Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Internet Tax Ban
computerlady writes "InfoWorld reports that the House of Representatives today voted a permanent ban on 'levying taxes unique to the Internet.' The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act would permanently prohibit taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. from levying such taxes as e-mail taxes, bandwidth taxes, or bit taxes. To become law, the bill would have to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed by President Bush. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved its version of the bill July 31, and its next stop is the full Senate."
Don't mean to be a party pooper, but your state is still able to charge you a sales tax on all catalog and web transactions.
No one will come knock on your door if you don't pay, but it's nice to have that weigh on your mind, you tax-evading thief.
Of course, you're still due to pay the various states sales taxes. But it stops various states from trying to sneak in taxes raises when people aren't looking.
This is nice and all, and simply done so the politicians can assure themselves a re-election. "See this internet businesses and consumers? We love you so no taxes, vote quimby!" ...but whats really amazing is that my work closed today because of the hurricane.
This is way offtopic, I know, mod me down.
But still.
WOOT! No work! I have beer!
no
"This bill would broaden access to the Internet, expand consumer choice, promote certainty and growth in the IT sector of our economy and encourage the deployment of broadband services at lower prices. " ... so how come a bill that ensures that the Internet will stay as untaxed as it already is (for Americans at least), manages to promote all those great changes huh?
:-D
Oh well, can't complain too much, at least it's positive news. I just though it made good spin!
A little planning goes a long way...
Just where does the federal government get the idea that it should start regulating state commerce?
They could put a tax on keystrokes though, or mouseclicks. But then, maybe they should just tax pr0n.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I don't see how the states could tax internet transactions anyways. Isn't that part of the fundamental way our government is set up, so that states cannot levy taxes upon cargo from other states? If they could states like Oklahoma could really rake it in for things going through their state from Texas to Kansas. Man I wish I hadn't slept through government class on that subject now.
I will stop getting those stupid emails about the internet tax for emails, and bandwidth taxes, etc...Which is the good side.
:)
BUT on the other side of the equation a part of me would not mind paying an internet tax on emails, if it would help in the battle against spam and junk mailings...although one may assume that the senders have deep pockets.
So in this end this really resolves nothing for me. Execept for a link I can point to when I get the next barage of "Internet Email Tax!!!" emails.
Let's keep in mind that patents are in place to keep lawyers employed and keep them litigating. -CatGrep
I know that nobody likes taxes, but given that some taxes have to be collected, why a special ban on "internet taxes"? I pay special taxes when I take a flight, for instance, why does the airline industry have to suffer special taxes but the internet industry doesn't?
Now, something like a tax per email would of course just be dumb, but would a fixed household-based tax on broadband be dumb? Especially bearing in mind that the gov. needs to police the internet to a certain extent (to those that say they don't, get back to me when your Mom gets their banking details stolen or your friend gets defrauded by a mock ebay site).
Cool... I'm not too concerned about sales tax anyways, i mean you order stuff from a catalog or one of those shopping networks you gotta pay sales tax... Same principle i think
Insert Sig Here
As much as I'd hate to see internet tax, it might be a mechanism to fight SPAM. Introducing a tax of 1 penny for each e-mail sent would set the average user back about $1 - $5 a month.
SPAM houses would pay through the nose... I thin this would be a small investment for all of us to make junk mail less profitable.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
If only they could find a way of taxing annoying e-mails - I think we would all be happy. A filter searches for words "virus warning" or "enlarge" or "microsoft" would get most of them. Then I could sit back and enjoy a clutter-free inbox.
Come on man! My buddy is an M.D. and do you realize how much he pays for malpractice insurance?? States without malpracice caps are losing quality doctors fast as they flee to states where they can actually take home some of their pay after insurance.
like take a legislative razor and cut through the lines of providers who establish local monopolies and then force people to pay exuberant prices on internet connections?
Seriously. Companies built the network just like Ma bell did and when you creat a vital resource you must give that resource to the people or face hell, like Ma bell did. It isn't as bad as it was for broadband but if the deregulation continues as it is, it'll get that bad.
If they REALLY want to increase the growth of broadband, how about taking some money from, say, "foreign aid" or military spending, say around 10-20 billion and then throwing it at companies to build lines in areas where they need it while ensuring that the lines belong to the people and making sure the companies can't charge more than $XXX in those areas? And actually make sure the lines are built and that they are upto code or else the companies get it.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Oh wait.... Is that right? We like this don't we?
OK this may be a little controversial but I think that in the future a 'bandwidth tax' or some such thing may not be a bad idea. We supposedly moving into an age of the information economy. Some people through the Internet have more access to information than others, this information makes their life better. They can look for better jobs, be better informed on what is going on in the world and make more productive decisions accordingly. This situation will get worse as more and more services move exclusively online. The info poor will have fewer opportunities.
If you see tax as a way of re distributing wealth to help the less well off then you could conceivably charge a bandwidth tax and put the money into public net access. I know not everyone sees tax this way but it dosn't seem like that bad an idea to me
It could also be used to help fund Internet monitoring, which I know no one likes but the government is going to do it anyway so why shouldn't people who use more bandwidth pay a greater share of the cost?
Would putting a tax on internet transactions even be feasable? Granted, it would be relatively easy to track sales from huge companies like Amazon, but what about the individual selling stuff off of their own website eBay style? You would literally have to track down every single website that's selling something and make sure they're obeying the tax laws. Also, what about sites that are international? Would these laws be enforcable for us buying things from other countries or people in other countries buying things from us? The internet is a global entity, not just in the USA. I can see taxing e-mails, but I'm not sure how you would effectively tax online sales. Please feel free to explain to me how it could work, because I am interested.
--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
it would be retroactive for FY2003? Ohio has an Internet Goods sales tax that you have to account for on your state taxes every 4/15. Of course one can massage the numbers ("gee... those three CPUs I bought online came by Fedex so...") but I'd be nice to not have to worry about it.
Or would this affect state taxation at all?
What is music when you despise all sound?
You tell the public to give up it's fight against such taxation, CAUSE ITS GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAY!!!
It also potentially brings it up as possibly a major news media topic....
Yes, I know it's principle and not principal.
The ban isn't on taxing internet transactions, it's on taxing internet access.
If there was even a 1/10th cent tax on each email SPAM would drop dramatically.
Think about it, you've seen the advertisement "Read 200 million people instantly" at 1/10th cent that means EACH single SPAM will cost you $200,000
Now the market for penis enlargement could be big... but I'm betting it isn't that big (pun intended).
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
This bill prohibits the taxing of the access to the internet, not sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet.
A good law. I think the politicians should keep their grubby hands off internet access.
...is like fighting an infestation of fleas by dousing your house with gasoline and setting it afire. Sure, it works, but the solution is worse than the problem.
You tax something, you get less of it. Taxing the internet would mean slowing down growth and innovation (real innovation, not the Microsoft kind). Moreover, once passed, that tax will NEVER be repealed. Besides, how are you going to collect that tax from all those people who are already breaking laws by forging headers, and on all those offshore spammers? Far better to pass laws aimed specifically at spammers, than to hope they're taken out by carpet-bombing everyone on the Internet with an e-mail tax.
As P. J. O'Rourke once said, giving money and power to the federal government is liking giving liquor and car keys to a teenage boy.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
There was a scheme to stop spammers by making anyone on your non-approved list pay to send you an email - would this law stop this from being possible? I thought it was the most promising spam idea so far.
:(
My cynic-ometer is also whispering that this law may have been encouraged by spammers, not that I listen to the voices anymore
Interstate accross state line sis fed bawick not states..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Why are you trying to create a need for an internet tax? I have a better idea: let me keep my money and do what I want with it, rather than letting the government spend it in ways I'll have no control over.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
It is about taxing per bit transfered over your network, whether connected to the Internet or not. It is about taxing each and every email you send out. It is NOT about sales tax.
Read the article next time.
Also check back a few weeks, perhaps a month or so ago about Florida looking to institute a tax on every piece of IT Infrastructure in use in their state. Yes, they want to tax per email, they want to tax per bit transfered over public AND private networks.
If that law is passed you would see a few things...
One, a number of jobs for mailboy/mailgirl would open up at major corporations as they shut off and remove quite a bit of their network infrastructure.
Two, High-Tech businesses and businesses that rely on Network Technologies will just get up and get out of the state of Florida, or at least move all of their operations that require network technologies out of Florida.
In either case it would be highly destructive to the Florida economy and any other state that persues such a course of action without getting the rest of the states to add the same exact tax across the board.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Thank goodness I will no longer have to worry about unfair or adverse taxation on my free pornography.
Dude, where's my packet?
Live free or DIE!!!!!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"Yeah thats the problem... This is the person that wanted to put a limit on how much you can get for malpractice"
No, he just wants to limit frivolous lawsuits and outrageous payments. Remember the McDonald's "boo hoo I spilled my coffee" lawsuit? Not malpractice, but a perfect example of why we need tort reform.
"if you see tax as a way of re distributing wealth to help the less well "
Hmmmm. I thought the purpose of taxation was to fund the government, not to micro-manage the citizen's property, or to transfer wealth from the workers to the lazy.
Hah, your comment makes me crack up! What would come next after net taxation to "redistribute wealth" Maby whites of anglo-saxon origen should not be allowed to use the net in order for less fourtionate and therefore internet deprived minorities to be able to find better jobs and be informed. Allthough "Affermative Action Net" sounds like it would make a good TV series, the idea is moronic. Your idea to tax usage of the net to redistribute wealth is just disgusting. Libraries have computers with access, therefore allowing access to those deprived. Get Real
This doesn't make sense to me.. Bush in that case was trying to keep money taken away from people for [oftenly] frivolous claims.. Thereby making medical costs go down overall.. So how on earth does that translate to vetoing a ban on internet tax?
This is good news. Now if only we can get them to do something about the ridiculous VAT which Europe has imposed on the rest of the world. As a US software developer selling from my own web site, I am required* to collect VAT on all sales to EU customers. Not only am I required* to collect it, I have to send it to them at my expense. On top of all that, the new internet VAT law is quite confusing, and even the people responsible for making and enforcing it can't seem to agree on exactly what it covers (ex: does it apply to companies whose EU sales fall below a minimum threshold? Some say yes, some say no, some say they'll get back with you).
What makes it even worse is that EU customers are accustomed to having VAT shown in the price, whereas in the US everyone is used to seeing prices without TAX (actually, it goes beyond that...I've been told in the EU it is illegal to display prices without VAT) This means on my web site, if I want to sell a $20 item, I have to display it as $20 to US customers, but as $23.50 to EU customers. Of course, identifying the origin of a website visitor isn't quite an exact science, so it makes it quite difficult to automate this.
If congress could do something about this it would make things so much easier. Maybe pass a law making it illegal to collect taxes for a foreign government. They could start a whole "collecting money for foreign governments funds terrorism" campaign.
* No, I'm not required by US law to collect EU VAT, but should I ever choose to visit the EU on business or vacation, I suppose I could find myself in a bit of trouble for not doing so.
Not too many people do that.
Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.
Sorry, but I am most certainly a Bush-basher, and I have been called a socialist before (I don't consider myself to be one, but I do share many of their ideals).
I have nothing against a law forcing consistancy in the application of taxation across diferent sales channels. In fact I think it is a great idea.
A real socialist should be against sales taxes all together anyway, they are inherantly regresive. Instead, things that can be taxed progressively (income, capital gains...) should be taxed at a higher rate, and get rid of these damn sales taxes.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
It's called the Universal Service Fee. All congress is saying is "heck with the Internet, we're going to tax EVERYTHING"
"Permanant" means nothing in this context. No government can bind its sucessors, especially with a law like this. The next time the Democrats get in, if they're looking for some extra revenue, it will be easy for them to just repeal this law and start charging Broadband Tax. Or even Bush himself, when it finally dawns on him just how much money he's losing.
I can see it slowly ticking away, like a water meter , or s Taxi Meter. Then watch it BURST when I het p0rn...
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Considering that over 50% of the U.S. population already has Internet access(since two years ago!), I think your solution is in need of a problem.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It looks to me that this is just a little bit of staging for a future Federal tax on internet usage, perhaps interlocked with a Federal internet licensing/watchdog effort pushed through under the guise of "Homeland Security".
The rhetoric would go something like "...CyberSpace has become such an integral part of this nation's economy that it is the job of the Federal Government to protect it from terroristic disruption. In order to fund this hightened level of US Internet security, a Federal Tax will be leveyed against ..." This would also effectively allow the tax payer to pay for the high speed internet of not only the Federal government, but also State governments, who would of course be exempt from the Federal tax.
Of course maybe I'm just paranoid ... I sure hope so.
RFC2119
Why you silly old Federalist,you! Don't you know that the ninth and tenth amendments don't really mean anything!?!
Like everything else it does, it gets its jurisdiction for this from the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Since the Internet crosses state lines that means that the congress gets the final say.
Hey given how grey some of it's intrusions into state juridiction are, this ones practically black and white.
The American military has lots of excesses from the cold war. We have too large of a surface and submarine fleet. Without the former Soviet fleet, there is no need for our forces to be SO biased towards responding to a nuclear first strike (where first strike is designed to incapacitate our land-based missiles from responding), etc.
We should probably shift more of the money from excessive stealth fighters (there are no dogfights anymore, we just need a first wave to take out anti-aircraft response) towards more troops and better equipment for them.
However, if you are going to talk about the American military, it's our aircraft carriers that let us rule the world. That is how we can project power across the globe. It let's us send air power anywhere.
I look at things in Europe and the US the way children and adults see life. Children see the next purchase as a video game, and that their parents should pay for it. Adult understand that they need to work hard, earn a living, and pay for things like food and shelter.
You expect others to pay for your desires, we understand that we need to pay our own way.
You would think that 50 years of the US subsidizing Europes existance, plus the thousand year head start on civilization would put your standard of living tremendously beyond our own. However, the opposite is the case. Somehow the side affect of expecting others to pay for your lifestyle has resulting in productivity hits that are more significant than the savings from having us subsidize your defense.
Money has to be made, by producing goods and services desired. Anything granted by the government is a hand-out from money taken at gun point from those that produce wealth. Money is an indicator of productivity, nothing more.
Alex
You're correct. What the congressional bill is declaring is that the transport of bits is inherently interstate-commerce and not the province of any single state.
In much the same way that the US can hold a Frenchman responsible for a murder that he commits in the US, the states can tax transactions which originate or terminate in their state. Until recently the mechanism for doing this was considered too much of a burden on business to be enforceable. (For this to be practicable a backroom business would need to know tax info for all 50 states.) As a result the onus of paying relevant taxes on most interstate sales has been placed by the states onto the consumer.
The states have been working together to come up with a unified tax structure for interstate sales to reduce the complexity so that sales tax can be collected on all interstate transactions.
Moron! You could have gotten first post!
" A war that is completely fabricated by bush"
Yeah, I heard it was Laura Bush who drove the planes into the WTC.
Moron.
Are you really this stupid? Democrats and Republicans alike want to put caps on lawsuits. Insurance rates for peons like you and me have skyrocket because of frivolous lawsuits. Lawsuit caps need to be enacted!
[FromTheMorning]
I didn't read the article because I just got an urgent importaint message.
I just got this email saying the bell company was about to put a $50 per month tax on all modems. We must write congress at once to stop this. Most of us can afford to call BBSes if this goes through so write a letter now!
of course the world is just waking up to the other party (which effectively has succeeded in) erecting a toll booth on the net, and that would be microsloth and their IE tax, which is built into their winbloze tax.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
I wonder how this will affect Vonage 's fight with Minnesota over the proposal to tax VoIP?
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Where I'm from, we don't have a written constitution, just the general expectation that anything you would not dare do to the Queen, you would not do to an ordinary citizen either.
But if we did have a written constitution, I'd be pushing for a clause along the lines that all means to the same end were equally valid, and any future invention that accomplishes the same ends as an existing invention should not be given any special treatment unless there were compelling reasons beyond mere novelty.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I'm really happy to see this working it's way up the ladder. Hopefully it'll make it through! While I dont mind paying sales taxes on items purchased over the network in my own state I however am against taxes on email (Where's the public burden?), bandwidth/bit taxes (I dont get taxed per call) both of which would of been extremely damaging to small businesses and would of killed off a lot of small websites in the US.
they will eventually have to tax stuff. isn't ebay like 2% of the GNP in the USA now?
With cities starting to get into internet backbone business, various fees, that could be called taxes may emerge. Would this prevent that? possibly, they are so stupid when it comes to technology...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Lets hope the rest of the world follows USA's good example. :-)
(Although it might be fun to see Brussels try to tax US citizens for their email
Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation?
Well, Congress no. America, yes.
Yeah, some time around 1773 in Boston harbor... the last time I checked. They also did a decent job all the way up to 1787 as well.
Oh, and the 1860's were bad for individual state taxation. But we fixed that too.
Ever heard of devising a postage system to prohibit spam? Will it preclude that possibility as well ?
When a post becomes too insightful, it often becomes funny.
Taxing information restricts information by adding a cost to your information and ideas. That is in effect charging for ideas to everyone not just companies that have consultants. America was founded on the ability of not being charged to death or hounded for expressing your ideas. That culture is what made us invent things that no one else did, like say, planes, manufacturing lines, the telephone, the television, a man on the moon, and the freaking internet.
Besides, bandwidth and information is a two way avenue, that now borders on macrogroups, which we are in right now. Who's responsibility is it to pay?
The next time a worm writer decides to flood the internet with a 45% increase in overall volume and YOU GET TAXED FOR IT, then you'll change your tune.
Should I pay for all of the spam I get? Even with SpamAssasin that is bandwidth that has to get to me before I kill it. So I should be taxed for an A-hole like Alan Ralsky who freeloads off of the system and jams my inbox?
I think you and the politicians of the world should tax REAL THINGS. Just a humble suggestion.
You would think that Verisign would want a bill like this passed. But instead it seems they have openned up sites against the Internet Tax Non-discrimination Act. They then provide a search engine to promote why the senate should not vote for it. Some of the web sites worth note are:
www.VerisignVsHR49.com
and
www.Verisign4InetTax.net
"Quite simply, the government was never intended to function as a means to redistribute the wealth of its citizens; to divert money from one group of individuals to another."
:)
... it's a compelling case, isn't it? And if I'm right, we're just digging ourselves deeper and deeper ...
Perhaps not; don't forget the old saw about America starting out as the land of the free for white male land owners. That stuff's in the Constitution too.
Now here's where I introduce my pet economic theory: we don't play by those rules anymore, and the reason we don't is that if we stuck to pure capitalism, the worker's revolution would have popped up just like Marx predicted. I think this almost happened during the great depression, but then FDR came into office and saved the day by, what, mixing in the socialism. Social security, medicare, union protection, welfare, government work programs, all started out or given a big kick during his administration.
The result is, we have a system where the rich are given strong incentive to invest, and the working class is protected, and we dampen down the boom/bust cycle that Marx accurately observed to the point where the revolution never comes.
So now, indeed, I would argue that a purpose of our government is to cycle money back from the wealthy elite down to the working class, like an aerator in a fish tank, to keep the whole system functioning happily. Of course it will all rise to the top again -- that's how the system works.
***
Now, that's all I had to say that I'm willing to stand behind. But here's some raw speculation: over the past ten years, which were prosperous for everyone, the very wealthy became richer by something like 40%, while the rest became richer by something like 4%. Order of magnitude guesses, but based on credible sources I don't happen to recall.
Now that the wealthy are in power, they're working to consolidate this position, with a tax cut that gives back $0 to 30% of Americans, and $100,000 a year to people like Dick Cheney.
So what happens with this kind of lopsided distribution? There's plenty of money to invest, but no money among the consumers to buy. With no demand, there's no incentive to invest, and that money starts to sit idle. Money sitting idle = stagnation = depression.
The economy is not something I claim to understand, or that anyone who seems knowledgeable claims to be able to predict, but
Tell the EU to go screw themselves: there's nothing in the EU worth visiting anyway, and your EU customers will like you for it.
Or are you really going to start collecting Somalian Sales Tax, Haitian Sales Tax, Saudi Sales Tax, Nigerian Sales Tax and all the taxes that every other nation on the planet would like to force you to collect for them for free?
"I've been told in the EU it is illegal to display prices without VAT"
Not true: most electronics prices in the UK have no VAT included... it's horrific to see just how much those prices are loaded up with tax, especially when you consider that there's probably plenty of import duties on top. The tax on the camcorder I bought a few years back would have paid for a flight to New York to buy one tax-free, and still left a couple of hundred dollars to spend on beer and loose women.
Is to exempt the first $10,000 (or what-ever) for everyone. Everyone pays 20% (or what-ever) on everything after the first $10,000
Because everyone knows MD's don't take home any pay.
So let's make if more difficult for the poor to get net access by raising its price with taxation. Riiiight...
Then let's create priveleged groups elibible for the government handouts which defray the high cost of net access. This will stigmatize the poor as recipients of the government handouts necessary to purchase what they could have afforded if it were not taxed by the government to pay for the handouts. Though stigmatizing the poor will not be a problem once politicians start giving the same handouts to corporations to promote technology growth in American Business and create American jobs and make America strong so the terrorists will not win. Then congressional candidates can extort campaign donations from a richer pool of special-interest groups by promising to grant them government-sponsored net access. These groups will then be be beholden to their rainmakers, the politicians and bureaucrats who hand out the favors. This will insure that politicians will have a threat to hold over the heads of wealthy lobby groups come election time. And let's fund a new government agency for administering the handout program. Or we could let the IRS take care of it by adding another exemption to the tax code because, lets face it, tax forms are just too simple.
Yes, that is sarcasm and I am a critic. But just ignore me. As we all know I am really against your plan because I hate the poor and I want the terrorists to win.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
States certainly can't tax transactions that go _through_ their state (i.e. Oklahoma can't tax an Amazon transaction between my computer in Massachusetts and their server in Seattle just because that transaction takes place over backbone lines), but they certainly can tax transactions that take place with local buyers. The rules are exactly the same for internet and catalog purchases:
1. If your state has a sales tax, you are legally obliged to pay it, even on things you buy out of state. It's called a use tax - if I buy a computer from Dell in TX, and have it shipped to Mass, I'm liable for the 5% Mass tax.
2. The vendor (i.e. Dell) is only obliged to COLLECT the tax if they have a physical presence (called "nexus") in Mass. Otherwise, it's my responsibility to pay the tax directly to the state. In practice, nobody does this, so most internet transactions _appear_ tax free, although they're technically not.
The way they could argue around that, is that they wouldn't be taxing a cargo, but rather, they would be taxing the service of providing access. Imagine if Oklahoma had a toll road that just happened to be the shortest path from Texas to Kansas.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The "exemption" will run out and it'll be a question of proactively passing a ban on taxes again. That won't happen forever.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
The president found a source of money large enough to occupy... errrr... liberate Iraq for another 6 months. Also... The president read in a newspaper that it is possible to tax the internet. A veto on HR 49 is expected.
Since states are trying to regulate it as a telephone company, but it works over the internet.
Ah the old political games we play.
Beat the rush, hate Bush now!
You may hate the state tax systems, but you have a hell of lot more control over it. In fact, that is the whole point behind state's rights. Unfortunately, we had a war-time crisis decades ago that required a federal income that that was intended to be temporary, but of course, became a permanent staple of our already overpowering federal government.
But then again, what would you know about American history when all you base you beliefs upon is a failed Communist Manifesto.
I am MuchTall
I can't believe this, what a dissapointment. How are all these children who are getting left behind supposed to get a good education if taxes are not taken from selfish consumers?
I know a certain elementary school that has to share computers. There are, say, 5 computers for 20 kids. How would you feel at work if your boss told you, "Hey, Cmdr Burrito, you are going to have to share this pc with charlie here." Not to mention the fact that these machines, which dumb down our kids by weening them on the win-doze inyourface, are, at best Pentium 3s. No wonder our kids are so damn stupid.
That's just the tip of the old iceberg people. without these taxes, we will not be able to afford any tax cuts. So kiss those goodbye. And don't forget perscription psycho-active drugs for your kids. Who is supposed to pay for that? Without tax revenue from the internet I will have to go back to beating my kids when I find him using Kazaa on my computer! Imagine that, not taxing the internet actually causing the physical injury to our children.
Fine, fine, if you selfish bastards want a nation of uneducated, unmedicated, bruised and soar-assed kids then be that way. As for me, I am going to pay these taxes anyway. That's right, I will just send a check at the end of every month, (anonymously of course) to the government. I will not be a part of the problem.
It's not a big deal that congress is attempting to pass this law. The federal government is never at a loss for new things to tax. internet specific taxation would generally not be welcomed publicly, and our economy could use an e-commerce related boost besides. all that aside . . . The idea of an email tax - i'm sorry, the idea may be intriguing? Question Mark? but it's completely worthless. trying to keep up with who sent an email and when over the ENTIRE INTERNET and then figure out their geographic location would require such massive resources that goverment officials would spend more money enforcing the tax than they would make from collecting it. The tax billing errors would be ridiculous. this is to say nothing of mass-mailing worms that hijack your email account, or spoofing. i pity the poor company whose hijacked Exchange server racks up a few hundred thousand dollars in worm-spawned mail activity. >. give the email tax a rest, mnk? not happening.
** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
Realize that it takes two to tango. The big spending Democrats are probably secretly happy with Bush. He doesn't seem to veto any spending bill.
As for the deficit, amazing how tax cuts contribute to it but increased spending doesn't? The key to the deficit is to take it into perspective of its percentage of the GNP. At this time even this high dollar deficit is not the largest, and that margin of difference is pretty high.
What one cannot tax one can still slap fees and other sundry items upon to make up for it. In other words, what you don't pay for in tax directly they will get from you indirectly.
Tell me this, which is more desirable, paying taxes on what you use or paying taxes for what other people are using? Guess which one you are choosing when you support this ban.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Guess you don't like public schools. Yes, let's have a completely uneducated american public, rather than a poorly educated one (due to lack of funding).
Actually, Washington is even more nuts than that.
Washington also has what they call a 'use' tax. (I used to live there and found out about it by accident when I got my driver's license)
Basically it states that if I buy something from you, like a car or atv, I am supposed to get a form and pay taxes on the transaction. That's right, on a non-first sale transaction between two private parties, Washington state has a tax. Of course, there is no enforecement whatsoever of this tax, but the forms are still around, and it is still on the books. How wacked is that?
Why oh why didn't I take the purple pill?
Let's give a hand to Christopher Cox for being the powerhouse behind the bill!
Uhm, lets see.. "Dubya dubya..." Errr.. can I have another copy of this please?
how do you determine a cap?
Is it a hard figure? a percentage of the value of whom your suing?
How can we make sure that acap is high enough so companies will take measurs to fix problems?
If a company sell a product that makes them 100 million a year, but kills 3 people a year, would they spend money to fix it if the cap was 100,000 dollars a million dollars?
There are more issues then "Suing just to get money."
Also, most lawsuits get a apealed several times, until the amount is more reasonable for the harm.
So in that respect, they do self cap.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Have you ever thought that perhaps the reason why people advocate taxing the rich is based on the reason why the rich don't want to be taxed as much?
Rich: "Don't tax me I made all this hard earned money myself!"
Government: "You want to keep all that money?"
Rich: "Yes!"
Government: "And not give any of it away and help Joe Blow down the street who could really use some help?"
Rich: "Well, I don't have to give it away if I don't want to."
Government: "Right, okay you're getting taxed."
Rich: "NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Unfair Unfair I should be able to give it away to whoever I want!"
Goverment: "Okay sure, feel free to give it away, we'll give you a tax break if you give your money away and you won't owe as much in taxes. Until you do that we're taxing you. Joe blow down the street needs to cloth and feed his family."
Rich: "*whimper* there goes my million dollar yacht."
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to be flamebait here, this is my honest opinion:
I'm torn about the idea of an email tax. While in general I don't like the idea too much, it does occur to me that this might be the only way of dramatically reducing spam.
Look at it this way: Even a wicked-busy web maven likely sends less than 1000 emails a day outside of their own company LAN (with a few exceptions I realise. Individuals likely send less than 100 per day in general.
So, say you put a tax, to be administered by your ISP on each email, of say 0.1 cents per email. Big Business guy gets charged $1/day, home user $0.10 per day. By no means big money. Johny McSuperSpammer, however, who sends out 10 million emails every day, gets a handly little bill for $1000. Kind of changes the economics of his penis enlarger ads.
Like I say, I'm not a huge fan of paying more, but it does seem like making emails cost per message sent might be the best/easiet/only way to dramatically reduce spam.
Furthermore (ideally), to make up for the cost, you ISP could take $5 per month off your bill, to make up for the extra you're spending to send email. They still make money, because of the tax, the financial hit for you is minimal, but the spammers get hosed.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
Ah, it seems like you are forgetting the complete and utter destruction of Europe's industrial base during World War II. When 1945 rolled around, one country still had factory after factory manufacturing goods: the United States. One country was able to shift a fully-mobilized workforce from building weapons of war to building consumer goods: the United States. One country managed to use it's wealth to "subsidize" the rebuilding of the industrialized world. Oh, by the way, those subsidies came with crippling billions of interest. We have been profiting from this imbalance for your "50 years", and now, like Microsoft, are going to have to relearn the meaning of competition.
To all the parents out there: Isn't it just delightfully amusing when your children decide that they are more grown up than you, and "know better?"
========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
What this bill isn't, is a moratorium on taxation of Internet services (such as long distance/VoIP, catalog/retail shopping, web hosting, etc). The House have only said that no state may tax access to these services.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Please pass the sauerkraut..
Godwin's law - you lose!
But ISP's could still level special "surcharges" on excessive emails, etc etc that would have the same effect, much in the way you are already charged for exceeding your bandwidth quota.
In the end, would it really be a bad thing? A surcharge on emails over amount XYZ, unless you registered for a special mass-email account (for listserves) and signed a non-spamming declaration.
If only you had a clue...
Two years ago, the federal budget for public education alone was close to $800 Billion. And you suggest that we could set up a fully-functional healthcare system on $87 Billion? Christ, I'd rather live in Canada and wait 8 months for treatment!
Your entire post is written like a true frothing, socialist, left-wing, Bush-hating zealot. At least you people are consistent, if grossly ignorant...
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
It sounds from the description that your ISP would not be allowed to charge you more just because you use the internet more. What about your ISP cutting you off after you reach a certain limit like Time or Bytes? What if they don't cut you off if you pay for a more expensive account? Is that the same thing as a tax on the extra?
A lot of ISP's cut off newsgroup access after some limit is reached. Pay a little more for an unlimited account. Is that a usage tax?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_w age_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
I personally believe the Government has no business stepping in to assure anything regarding Internet service... The market will handle itself just fine. If there is a market to sell broadband services somewhere (even if it's rural), someone will eventually pick it up. And if that doesn't happen, and the people living there still want broadband, here's a perfect example of how it can be done.
Seriously, we need the government LESS involved with our day-to-day lives, not more. If you want something done, do it yourself, don't ask the government to take money from me at gunpoint so they can do it for you for more money and a diminished result.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Taxes on interstate commerce are already the province of the federal government,
so the law doesn't deny anything to the states that the constitution hadn't already.
And this law won't stop them from passing a bill amending this law when they want to tax the internet.
So the net effect of this bill is that congress will now have to add the clause "amends H.R. 49 such that..." to any bill that taxes the internet.
Audio Version Available here from School-House-Rock.com
Please mod this up for nostalgia and educational value. You know you watched this as a kid. Represent for the Nintendo generation!
Boy: Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law some day
At least I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage.
Bill: Well, I got this far. When I started I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman, and said, "You're right, there oughta be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.
I'm just a bill
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well, now I'm stuck in committee
And I'll sit here and wait
While a few key Congressmen discuss and debate
Whether they should let me be a law.
How I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: Listen to those Congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?
Bill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favorably, otherwise I may die.
Boy: Die?
Bill: Yeah, die in committee. Ooh, but it looks like I'm gonna live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.
Boy: If they vote yes, what happens?
Bill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.
Boy: Oh no!
Bill: Oh yes!
I'm just a bill
Yes, I'm only a bill
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill
Well, then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the president to sign
And if he signs me, then I'll be a law.
How I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Boy: You mean even if the Whole Congress says you
should be a law, the president can still say no?
Bill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the president vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old...
Boy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?
Bill: No!
But how I hope and pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill.
Congressman: He signed you, Bill!
Now you're a law!
Bill: Oh yes!!!
Let's take a moment to pray for the creator of "School House Rock," Tom Yohe, who recently passed away due to cancer (December 21, 2000). He was truly a brilliant man, and his contribution to this generation's knowledge in many areas cannot be denied. I know he changed my life for the better.
I bet you read through texts written by the founding fathers and take pieces of what they wrote and slap those together to make it seem like they founded this country to worship space aliens or something akin to that...
The statement about Florida was a statement about Florida. It wasn't a statement supporting Federal Government powers over State Governments.
The idea of taxing what Florida was talking about taxing was and still is quite silly.
How would you tax an email from the UK? How would you tax an email from Washington state, if Washington state already has a tax on email? Whose tax takes precedence? Does that email then get taxed per state it routes through?
Could that mean to send an email to Grandma in Florida you could end up spending something like 5 dollars in overall taxes just for it to get to Grandma? (This is assuming that each state between where you are and Florida has an email tax law written loosely enough to attach a tax on all email that routes through the state.)
Now that you bring it up.. If it got to such a point, I believe the Federal Government would have jurisdiction in settling that kind of dispute and their answer would be, it is now a Federal Tax or No Tax. What do you think their answer would be?
Now you can take your State's Rights banner down... I am on your side about State Rights. However, there are important times when the Federal Government trumps the State for good reason. In this case, it is a good reason.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I suppose someone like Mr. Grosso (of the New York Stock Exchange) gets paid $140 million because he is just so damned productive, eh? He must do the job of.....2800 average (fat, lazy) Americans! Amazing!
Oh, wait, I guess criminal coinspiracy is a form of productivity, after all. My bad.
==========
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Because simply not committing malpractice is not an option...
Where do all the taxes go - an undisclosed location somewhere?
I think this may be the first chain-spam-urban legend inspired peice of legislation.
:D
Since the govt. has never considered taxing the internet, why the creation of a law with no support?
Well... no REAL support, but there are the 1000's of emails sent to lawmakers monthly asking that they not vote for a fictional internet tax bill proposed by a fictional senator.
The question is, do they truely think people just spontaneaously support a tax-free internet, or is this merely a ploy to get the reality-challenged to stop emailing them everyday?
Either way, it's funny as heck.
until then, I will not support any more taxes on ANYTHING. This punish the rich attitude got us screwed before many times and it seems many have yet to learn that it is us (assuming that no one here is that rich category) that get the shaft. The 16th amendment was born of hate and greed, so it is only fitting that it becomes the very vice for further economic growth as well as giving rhetoric to party-line touting fools.
In the state of Ohio, there is a funky little thing known as the "Use Tax," where you pay tax, at tax time, for anything you've purchased out-of-state.
:)
Good thing I'm out of that state now!
The Penguin Producer
The wonderfull European Union has added tax on internet services (even things like Everquest) - if you buy something from the US via the Internet, it is thought to be the duty if the seller to account for the tax - but if this becomes illegal in the US.. what then?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Because simply not committing malpractice is not an option...
Actually it's not, I'm sad to say. There are things that go wrong in medicine (like anything else) that are simply unavoidable or unforseeable. Unfortunately these days nobody is willing to admit that and if anything goes wrong they sue because obviously it must be the Dr's fault. A lot of OB/GYN's are dropping the OB part of their practice because it's just too expensive to cover the cost of liability. "Junior was born with a problem! I'll sue!"
(no, I'm not a Doctor, but my wife is an RN, my mother-in-law is a respiratory therapist and a close friend is an anaesthesiologist so I get to hear about this stuff)
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
You do realize that most of the Balkans were nothing like the rest of Europe (they were struggling countries after the collapse of Communism).
The Balkans were struggling countries before the rise of Communism.
The perpetual problem that the Balkans face is the same as the one that allowed Bush to push our nation into war with very little evidence (and even that "evidence" was falsified).
Rampant nationalism can be counted on by the rich and the powerful to bring the masses in line whenever desired. Either fake an attack from a foriegn power or terrorist group, or help them to commit it by ignoring intelligence reports, and the population falls in line to support any tyrant, willingly gives up thier civil liberties (if they have them to begin with), accepts rediculous arguments in favor of the current administration, and begins to both believe every lie that the establishment media feeds them while at the same time blasting that same media as being "dangerously liberal".
Read, L