, called the gold dinar. The muslim nations are going to be switching to this shortly, primarily for various balance of trade settlements with themselves, and the wags have it that eventually they will demand foreign payments in-their own money, which means both the dollar and the euro will be worth less, as first they must buy a dinar, and being backed by gold, this will require these other nations to have gold-or something else tangible to trade. something else has to be manufactured, dug up and mined, drilled for, or grown, as that about covers real wealth.. Malysia is the first nation to adopt this, but it will soon be common amongst the muslim nations, and will be a viable alternative for those nations even over the euro, because they have what everyone else wants-the oil. Never forget the oil, and don't forget "water". Now nations outside the US, then outside europe, will have *no* need to add a middleman to their trading, once these ouil nations can get what they want without involving the dollar or the euro. They won't have a need, so they won't do it. Now back to water. The tigris and euphrates in Iraq are the largest sources of fresh water in the middle east. This is important and not mentioned a lot in the media unless you look for it. We have around the world going on something like 6 billion people, and roughly enough oil and water for at best 1/4 of those (or less) people with any sort of remotely close to a western styled "middle class" lifestyle. The deal is, the cat is out of the bag and now people all over the wortld sorta want that house and car and tv and stereo and computer and running water and cheap gas and electricity and supermarkets and whatnot. A lot people in the west tend to forget most people around the planet only have slight amounts of all that "stuff" with some exceptions here and there..

And that's what's happening with the money, it's becoming increasingly irrelevant as opposed to the important tangibles. The "market" wants to keep the trade in money, especially western pure fantasy printed up money, going and shilled up as long as possible, because it's a damn cushy job and great congame as much as anything else. It creates fabulous amounts of profits for the middlemen and skimmers. The people who actually have the wealth and produce the wealth are getting annoyed, and the global "investment" markets know it. Everyone is getting a little scared. This scared part is called a flight to quality, among other terms. We are in what's called a bear market because the previous bubble bull market was selling at-dunno, pick a big number,10 to 50 times what it ever could be conceivably worth by anyone rational.

The "market" is what they call "correcting". This is like seeing a house in flames and saying "it appears the neighbors are having a barbecue". The economy in the US is built mainly on unsustainable credit that's already spent and gone, it's not coming back, and is beyond bankrupt, again, inertia is keeping it afloat as much as any other complicated theory.

The world is and will be warring over natural resources, primarily the wet and clear and the black and gooey. Take it from there. I know this is all sorta jumbled together, but your question on what's up with the economy deserved more than a single sentence, but a real analysis would take volumes, I tried to give you a very basic in a nutshell view, at least as good as I can see it. It should be possible to extrapolate some more reality with it, see what the TV spokesweasels say, see what really happens, and go on from there.

You are living in the "good old days" now, enjoy them and tell stories to your grandkids. Get ahold of decent rural property with water on it, so your grandkids have a place to live. Best advice I got for anyone now. This isn't all doom and gloom or chicken little action, this is just a general way to say for at least the next decade to two decades, IF we can avoid major global war, that it will not get much better than it is now, and odds are it will get..much worse I'm afraid.

Re:basic econo ramblings

[drinkypoo]

Well, I guess this is the time for cottage industry and partial subsistence living, then. I've often thought that I'd like to see the world move toward an existence which includes more bartering :) As you gain more useful skills you get more chances to do that kind of thing. People in the US have been led into niches, some of which have no escape (like counterperson at burger king.) Even if you escape from there (and once you do you often cannot go back) you usually end up going to community college or a lousy trade school (all you have time and money to do) and then you, again, have just one skill, really.

I'm glad that technology is continuing to march along at a good clip, because we are rapidly marching toward the point at which the basic needs of people (Except for living space) will be essentially free to provide. Artificial food is getting cheaper and better, for one. Power generation is becoming more efficient, and cleaner, which is good news because population growth is continuing and power use will continue to increase as nations develop. Developed nations continue to work towards lower emissions, but mostly by sending their pollution to undeveloped countries.

Of course, that creates jobs in those countries, putting more (of our) money into them, assisting in their development, even if we're talking maquiladoras paying some poor native a (apparently ailing) US dollar a day. If it's more money than they would get otherwise, it can only be a good thing. Whether it's worth the pollution is a question no one can really answer because the difference in the quality of life is so difficult to quantify. We can't even all agree on whether technological advance makes life better (though most of us are in favor of medical science, our current level of which implies a certain population level.)

The question is, if the quality of life in America continues to decline at the current rate, with unemployment climbing and the value of the dollar falling, and the most desirable places to live becoming more and more crowded thus more and more expensive due to the laws of supply and demand, what will life in America be like? (This is a rhetorical question of course, who can answer that kind of crap?)

Larry Loves It

[mikeboone]

California will now be able to buy more copies of Oracle.

RE: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[aaarrrgggh]

That's just unrealistic. The real problem is that nobody ever bothered to close the loop on mail order. It is unethical for people to not pay sales tax for out-of-state purchases.

Nevertheless, I imagine most of us have offset the cost of shipping with sales tax and gone with the cheaper option. It unfortunately screws over local merchants (within the state anyway), making their goods appear more expensive.

Income tax is one of the more reasonable taxes in the US (and CA), but because of all the loopholes, the burden is not split fairly.

If you have a problem with this proposition, you should be fighting the entire tax system, not just the fair allocation of sales tax on all sales transactions.

Does California Want to Kill It's Tech Sector?

[ausoleil]

Imagine you are running a software business, with operations in San Jose, California and Research Triangle Park, NC, and Austin, Texas.

The state of California decides to enact great deal of new taxation on you specifically. Due to competition in your market sector, raising prices to cover your taxes is not a good option.

So what do you do?

Close the San Jose office and move key employees to NC and Texas.

Easy and simple.

You mean penny (singular) on the dollar

[A nonymous Coward]

Sure is strange that energy prices could jump by a factor of 100 ... not double, not triple, but one hundred times. Anything jumping that much, seems pretty much like solid evidence right there of price gouging.

Deregulation certainly was screwed, capping retail but not wholesale prices ... but even doubling of prices would have been inexplicable, and a factor of 100 ... it really must have boggled your mind for you to ignore it.

Calling them "Taxes" sounds so negative

[chiph]

....But calling them "Temporary Economic Incentives" puts a much more positive light on it.

Property Taxes?

[anubi]

It seems every time I turn around, some organization is claiming how much their intellectual property is worth, and petitioning the California government to pass law for them to "protect" their interests.

I have property too. And I pay a "property tax" to the government, and in turn they recognize my "ownership" of said property.

Yeh, I know - one is "real" property, and the other is "intellectual" property. But they are both considered assets with a value.

Now, the problem is - if it is indeed "property", how much is it worth?

My guess is that in the case of intellectual property, its worth what you say its worth... so let them self-assess the value of each piece just as they do real property. And pay tax on that. And the amount they say its worth is the maximum amount that can be sued for.. and if the suit is successful, consider the property sold to the one who paid. Whereupon, they too can reassess what *they* think the property is worth.

I think such legislation should have been a rider to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Possibly this would keep companies from using all sorts of legal maneuvers to keep anybody else from doing anything by tying up all possible ways of doing things in the patent offices.

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[Graspee_Leemoor]

I think you were a bit quick off the mark- the post I was disagreeing with was advocating a tax on internet useage. I couldn't care less about a sales tax on internet shopping because I am from the UK and we have always had to pay sales tax on everything we buy, whether on the internet or not.

"If you have a problem with this proposition, you should be fighting the entire tax system"

I tried fighting The Entire Tax System once but it was immune to non-enchanted weapons, regenerated, had 2000 hit points and was Shadowy (-4 to hit).

graspee

Just include it in the price

[DABANSHEE]

Than the customers would be none the wiser, as it won't be marked as added on

Gez the US must be about the only place in the world where price marking doesn't includ the sales tax - you go buy a bottle of coke that price marked a dollar & you get to the cash register & by the time they add 7% (or whatever) federal tax, 7% (or whatever) state tax, 7% (or whatever) local tax, you end up being billed $1.20 or something. WTF is up with that.

Gez here in Oz & in Europe the bottle would have been pricemarked $120 in the 1st place & the shop just sends off 10% or whatever to the federal govt as sales tax. Then the federal govt funds the state govts directly, so there's no need for them to have a seperate sales tax.

Re:Just include it in the price

[Quikah]

I would buy a bottle marked $1. There is no way in hell I would buy a bottle marked $120. Pretty simple really. :)

the beast feeds on itself

[transami]

tax tax tax and more tax, for enough is never enough; the more you have the more you spend and all the more careless you become with it.

and so it is, all the worse, with our most careless of spenders and greediest of money grubers: our politicians.

the beast feeds on itself.

MODERATORS: WTF??

[Mitreya]

Why are you modding this troll up? Can the next moderation-happy person actually READ that this guy is suggesting to GET RID OF RETARDED CHILDREN (something about room with spikes in the follow up).

Re:MODERATORS: WTF??

[zulux]

Why are you modding this troll up? Can the next moderation-happy person actually READ that this guy is suggesting to GET RID OF RETARDED CHILDREN (something about room with spikes in the follow up).

Good greif, sombody needs to lay off the crack pipe for a while.

It's called satire.

what is so bad about this?

[autopr0n]

Not taxing the internet was good while it was building up, because it helped it grow. Now that it's established, there's no real reason not to tax it like everything else.

Personaly, I would like it if the tax code was vastly simplifed, rather being soooo complex, though

Here's what California *should* tax!

[callipygian-showsyst]

I live in California and I'm SICK AND TIRED of being taxed to death. When you add up property, sales, state income tax, social security, and federal income tax, over HALF my hard-earned money goes to fund LAZY GOOD-FOR-NOTHINGS who don't want to work.

Anyway, whay California should tax is SOFTWARE DEVELOPED OVERSEAS. If a company, Adobe for instance, wants to hire Indians to write software for $5.00/hour, the state should charge an IMPORT TAX on every copy of that software that's sold in the United States.

One thing you can do ....

[bizitch]

As Robert Novak has said many times...

"God put Republicans on the earth for one reason and one reason only - to cut taxes."

Vote Republican.

nuff said.

Re:One thing you can do ....

[DAldredge]

When the GOP stops spending money like a drunken sailor on crack I might.

2.23 Trillion USD budget? Are they fscking crazy?

Re:One thing you can do ....

[Brian Stretch]

When the GOP stops spending money like a drunken sailor on crack I might.

2.23 Trillion USD budget? Are they fscking crazy?

And the Democrats are still screaming that it's not enough.

Re:One thing you can do ....

[Anonymous Coward]

When the GOP stops spending money like a drunken sailor on crack I might.


How can you fucking blame the budget problems on the GOP!!?? California is run by democrats!

Re:One thing you can do ....

[DAldredge]

Easy. The 2.23 Trillion number is the amount of the budget that GWB wants for the USA.

And all Amrica does is talk

[KMAPSRULE]

and all we do is talk about it or watch overpaid biased morons talk about it on TV. When did the Government(Supposedly By the People For the People) stop caring for its people and start caring more about the rest of the world??? Geeks Unite lets throw another Boston Tea Party and Shake the Idiots running our Country loose If I can live on a balanced Budget with 50% of my income going to taxes than Congress can have a balanced budget with 2.25 TRILLION dollars sucked from the Pockets of the People it is supposed to represent. Ill pay my fair share but excessive taxation is killing our Country

Re:And all Amrica does is talk

[anubi]

Oooh do say!

Since layoff, I have been running on less than half of what I used to make, and still hanging on.

There is no one I can co-erce into making up the difference.

I do think the government should not be isolated from all the pains the people have to go through. I did not say they had to actually lose their jobs as I did, but pay adjustments could be in order... if they can find better elsewhere after the adjustment, thats fine too.

I might get modded down as flamebait for feeling the way I do, but if so, so be it.

Obvious troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless this person is an illustration of the inadequacy of American education ... certainly he/she/it is not a success story.

There is olny a faint coralation between spending and quality of education.

Germany and Japan spend less, per child, on education and they both kick our asses.

Short answer: fire half of the school administrators, get rid of the retarded children, raise teacher saleries, get rid of the 'team sports', and ban disruptive children permently.

That would solve most of our problems in our education system and we'd end up spending less.

I'll leave punctuation and grammar alone.

Well, actually, let's leave all the details alone and just write it off on the lack on any real ideas.

Oh yeah, this person's ready to lead the charge.

Re:USA's 6.4 trillion dollar debt

[Anonymous Coward]

There never was a "real" surplus. The recession started under Clinton. Tax cuts have ALWAYS resulted in more revenue for the government.

Get your facts straight.

It's all about freedom, stupid.

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[FatRatBastard]

It is unethical for people to not pay sales tax for out-of-state purchases.

And I find it unethical for gov'ts to spend tax revenue on pork barrel projects that do more for a politician's career/buddies than anything else. Until the state and federal gov'ts start running a tight ship I'll go on dodging taxes via mail order, internet purchases, etc with impunity.

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Adam J. Richter]

I don't know if that is the case for California, but I vaguely recall that labor unions got a federal "prevailing wage" law that basically says that for many jobs the federal government is not allowed to try to find the best deal, but instead has to pay the "prevaling wage", the calculation of which is probably a big political football. I believe that such policies are inflationary and potentially increase unemployment in cases where more would be done if labor costs were lower.

This is pure speculation, but it would not surprise me if California now has a similar "prevailing wage" policy, given how pro-union Gray Davis is. I remember listening to NPR about a year after Gray Davis first elected about how we was working with the legislature to outlaw Price Club and CostCo becaue they used non-union labor. Davis raised the minimum wage, which I think contributes to unemployment and a higher cost of living. (For example, with no minimum wage, perhaps it would be economical to recycle computers.) Davis also changed the law in California requiring paying 1.5X wages for any work done past eight hours in a day, which I think incents many companies to export jobs or try harder to reclassify many jobs as "exempt." More recently the dock workers went on strike to protest computerization even after their jobs were guaranteed, and, on election day, the teamsters decided to picket a concert hall to impede delivery by non-union trucks to a facility that has never used union labor (i.e., using the implicit threat of violence to prevent scare off non-union drivers from making deliveries, what a great job interview technique!), and, of course, nobody was talking about providing police protection for non-union workers in either case and everyone was talking about how their might be violence. Anyhow, as you can imagine, it is rather difficult to argue that California is objectively the most profitable place to locate jobs these days.

Sorry for ranting. I know I haven't cited any references in this posting. Feel free to correct my many errors and speculations. My main point is simply that I believe that Davis's policies, not just external factors, have made it a more profitable business decision to locate jobs elsewhere, downsize do both.

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Anitra]

Though, even without taxes, why would a consumer pay $10 shipping for something he can get a 10-mile drive away?

You would if you're like me and don't have a car. It's usually a lot easier to find something online and have it shipped to your door than harass someone else to drive you to the store.

it's hard to answer exactly...

[zogger]

..it's hard to answer exactly. The best (I think)you can do is look at the closest and most current examples of what looks the most *like* what you see happening. The best parallel example. For those of us in the US, I'd say look to some place like argentina, note where the argentinian middle class is at now, compared to two years ago.

Bass Ackwards

[Badanov]

The idea is supposed to be when times are good, you should slash taxes and spending, keep the cost and size of government low. Any downturn could easily be tempered in this way. When a downturn does come the damage, politically, would be reduced.

Governments should increases its spending, to counteract the psychology of the economic doldrums, and yes increases some taxes taxes to pay for the increased spending; but all of this on a temporary basis.

Some of you will say, oh yeah? Bush cut taxes and the economy is in terrible shape, especially in IT. To which I reply wrong: Look at Microsoft and their huge pocketbook. Someone's doing really well, though California based IT firms may not be.

But you know there is no such thing as a temporary tax or a temporary initiative. Taxes have a funny way of becoming permenant. When economies recover, as all free economies do, the spending and taxes done to help recovery are forgotten, as the new crop of politicians arrive and declare how Evil Corporations(TM) are destroying America and that increasing their taxes is the only way to deal with these bastards, and to watch these Evil Entities, more state workers are hired and promised retirement for the noble task they are charged with; and thus governemnt in size, complexity and costs, increases. No one quite notices until the next downturn comes that maybe, MAYBE the wise thing to do would have been to cut taxes and slash government payrolls while times are good.

. Actually I hope California does impose internet sales taxes because the entire concept of taxing sales to folks in other states will be thrown out the window. One people realize that their $500.oo Ebay purchase is subjected to local sales taxes, you will see so many lawsuits you will think the enabling act for taxing internet sales should have been called the California Internet Sales Tax AND Federal Attorney Full Employment Act.

As one of my favorite Californians would say: Go ahead. Make my day.

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Stonehand]

Heh. Shoes, and the company you referred to in particular, were one thing that occurred to me when I read the parent post. I have basically zero patience for hunting down shoes in my size that match my particular tastes regarding a lack of logos or bright and cheery colors.

The same goes for books. I recently got a book from Amazon which is a translation of a history written slightly over two thousand years ago. It's "Amazon sales rank" exceeded 240,000. My suspicion is that, were I to have searched real-world bookstores in the rust-covered city I'm in, the end result would still be needing to request a special order from a warehouse.

Re:and yet the don't cut anything they should cut.

[Anonymous Coward]

Friends, cease calling the general public 'idiots'. As I read
what you wrote, I also think that you are one of
the general public who is 'idiot' beyond help. See the point?

Re:A big thanks to all those who voted for Gray Da

[wayward_son]

Proof that California is a one party state.

SF

[rnd()]

This is offtopic but...

I was just in SF for a week and I couldn't believe my eyes. In the morning during my morning run through the streets of downtown San Francisco I watched countless shopkeepers power washing the sidewalk in front of their businesses. Why? To remove the grime, feces and filth left there by the city's massive population of homeless people.

Is it really humane to let the homeless live like that? Shouldn't there be public restrooms for them to use? Why do the shopkeepers have to put up with it?

Anyway, why not put some of those tax dollars toward solving that problem!

Re:SF

[Reziac]

To answer your question, this happened in NYC about a decade back:

City decided portapotties for homeless people would help keep the streets and alleys clean. So they acquired and placed portapotties on every street corner in the major areas where homeless folk congregate. For the benefit of disabled homeless people, one unit in 5 was wheelchair-accessable. Which meant that (horrors) a wheelchair-bound homeless person might have to go all of 5 blocks to find a toilet.

Some disabled-rights group got wind of this and sued the city to force them to make ALL the portapotty units disabled-accessable. The court found that the city must provide equal access for all, ie. that ALL units must be disabled-accessable.

Now, regular portapotties cost about $500 each and hardly anything to maintain. But wheelchair-access units cost about $10,000 each, and the existing units were already costing extra maintenance to keep them working, and extra cops to keep them free of squatters and crackheads.

And no way could the city afford to install, maintain, and police the system if ALL must be disabled-access units.

So their solution was to remove ALL the units. And the homeless (disabled or not) are back to pissing in gutters and shitting in alleys.

Re:SF

[rnd()]

Strange, b/c New York doesn't have the same smells, and doesn't seem to have nearly the same number of homeless.

Re:SF

[Reziac]

Climate. As a general rule, the colder it gets in winter, the fewer homeless you'll see on the streets. Also, NYC has old, old subway and sub-basement system that serve as shelters of sorts.

But

[Skim123]

Well I know a bunch of people who have left California because of its strict gun laws, and I personally won't consider moving there unless both the gun laws and state/local taxes were moderated

I agree, but, damn, the weather is so nice here. It was 78 degrees here on SuperBowl Sunday! Beats freezing your butt of in the Midwest.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

"Go ahead, fuck me up the ass! As long as it's warm in here, I don't care!"

-Typical California Resident

Re:But

[evilviper]

Beats freezing your butt of in the Midwest.

Gee, sounds like you don't know that the earth has more than 2 dimentions... Not only can you go east and west, but you can go NORTH and SOUTH as well!!!

While it was 80 degrees in southern California, it was damn-well freezing in Nothern California.

If you want warm climate, stay as close to the equator as possible (as far south as possible), and, preferably, stay at a low altitude as well. Texas, for instance, is in the "Mid-West" and they don't exactly freeze their asses off.

Re:But

[Skim123]

While it was 80 degrees in southern California, it was damn-well freezing in Nothern California

Sounds like you don't know the effects a body of water has on the climate. Seattle, for example, has milder winters than Mid-Western cities on the same latitude. Furthermore, alluding to your Texas comment, I have been in parts of Texas when it was snowing. While clearly Texas is still warmer than North Dakota, it is not as warm as equal latitude parts of Southern California.

So there.

Re:But

[evilviper]

you don't know the effects a body of water has on the climate.

Guess what, Texas is right off of a large body of water...

The climate in LA and San Diego have little to do with the Ocean. While it's 80 degrees there, it was still freezing in San Fransisco, which is also right off the ocean. The warm climate has more to do with the location nearer to the equator than anything else. Sure, being near the ocean will shift the temperature just a few degrees, as will the extra moisture in the air, and the altitude, but you can still find places with those same attributes in the mid-west.

The root...

[Brat Food]

enron fun
Califronia got hit in 2 huge ways at te same time. The above is just further proof of what people already knew: Enron and other energy companies bilked california out of millions? billions? This, at a time when californians were in a slide due to the .com crash. California may have made some mistakes in its deregulation, but this was blatent abuse of the system, which was allowed by the president to go on WAY too long. You dont drain that much money out of an already faltering economy and expect it to do well, and its people to be prosperous. This brings us to internet taxes: just a bad idea. Eventually, every state is going to want a pice of the action, and in the end, its the consumer who gets dicked once again, and it will be the end of online shopping as we know it. I already find it hard to order items from in state, as shipping and tax together mean i can get a better deal locally a lot of the time. Maybe thats what they want, but I feel regualtiong this will be stupid, and it will do nothing to help the economy in the long run.

Re:The root...

[anubi]

I already find it hard to order items from in state, as shipping and tax together mean i can get a better deal locally a lot of the time.

That might be the whole idea.

That way we support our *local* businesses, without the internet "tax loophole" depriving them of the business. Buying common household consumables via the net is damaging the local economy, that is the merchants in your city that have invested substantial sums into providing brick-and-mortar buildings for us to shop in.

But, for those really hard to find things, nothing will beat the internet. There is no telling where the item is, nor where the person who wants it is. Nobody local is apt to stock it. And if they did, the probability that a local wants it is really low. I mean, business is business, they aren't in it for purely fun.

I am not really that excited over the tax, although in this economy, I do not like anything that lowers the purchasing power of the average consumer - for those people are the ones that are actually spending the money that is keeping the economy, or whats left of it, afloat.

Actually, the economy, more than anything else, dominates my concerns. With an engineering background, I tend to search for underlying power sources that drive phenomena; I see no more underlying power sources ( such as vibrant productive factories ) to power our economy. The main thing I see is tiers upon tiers of people in control of other people, but very few people actually *doing* anything. I am indeed concerned.

I don't download anything from the internet

[myrashka]

I just have everyone upload things to my machine:)

feds can only tax internet access

[linuxislandsucks]

Feds can only tax on interstate commerce not California..

Let me explain this way:

Person A access interent through AOL 1-800 number

Person B access Internet through PacBell

While california can tax person B due to them using a local phone number..they cannot tax Person A..Constitutionally only Fed can tax interstate commerce..

a tax woudl drive everyone to use national isps rather than pay the tax..is this waht California is after?

Could help boost Oregon's Economy...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Oregon doesn't blow it and pass a sales tax.

Now historically, Oregonians have been heavily opposed to a sales tax - I think that since the '20s the sales tax proposal has shown up something like 9 times on the Oregon ballot only to be roundly defeated each time. However, now we've got a lot of California immigrants up here and recent polling shows support for a sales tax for solving our budget woes here in Oregon.

A few weeks back Measure 28 went down in flames here, it was a proposal to raise the state income tax (they called it a surcharge) for three years (and retroactive to last year!) by 5%. Fortunately it failed, but toward the end the various Portland media outlets (like the Oregonian) were publishing stories about how people were killing themselves (perfectly legal here) over the prospects of losing whatever funding from the state if Measure 28 failed.

So bottom line... Oregon has something like a $1.5billion budget deficit (and the State Public Employees Returirement System is something like $12Billion in the red) - this in a state with about 3million people. If the media keeps up it's barrage of 'granny thrown out on street' and 'prisoners to be released' stories it just might convince enough folks to vote for a sales tax here... which would of course mean that we would lose out on the golden opportunity of having a lot of internet sellers relocate here and continue with the highest unemployment rate in the nation.... ...That's the news from Oregon...

why didnt i think of this?

[jetlagQ]

wow - this makes me want to do business with california - where do i send my checks?

What's the big deal with education?

[iamacat]

Well, I have a big problem with the society where math, history, music or anything else you learn in school is a requirement for a meaningful life or job. If someone can work perfectly well in McDonald, the focus shouldn't be to force them into a university. As you said, capable ones will give themselves a leg up anyway. Rather, we should trying to raise the living quality of people who just have common jobs. For starters they shouldn't worry about a (safe) place to stay, heating or A/C, healthy food or a visit to the dentist. They should also be able to save money for several years and go (gasp) on a weeklong trip to Hawaii.

Perhaps this is not possible yet in today's society with it's limited resources. But nobody spends the same effort as putting a man on the moon either. Heck, if my Internet tax is going to be used to that end...

With all due regard to this idea...

[BurKaZoiD]

With all due regard to this tax idea, I think Whoopi Goldberg put it most aptly...

"A quarter? You want a quarter? Kiss my ass. Find me in New York for this f*cking quarter!"

Two things are certain. Death and Taxes.

[OS24Ever]

Unfortunately thanks to all the press about hwo awesome the internet is and all, many of the less than clued individuals that are in high places of government will be attempting to find ways to suck money from it.

I do find the sales tax system to be totally hokey. I do think that, like it or not, we will be paying sales tax again for all internet purchases within the next 24 months. The state governments are all so screwed up right now fiscally it is unavoidable.

I do see the tax on the internet access providor possibly showing up as well. Here in Kansas we pay the 'Universal Service Charge' which is almost 10% of my bill to 'help the underprivillaged and help improve infrastructure' but I call Shenaningans on that.

States are scrambling for revenue. All that 'surplus' that was forcasted was gone, and now the US government wants to lower taxes, which lowers AGI, which lowers income taxes on those states that have it.

Sales tax on the internet will appear. It's just a matter of time. Either that or we'll revert back to the tax man coming up and assessing everything you own as well. the 'voluntary' reporting of out-of-state purchases will become mandatory, and with most government related issues you are guilty until proven innocent, and then you have to pay a fee even if innocent.

it's disgusting, it's annoying, and it's frustrating paying taxes on what you earn and what you spend, but hey, where else you gonna go. There isn't any oil rigs I can buy and start my own country on, and the commute would be a bitch.

20% tax on downloads is still

[Anonymous Coward]

A 20% tax on downloads will still amount
to $0 on downloads that don't charge.

Well what do you really know about India?

[WhoDaresWins]

India is practically a communist country, and let me tell you their taxes and government restrictions are far more oppressive than in the US.

Huh?! Just what exactly do you know about India other than your general cluelessness about it? Lets see what your American encyclopaedias have to say about India :-

"India's federal political system, a democracy for more than 50 years, has demonstrated a remarkable resilience in resolving domestic and international crises."

and India's govt :-

"The Republic of India is a federal republic, governed under a constitution and incorporating various features of the constitutional systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and other democracies. The power of the government is separated into three branches: executive, parliament, and a judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. Like the United States, India is a union of states, but its federalism is slightly different. India's constitution went into effect in 1950, providing civil liberties protected by a set of fundamental rights. These include not only rights to free speech, assembly, association, and the exercise of religion--echoing the United States Bill of Rights--but also rights such as that of citizens to conserve their culture and language and to establish schools to aid this endeavor. The constitution also lists principles of national policy, such as the duty of the government to secure equal pay for men and women, provision of free legal aid, and protection and improvement of the environment. India has universal voting rights for adults beginning at age 18."

I don't see how any sane and educated person can call that "practically a communist country". Let me also tell you something. While govt's in India aren't perfect, taxes in India aren't at all anything unreasonable. In fact I paid about the same %age of tax in India as I now do in the US. And what govt restrictions are you talking about? India is a pretty free country where you can pretty much do anything (other than own guns easily & shoot people like in the US) Dude you are so clueless about India that it seems you have some particular axe to grind bad mouthing India. I thought Americans had more character and value (assuming you are one) than that, having given one of the best forms of democracy to the world, and not make stupid comments calling a democratic country communist. Whats more surprising is that you got modded up so high. What kind of clueless souls modded you up?

Re:Well what do you really know about India?

[benzapp]

I don't see how any sane and educated person can call that "practically a communist country". Let me also tell you something. While govt's in India aren't perfect, taxes in India aren't at all anything unreasonable. In fact I paid about the same %age of tax in India as I now do in the US.

Ooooh, don't you think you are a smart cookie!

Do you really think I was talking about the superficial government structure? Even Soviet Russia was a "republic". India is socialist in that the majority of people are employed byt the government in government owned factories or as bureaucrats. That is not a free country by any means, irrespective of what they call it.

India has improved in the last ten years surely, but it is still a monolith of socialist bureauocracy, ridiculous price controls, and outrageous fascistic regulations of business. THey still utilized British infrastructure from a century ago. Apparently you have not seen the ancient rickity railroad ties and steam engines. Nor have you heard of the horrific train disasters which affect that nation on an annual basis.

Having been to New Delhi, Agra, and Kanpur I can tell you the stagnation there reaks of socialism. The only hint modernity are relics from British imperial days.

Fortunately for your ignorant self, there is an entire organization known as the Centre for Civil Society. I also linked to a nice story discussing how the current government controls in India are the reason for their oppresive poverty.

And what govt restrictions are you talking about? India is a pretty free country where you can pretty much do anything

Oh I don't know. Simple things like own your own car without bribing a public official. Maybe build a house. Or better yet, how about opening a factory, making money, and employing some people in the process?

I thought Americans had more character and value (assuming you are one) than that, having given one of the best forms of democracy to the world, and not make stupid comments calling a democratic country communist.

And I am the troll.

India is a fucked up place. Anyone who has spent a day there recognizes that fact. To suggest India is the pinnacle of human society is absurd.

Whats more surprising is that you got modded up so high. What kind of clueless souls modded you up?

The kind that have little faith in citations to MSN and Encarta. Fuck off

Re:Looking the wrong direction (ex post facto)

[Kaboom13]

ex-post facto doesn't apply. The taxes are already owed. The problem is the states have no way to collect the tax's owed them. From what I understand technically you are supposed to self report the taxes, but noone ever does. I doubt they would try to pull a "back-taxes" deal, however, because it'd meet great public outcry and would crush the online retailers.

Re:Patently false? Not quite.

[Mullen]

Sure, California's scheme for "deregulation" had some major flaws, but that doesn't excuse Enron, as well as other energy corporations from committing wire fraud, to the point of almost bankrupting the state.

You don't understand. Davis did not lose 1.8 billion or 3 billion dollars, he lost 34 billon dollars. I would be hard pressed to believe that energy crisis was resposible for that. I think Davis is just using Enron as an excuse to cover his own ass.

Prohibiting Free Exercise of Religion

[AZPhysics]

>"prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."

It seems to me that if you tax religion, you have plenty of power to limit the practice of it. There is plenty of corruption worldwide, with many people getting out of taxes not due to exemptions, but due to corruption. Get religion into the mix, and all types of stuff would happen. Despite the supposed seperation of church and state, the state certainly plays favorites with secular humanism and moral relativism.

Finally, look at it practically. Give the money to government, and it filters through a number of agencies, politicians, and bureaucrats, all taking their share of the pie. Finally, a few cents will go to the people it is supposed to help. Give it to a religious charity, and usually all of it will go to the people it is supposed to help.

ridiculous

[munky222]

ok.. this enrages me. now i've got an idea of why the colonies fought for their independence from britian. 'no taxation without representation!' as it is, they already tax us from every direction possible. sometimes i'm scared to breath just because i feel like i'm going to get taxed for inhaling the air. i get my paychecks and its like i'm owing money to my job just because theres so much being taken out in taxes. and now they want to make the internet their next tax haven?! so sad but true 'there are only two constants in life... taxes and death'

I live in Virginia, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Virginia ranks 46th in the nation
in taxes. If it weren't for its
proximity to Washington, D.C. and
the massive outlay of federal money
to run the government bureaucracy
and the service economy to support
it, Virginia would be a small Southern
state absorbed with reliving the
Civil War... much like Mississippi
which ranks 50th and the other Southern
states at the bottom of the tax list.

An interesting exception to the
list is North Carolina, which most
of us Slashdotters know as the home
of Red Hat and the old Sunsite servers.
Red Hat's existence is facilitated by
the Research Triangle, an area of high
tech industries made possible by North
Carolina's determination that this
redistribution of wealth was a good
idea. Indeed, North Carolina is RAISING
TAXES to keep up its academic commitment.
In contrast, Virginia is cutting its
budget for education. It is an exercise
for the reader to determine which is the
wiser course of action.

As for public healthcare and low-
income housing being Socialist punishments
for the middle and upper classes, I
think you've confused who's the idealogue
with no grasp of reality. Socialist
Democracies arose to provide peace and
stability. Whenever there is a grievous
disparity between the rich and the poor
the end result has been *bloodshed*.
Anyway, though I disagree with you and
find your arguments weak, I hope to
see you in a LUG or GLUE! There's
nothing as invigorating as a good
debate!

Re:I live in Virginia, too.

[io333]

Damn. I
havn't seen
anyone post
from a
Vic 20 in
years.

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a cunt, aren't you?

Every day I thank God

[io333]

Every day I thank God I was smart enough to move away from California. Really. I am so much happier (!!!!) since I left 7 years ago. It was a loony bin then. I can't even imagine how much more f*cked it is now.

I LOVE not living there. I'm totally serious. I'm not trying to troll either, just expressing how I genuinely feel. If you live there now and have been thinking about escaping, just do it. It'll be hard for a year or so to start a new life, but so worth it you'll wish you had done it earlier.

The only thing that I regret is that I feel bad for my friends that are still stuck there.

Re:Patently false? Not quite.

[Reziac]

Also doesn't excuse our idiotic governor, who panicked and signed contracts with these gouging companies to buy power at several times the going rate. As a direct result, my electric bill went up over 300% in less than two years.

Modeling California's deregulation after *Montana's* deregulation was just plain stupid. Montana (where I used to live, BTW) had a completely different system consisting primarily of rural electric coops, not even vaguely parallel to California.

Re:Patently false? Not quite.

[Reziac]

IIRC, starting from a surplus to boot, and blasting California's credit rating from A to (last I heard) C in the process.

Tax-and-spend mentality, after all that's only a few thousand extra we need to suck out of each and every state resident... :(

BTW did anyone hear if the doubled vehicle license fee was signed or vetoed? Last I heard it had passed the state legislature, tho supposedly Davis was going to veto it (doubtless prompted by the peasants with flaming pitchforks who were storming the governor's mansion, rather than from any real concern for taxpayer's wallets).

Tax Silicon Valley

[Hythlodaeus]

I welcome anything that could move hi-tech jobs OUT of Silicon Valley. There's a whole country out there, most of it with much lower costs of living (and fewer organic tofu-eaters.) Support the California Internet tax!

Re:One thing you can do . just wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the democrats push through single payer health care. Then you can watch the US budget zoom up up to 3 trillion.

I'm ready to pull the plug

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the internet taxes. I've about had it with all the tech bullshit, the asshole script kiddies who try to bring the internet down, computer viruses, and governments sucking the life out of the internet. It used to be fun and exciting. It ain't any more. I've been half-heartedly looking for a non-tech job for a while, looks like it's time to get serious about it.

yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Davis also hired thousands of unneeded gobment workers because they belong to a union and we all know where union dollars go. He also created a bunch of programs to "help the poor" that in the end did nothing for the state but made lots of lawyers rich. How many new roads did we get out of the tech boom? Anyone who drives in LA can attest nothing has been done to fix potholes and ease congestion. Instead of spending on infrastructure, he created welfare states. Which leads to the tax business, how can CA tax for downloads when the state did nothing to build the infrastructure of the internet? It's like you building a house and me charging rent once it's done.

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[voidptr]

It is unethical for people to not pay sales tax for out-of-state purchases.
Why is that?

The point of sales taxes is that the business is paying the state/local government for services it requires to conduct business. Courts, public utility oversight, roads, etc.

If an out of state business sells something to me, they used absolutely none of those products of the government of my state. Who did use those services was the shipping company, and they paid taxes on their costs for handling their part of the transaction (fuel, local employees, etc.)

States want to claim economic benefits from transactions they had no part in supporting. It's an entirely different situation from me driving down to the local WalMart and buying those items, because my WalMart does depend on my state government to stay in business.

If anything, what should be done is the company is responsible for paying taxes on a transaction in the state that the transaction occoured, or that the company is incorporated in. Sure, everyone will then debate to incorporate in a state with no sales tax, or no income tax. Either way, they'll pay the other, and the state government they operate under gets paid. The argument that somehow my state deserves the same tax revenue for a transaction that they had nothing to do with because it happened in some other jurisdiction, compared to a transaction that I did in state is ridiculous. They didn't "lose" revenue, they were never entitled to it in the first place.

Wait a minute!

[stinky wizzleteats]

States are having budget crises for the same reason we are - there's a RECESSION. I therefore don't subscribe to the idea that the people, suffering under the same fucking recession, should somehow be expected to foot the bill to maintain the pre-recession budget levels of state governments.

If tightening our belts is good enough for us, why is it not good enough for them?

That son-of-a-bitch Gray Davis.

[rice_burners_suck]

I have a better idea. The state of California should declare itself no longer a part of the United States and should instead become a dictatorship, with Gray Davis as the dictator. They'll put up walls 2 miles high going all around the borders of the state, including the coastline and build a huge roof over the whole state, blocking out the sun. Then, Gray Davis should confiscate everything in the whole state and beat everybody to death with a big wooden club like the one in Gangs of New York, with a mark for each person killed by the club, only this will be a digitally enabled club with an electronic counter instead. Then, everybody should be locked in cages and chained up so they can't move, much less do anything else. Then, Gray Davis should order everyone to pay 100% of their daily wages to him, but since nobody can work, as they're locked in cages, nobody can earn money, and nobody can pay him. So he'll walk around and continue to beat everyone up because they didn't pay. Oh, did I mention that he should drive around and bulldoze everything?

I believe that after these improvements, California will be a better place to live, because Gray Davis will have accomplished his purpose in life. Then, he can move on and improve life in another state, and another, and another.

Or, everyone in this friggen place will grow a friggen brain, *R*E*C*A*L*L* *T*H*A*T* *S*O*N* *O*F* *A* *B*I*T*C*H* , and put in someone who will get rid of this bullshit. But, like that'll ever happen. Shit, there's people in L.A. who would vote for Stalin if there was a (D) next to his name.

Wha-Wha?

[SideshowBob]

Seriously, you make a compelling case, but why would you WANT more Californians to move near you? :-)

Re:Wha-Wha?

[satch89450]

Seriously, you make a compelling case, but why would you WANT more Californians to move near you? :-)

Because some of my best friends are Californians?

Ok, enough jokes. We could use the business here in Nevada. The state is working very hard to diversify its economy. The gaming [gambling] focus is becoming a losing game, because of the rise of Indian [Native American] gaming and the growth of casinos in more and more states. We've played for 140 or so years, and it's time to grow up.

Also, if more Californians move to the Sierras and stay here full time, they might learn how to drive on snow and ice. I'm tired of hauling out my shovel to dig out yet another California-plate car out of the snowdrift, especially when it's an SUV with some of the best tires available. My poor Jeep Cherokee is running on POS tires the prior owner picked up at a fire sale, but I don't end up with snow up my crankshaft.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Intel VP who lives in Incline Village didn't have to commute to Santa Clara? Less pollution, less wear and tear on his car, and his family could see more of him. Win Win Win all around, except for Santa Clara, I guess.

The final answer: nothing wrong with Californians once they understand that Mama don't live here, and you have to pick up your own toys.

Re:A big thanks to all those who voted for Gray Da

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, despite all the fiscal troubles we find ourselves in, we are STILL much happier to be dealing with Davis than with the piece of slime Simon. If republicans want to have a chance of winning an election in this state, maybe they should try to avoid running sleazy criminals. I would have voted for practically anyone besides Davis (as long as they have nothing at all to do with Nader), but the damn republicans had to give us Simon as the alternative.

Mod this guy up!

[Anti-HanzoSan]

+5, Insightful!

phphphpth... Whatever that is freaking stupid.

[makoffee]

Taxing email? Downloads? They want to get in on that internet pie? What, are they going to edit my q-mail conf file? This is dumb. They can make legislation but it's not like it COULD even work. Don't they know the reason people use internet services like email is because it's free and you don't have to buy a stamp.

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[metlin]

India is practically a communist country, and let me tell you their taxes and government restrictions are far more oppressive than in the US.

What rot.

India is a republic, with a joint-economy model. It has a mix of both public and privately held institutions, with the former being mostly banks and the like, and the latter being the production industry.

While the government holds the majority stakes in a large segment of the public sector financial institutions, a lot of the other sectors have been privatised - telephones, power, agriculture, etc. Even segments of corporate activities have been outsourced to provate organizations - construction, cleaning/maintenance, computerization and so on.

In fact, India has followed an excellent model of privatization of a large number of institutions, after helping them grow as public sector enterprises. In a developing nation, this helps growth, and provides a cashflow back to the government for its investment.

Even since independence, a lot of the big industries have been privately held - ores and minerals (TATA, Birla), petrochemicals (Reliance) and so on.

Just because India has strong ties with Russia hardly makes it communist. Get your facts straight. And its even more appalling that you have been modded up.

Troll, -1.

Fuckin' Enron

[t0ny]

actaully, Enron did a real good job fucking over California, basically making them pay hundreds of times more for electric than they should have. And, now that Enron is gone, there is nobody to sue to recover that money.

Re:Fuckin' Enron

[numbsafari]

When the price gets too high, you can always unplug the damn computer, my friend...

The problem is that the prices in California were fixed, so they never did get too high, and no one ever turned off their computers. Of course, someone still had to pay those bills, and it turned out to be the California Tax Payers....

You can say what you will about Enron "exploiting the system", it doesn't change the fact that the California legislature put exploitable rules in place.

Again, it's just soooo much cooler to blame the corporate exploiters. I agree with the other poster who said that he hopes this rate hike goes through, forcing companies to leave California. Good thing no one in California reads about what's going on in Germany...

Re:Fuckin' Enron

[t0ny]

maybe you should read about what happened, rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh's take on it. Making energy producers under-produce, and manufacturing energy shortages for the sole purpose of selling at artifically inflated costs is hardly 'exploiting the system'. It seems more like manipulation and criminal extortion to me.

also, those exploitable rules were put into place BECAUSE of Enron throwing ungodly amounts of money at corrupt lawmakers to DE-REGULATE. Thats right, there were laws repealed to make travisties like this possible.

Enron had a long and cherished history of identifying laws that were prohibiting them from ripping people off, and then lobbying to get them repealed.

And saying I should turn off my computer is really stupid. Consumers happen to be paying for the electricity.

Re:Fuckin' Enron

[numbsafari]

Good ad hominem remark... really makes your argument stand out... I have a job, so, um, I don't have time to listen to Mr. Limbaugh's day-time radio show... Fraud is fraud, whether a market is regulated or not. The difference is that when regulators commit fraud they also happen to be the police... California institutes price controls on the retail cost of electricity. California is on the hook to pay the difference between the spot market rate and what they are charging their customers. As a result, you are only paying for a fraction of the electricity you use when you pay your monthly bill. The rest of your bill is paid through taxes. This creates artificially inelastic demand for electricity. Generally this means that poor people and corporations that don't pay much in state taxes for various reasons are using electricity at cut-rate prices while upper-middle class entrepreneurs that are rich enough to be in a high tax bracket but not rich enough to evade their taxes efficiently cover the costs. It also means that future generations will pay for the electricity you use when they pay off the bonds sold by California to cover the costs. If you paid the real market cost of electricity, turning off your computer wouldn't be stupid. If you were actually paying the market price, you might actually understand the system. Heck, you might even negotiate a long-term contract to avoid such short-term spikes--even avoiding the dangers of the spart market altogether! Also, if you are implying that greedy lawmakers only take bribes from big corporations, you really need to re-think where you are pointing the "stupid"-finger. I would agree, though, corporations shouldn't be allowed to give campaign money because they don't vote. Regardless, the situation in California was going on well before these market manipulators began to take advantage of the system. Read this: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/pjoskow/files/CAMa rketMeltdown.pdf or this: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/research/conference s/calelectricity/borensteinslides.pdf Or even for something contrarian read here: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/022602.html Mr. Krugman and you are both falling to the same fallacie... Krugman states "Eventually you hear that wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices weren't -- which is true, but doesn't have much to do with what went wrong." and then goes on to say "Now the truth is that California's deregulation probably was flawed, but the flaw was in trusting markets too much, not too little. As Mr. Wolak points out, California's system differed from other deregulations mainly in offering remarkably few safeguards against market manipulation. And the state paid an enormous price for its gullibility." What Mr. Krugman fails to see, is that the Market itself has a tremendous, built-in safegurd against market manipulation. Unfortunately, because retail prices where regulated while wholesale prices were not, this safeguard was removed. If these energy companies had had to answer to screaming customers, or a real demand function, they would not have been able to exploit the system as they were, for as long as they were. Here in the Northeast a lot of people have oil heat, which trades on the open market freely. I have oil heat. And every year I sign a long-term contract for the price of oil so that I am not affected by the seasonal spike in oil prices. If for some reason oil prices get too high, I lower the temperature a few degrees to preserve oil. Overall, I pay less than someone who is using electric heat... amazing isn't it?

CA Tax Status

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just one question about the whole article:

"... states can require companies with a physical presence within their borders, such as an office or store, to collect taxes. California lawmakers have placed a moratorium on such taxation, according to the controller's office.

Sen. Dede Albert, D-San Diego, hopes to reverse that policy. She proposed a bill last month that would bring back the sales tax on in-state purchases."

Does this mean everytime I order something on-line from a CA retailer, and ship to a CA address, there should be no tax? Why does every retailer charge tax then?

this is crazy it will make things worse

[sergiori]

The high tech industry is hurting really bad right now, the dot coms have collapsed, unemployement is higher than ever in the tech industry, internet rates for example ATT with the merger of comcast have risen 50% this year alone, telocity goes out of bussines, it has been really bad, and to make the high tech industry hurt even more now we will
have internet taxes, creating more unemployment, making a few more industries go out of bussiness, this is completely crazy.

The state will end up loosing money, if more industries keep going down, umemployement will continue to increase, and pleople once they do not have jobs they will pay no taxes.

what really needs to be done is cut on the war tax, and put that money for education, and for the unemployed, create more jobs which is needed very badly.

an internet tax will help to kill the few dot coms that are still surviving, what is the point to kill an industry that is doing very poorly.

stock on many industries have fallen bellow a dollar something never seen before, and many of them may not survive another tax.

First the energy crisis, then the collapse of the economy, then huge high tech unemployment, denial of third unemployement extension, and now an internet tax. How are high tech skilled people supused to survive with the high cost of living in the current situation ?. The politicions are crazy they should be fired for proposing such a selfish idea, most of them probably have never used the internet and see it as a source of income for their pockets.

Do not get me wrong income tax should be taxed heavely for large incomes, eliminate the tax loopholes, and not to tax other things, after all what is the point of double taxing, since if you already paid your taxes with your income, then when using that income which paid its taxes, paying taxes again is a bad idea.

if income tax is increased for large incomes, and purchase taxes eliminated, that state will end up with more money, and it will increase consuption, therefore creating jobs, and bussines about to go down could survive.

Thousands of Illegals comming across the border

[Anonymous Coward]

...Gotta have some way to pay for their medical, educational, and food expenses!

So now I work for the IRS too?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand. Why in the world am I supposed to be a tax collector for the government if I run a business? If they want to do so, fine. But I as a merchant should be paid for it.

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you maroon democrats for voting him and Gray Davis into office, so they can cut education budget at my CalState and increase CA taxes and impose more internet taxes!

Ploys

[Bruha]

All this will serve to do is force the little guy that had the best deals out of business.

It's a wonder the biggest corporations are voluntarily doing this. I believe that it's only to help get the laws passed so they can see their competition (Small home run units) go out of business.

There is already taxes...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There are already taxes for most things you buy, use them, don't invent new names.
2. Taxing the net will most definitly hamper the development, people won't just throw out money this way and that, you will starve these companies.
3. Try helping companies/people make more money, that gives WAY more revenue than this crap.
4. Clean up and stop spending on dumb things, ok?

This should be under 'Your Rights Online' methinks

[HaloZero]

But nonetheless, this idea is sick, twisted, and downright disturbing.

Seems to me that the government entity was the one that fucked up - why do we have to pay for their mistakes? Surely, there are funds SOMEWHERE, (other than Education or Transportation) that could be cut. There have got to be. Politicians who give themselves six-figure raises at the drop of a hat, to supplement their already bulging bank accounts. It's like that one greedy kid in the preschool playroom, hoarding all of the building blocks for himself, bragging about his collection all the while, and never doing anything with them.

But I digress. So, what if this DOES pass? I mean, it's bound to be effective. The most difficult part would be trying to regulate it. Dial-up ISPs change IP address per-user each time it's connected. What about spoofers? Anonymous connections? Public connections? Hell, people with firewalls! Ok, say they don't use IPs to track who is downloading what. Will they require that all sites, all around the world, everywhere, recode their download, mirror, and etailer interfaces to suit the needs of a single state (California) with a login-type interface, that, would, theoretically, slow down the companies productivity (increased server load - having to make connections to the Cali. tracking database.)

Then what? 'Oh! He's downloading .mp3s! She's downloading .mpgs! Put them on the **AA watchlist!' Privacy. Invasion. And people who DO freely participate in WaReZ would be screwed. Royally. While I don't condone that practice, the point remains.

Hypothetically, what if they were able to pull it off? Some, random, unconstitutional, security-compromising, privacy-invading thing that let them do this. What next? Bandwidth tax? I can see it happening.

Monsters. Keep your hands off my shit. You've just got to learn to spend and organize better. Maybe, before officials are elected (or the accountants hired), we should be able to view their collective accounting/money/credit history (based on a numerical ID tag system, to allow canidates to remain 99.95% anonymous.) in order to determine if they can or can not spend money wisely.

What californians?

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians? *smirk*

Re:Patently false? Not quite.

[geronimo87]

Actually it would have tripled the registration fees. Davis did veto it, porobably for the reason you stated.

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[NineNine]

But I'd have to imagine that people like you make up well less than 1% of the US population. Most people have cars (this IS the 21st century), or are you 13 years old?

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Carmody]

Davis raised the minimum wage, which I think contributes to unemployment and a higher cost of living.

Actually, the data disagrees with you here. When the minimum wage goes up, the economy tends to get better. For obvious reasons, too. Think about it.

Corporations say "oh! oh! we will have to raise prices" But the prices are set by supply and demand.

Emperically, increasing the minimum wage has always helped the economy. So far, at least.

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Carmody]

Though, even without taxes, why would a consumer pay $10 shipping for something he can get a 10-mile drive away?

The United States is more than just Nevada, California, New York, and Washington DC.

I live deep in the heart of Darkest Iowa. The nearest large bookstore is an hour drive away. I shop for my books on line. Many, if not most, of the population of the United States live very far from things that you city-folk take for granted. For example, most teen-agers sole source of CDs is the Walmart. ...that is, unless they use the internet.

Strip Joints in Reno

[satch89450]

I would like more information on these so-called "strip joints" in Reno. Are they cheaper than California too?

There are four "adult entertainment" places north of the Virginia Street Casinoplex that I'm aware of. There's The Men's Club in downtown (it's advertised in the airport terminal walkways), Fantasy Girls (features full nudity) on 4th Street, a hole in the wall called Spice House that also features full nudity but far more intimate about it, and a real dive on Mill Street that's interesting because it's so bad. There are other places listed in the telephone book that I didn't know existed, as well as outcall services -- be damn careful about those, you could get into medical and legal trouble with them.

Many of the girls that dance in Reno are UNR students working their way through college. Some are drifters who needed a way to make money, and their bodies was about the only asset they have. Some just enjoy being exhibitionistic, and this is a legal way to flash themselves.

Then there are, um, "other" places that might be of interest, if you like to be up close and personal about it, and can afford it.

Re:Patently false? Not quite.

[Reziac]

I'd first heard tripled, then the next incarnation was merely doubled (oh, like that would be so much better!!) Thanks for the veto report... Davis' political self-preservation triumphs again!! :/

Isn't there a federal law against that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there was a fed law against taxing the net itself, other than regular sales tax.

State use/sales tax on interstate commerce

[moncyb]

Perhaps it is unethical for people to pay sales tax for out of state orders. IANAL, but after studying the matter for a while, I am beginning to think states charging "use" tax is illegal. Out of state mail / internet orders are interstate commerce after all. That is out of their jurisdiction. I think the states are calling it a "use" tax to try and get around the law. A national interstate commerce sales tax would be legal, but how I understand it, a state charging the same tax (on interstate commerce) is not legal.

In fact, I've paid my "use" taxes every year, and every year on the stub with my tax return check, my state's tax commission says I made a "mistake" (I didn't--I know filled out the form correctly) and removes the use tax from my total. The only reason I can think they do this is they know it isn't legal.

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[benzapp]

And its even more appalling that you have been modded up.

Just can't handle a differing opinion than your own huh? Poor baby. Do you want a bottle? Maybe a milk bone?

Get your facts straight.

Ahh, well, fortunately for me India is such a basket case there are whole organizations dedicated to erasing India's post 1948 socialist past. India has come a long way in the last ten years, but it is hardly a free society despite being a democracy. Perhaps you should go there, the untold inhumanity of India speaks for itself. The ancient steam engines, relics from Imperial Britain are typical of socialism. Buildings which are on the verge of collapse are still occupied. Few people drive cars as the licenses are difficult to acquire, so they drive home made moter vehicles (the name of which escapes me at the moment)

The Centre for Civil Society in India is a great resource for understanding how the lack of a free market is the primary cause of that nation's lack of prosperity. There are essays they from world famous economists like Milton Friedman. You may certainly disagree with those views, but to suggest my own are wildly outrageous is absurd. Only those who are most unsure of their beliefs react with the defensiveness with which you respond.

Its always funny how communist sympathizers always want to silence the opposition..

Re:Great way to drive Internet stores out of busin

[Anitra]

Try again. I'm a poor college student. I'd like a car, but I can't afford one.

Re:Looking the wrong direction (ex post facto)

[evilviper]

The taxes are already owed.

Say that again? Since when did the federal government pass an interstate sales tax? I'm pretty sure I would have heard of it if something so historic had happened...

Until such a federal law is passed, nobody has to collect taxes on interstate sales, and nobody owes anyone interstate taxes.

There are a few cases where, due to a company having a presence in a certain state, they have to collect sales going to the state, but I've seen that being done already, so I fail to see the issue.

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[metlin]

First of all, thanks for humouring me.

Where do you get your information from? I really really want to know. Its akin to describing the Americas in the 17th Century.

India has come a long way in the last ten years, but it is hardly a free society despite being a democracy.

India is as much as a free society as any other democracy, and in someways even more than the US is.

Perhaps you should go there, the untold inhumanity of India speaks for itself. The ancient steam engines, relics from Imperial Britain are typical of socialism. Buildings which are on the verge of collapse are still occupied. Few people drive cars as the licenses are difficult to acquire, so they drive home made moter vehicles (the name of which escapes me at the moment)

ROTFL. Well, it so happens that I indeed *do* live there.

Ancient steam engines? Large segments of India have subway metro-rails, perhaps this would enlighten you. More than 30 years ago, all of India's rail services were made 100% electric.

The only relic from Imperial Britain that we still have is probably bureacracy, but that's another point altogether.

Buildings on the verge of collapse? Licenses difficult to acquire? People *make* their own vehicles? I mean, sheesh, you could have added an elephant ride with a snake charmer on top, on a street filled with tigers and a Maharaja too dude. That would have just about been right.

You should probably look at these figures on the number of vehicles in India. In 1998, we had about 40939000 vehicles. That was five years ago.

Indian roads are just as full of Toyotas, Hyuandais, Suzukis, Fords, Mercs and other cars as any other country. Duh. And oh yeah, every other person I know, has a license. LOL!

You may certainly disagree with those views, but to suggest my own are wildly outrageous is absurd. Only those who are most unsure of their beliefs react with the defensiveness with which you respond.

My dear friend, your views are objective, obtained from some second hand sources, while I happen to live in that very country which you so colorfully describe in various shades of gray.

Its always funny how communist sympathizers always want to silence the opposition.

What has setting facts straight gotta do with communism? Are you living in the cold-war era or something? Get over it. There ain't nothing like 100% communistic standpoint, or a perfectly capitalistic standpoint. Its always an eclectic mix.

So much for that rant on economics. Have you even studied economic theory in your life? Go read, and then you'll see for yourself how absurd your statements have been.

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[Vulture_]

Make 20M GP, then go to the Black Market and buy the Fusion Bomb. It does 20d200 damage, has +5000 to hit, pierces immunity, and adds 10000 to your HP when equipped. Unfortunately, it disintegrates the first time you attack with it, even if you miss, so make it count!

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[Anonymous Coward]

The basic fact is that India, and many other Asian nations ( Korea, Taiwan and even China) started from more less the same level and yet India is still basically a fucked up 3rd world country while others are decades ahead.
I don't deny that India is a democratic country but something is terrible rotten there.

Re:welcome to Nevada (perhaps, but NOT INDIA)

[benzapp]

ROTFL. Well, it so happens that I indeed *do* live there.

Then you must be a member of an upper caste completely oblivious to the horrible state of affairs in your own nation.

Ancient steam engines? Large segments of India have subway metro-rails, perhaps this would enlighten you [delhimetrorail.com]. More than 30 years ago, all of India's rail services were made 100% electric.

Perhaps there is an electric train in delhi, but definitely not in Agra. Not three years ago, I travelled on coal fired steam engine to a remote place, the name of which escapes me. The cars were relatively modern, but old, probably 30 years. The engine looked similar to coal steam engines which were in service in the US through the 1950's.

Buildings on the verge of collapse? Licenses difficult to acquire? People *make* their own vehicles? I mean, sheesh, you could have added an elephant ride with a snake charmer on top, on a street filled with tigers and a Maharaja too dude. That would have just about been right.

I cannot believe you have ever been to India, let alone are from there. My initial experience in New Delhi was utter amazement at how thoroughly backwards that city is. The taxis were ancient, when you could find one. Most of the time I had to take a rickshaw. The *majority* of the rickshaws were obviously constructed from spare parts. There were FEW actual enclosed automobiles on the streets, and they obviously belonged to the wealthy. 90% of the vehicles were rickshaws, motorcycles, mopeds, or bicycles.

You should probably look at these figures on the number of vehicles in India [osc.edu]. In 1998, we had about 40939000 vehicles. That was five years ago

Are you entirely delusional about the state of your own country? You can't even read the article you post???? Here I was thinking to myself, where can I find some proof for this nutcase on the pathetic state of transportation in India. You provided the link for me right there. According to that page, 80% of all vehicles in India have a 2 stroke engine! hahahahaha!

Of course, 40 million vehicles out of 1 billion people isn't a lot. Especially when most of those are little more than motorcycles.

My dear friend, your views are objective, obtained from some second hand sources, while I happen to live in that very country which you so colorfully describe in various shades of gray.

Yes, you tell that the hundreds of begging children I saw in my 10 days in your hell hole country.

So much for that rant on economics. Have you even studied economic theory in your life? Go read, and then you'll see for yourself how absurd your statements have been.

Oh yes, what do I know? I mean, how foolish could I have been. India is a shining example of how human society should be ordered. In India, we have the future of mankind, where all people can enjoy the infinite possibilities of existence. We have only to go there, and see the splendor of that ancient nation and the endless bounty, fruit of her people's labor.

I fear that your own arrogance in this matter is the prime example of why India is and has been fucked for the last 2000 years. Every society that has implimented a caste system does so with the result of each class becoming tremendously insular. I can think of know other explanation to the blindness you experience in your own country.

Anyway, enjoy all those beggers, the filth, and the constant odor of putrifying organic material. I will never step foot in India again as long as I live...

Re:Looking the wrong direction (ex post facto)

[malarkey]

The taxes ARE already owed.

Because Wal-mart has a physical presence (a store) in California, (or any other state which has a sales tax) they are required to tax the sales to people in those states.

A company like Amazon doesn't have a presence in all these states, so they have a larger loophole in this regard.

Re:Looking the wrong direction (ex post facto)

[evilviper]

The taxes ARE already owed.

Because Wal-mart has a physical presence (a store) in California, (or any other state which has a sales tax) they are required to tax the sales to people in those states.

No !@#%$%! Did you even READ the post that you replied to? Damn!

In the comment you replied to, I had said:

There are a few cases where, due to a company having a presence in a certain state, they have to collect sales going to the state, but I've seen that being done already, so I fail to see the issue.

George Bush Jr. says...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Read my lips: Know GNU Taxes!"

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Adam J. Richter]

Actually, the data disagrees with you here. When the minimum wage goes up, the economy tends to get better. For obvious reasons, too. Think about it.

I'm glad to hear that you have data, can recall a source for your data (in as much or as little detail as you can remember)?

Your use of the term "do better" could mean different things (for example, it's possible for the average wage of employed people to go up, while more people are unemployed because business that are not viable at a given minimum wage shut down or move). So, it's a litle difficult for me to see the "obvious reasons." For example, what would happen if we raised the minimum wage to $200/hour? A few jobs would exist, but mostly people would be wards of the state (or starve or turn to crime if the state could not afford it), at least until $200/hour only bought what minimum wage buys today. Basically, the minimum wage makes capitalism illegal among people whose productivity is below that amount.

After spending several weeks in China (no, I'm not a fan of their authoratarian system), I've come to appreciate how people of much lower incomes start (entreprenuerial) businesses as readily as people of higher incomes in the US and how abundant jobs become and how readily people change jobs when there is not a minimum wage impeding the creation of arbitrarily small businesses. It is true that there other elements to the trade-off. For example, in the US we seem to think that is better that people freeze to death in the streets than allow the building of cheaper homes (in many cases you're not allowed to even build homes with fewer than two independent sources of electricity in the kitchen) or most tricycle cars (which are widely used in China) when we still allow bicycles on the street, etc. There is a dignified capitalist economy by which people climb out of povery, but we've outlawed so much of it in the United States.

Anyhow, I will be interested in seeing the data that you cite.

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Carmody]

I'm glad to hear that you have data, can recall a source for your data (in as much or as little detail as you can remember)?

I can't - it was a comparison of how the US economy did in relation to when we raised the minimum wage. What it showed was that whenever we raised the minimum wage in the US, the economy did better. I remember Bob Dole telling us all that the economy would tank if we got our last minimum wage increase, and he lost that fight, and the economy did not tank. I'm sorry I can't do better than that.

I completely agree with your argument about the $200/hour. But I also think it is clear that if there were NO minimum wage then our economy would become... well more like a third world country.

The "obvious" reason I was referring to is this: Give minimum-wage workers a slight raise, they have more money to spend, and they spend it domestically. It can be called a "trickle-up" effect.

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Adam J. Richter]

The slashdot lameness filter does not like the ascii graphs are essential to my response, so I've put my response in a text web page.

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Carmody]

Your page is too interesting to passingly comment on in an aging slashdot forum - please send me your email address and I'll take some time and email you a thought-out response.

Doug

Re:Why are they paying $100/hr for tech contracter

[Adam J. Richter]

Your page is too interesting to passingly comment on in an aging slashdot forum - please send me your email address and I'll take some time and email you a thought-out response.

When you finish reading that .txt file from my personal web, area, you'll see that my .signature, including email address, is at the bottom of it.

There was a minor error in the graphs in that file. "max price", should be in the lower right rather than the upper left. I've corrected those graphs if you want to download the file again. The rest of the file is unchanged.

Also note that I'll be gone Feb. 12-19 and may not have email connectivity during that time, so I apologize in advance if I'm unable to answer during that time.

if it moves tax it

[wawadave]

hello the goverment will tax any thing.as soon as they figure there is a big enogh source of some commodity it will be taxed. to life liberty and taxes have a nice day

Re:if it moves tax it

[Anonymous Coward]

To life liberty and the taxerican way!!!

Re: "Leave the Internet Alone"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm a tremendously large one.

FRB