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."
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
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
In a country where we roughly pay an average of 1/3 of our salaries to variuos governmental entities.
It is my impression that you are actually quite lucky. In the country I currently live in (Italy) a whopping 43% gets deducted from my salary even before I get it. Of the other 57% percent, I probably spend half for a living, where 20% VAT is applied - therefore I pay almost 50% of taxes.
<rant>And what makes me really sick is to see how the money does not get used, but is merely vanishing in all kinds of nonsense...</rant>
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?
How about transmission lines? Say, if a line passes through a state, would you allow them to tax the bits going through the line?
Also, many transmission lines follow along railroad lines and therefore come under federal jurisdiction under the Trans.Railroad act.
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.
If Washington is like any other state that I've dealt with that has a sales tax, you are supposed to pay sales tax on everything you buy out of state. That's what the original poster of this thread was talking about, I believe.
The out of state companies just aren't collecting sales tax for those states because 1) they don't have to, and 2) because it would be an accounting nightmare- especially for states that have different or additional sales tax for different counties (like NY and FL). I know for a fact that in Maine and Florida, if you buy something out of state, either through catalog or Internet sales (and presumably while on vacation as well), you're supposed to be a good little tax payer and send them a check at the end of the year. Of course that doesn't stop New Hampshire from putting Liquor Stores right across the state line so you don't have to drive any farther than you have to in order to get "tax-free" booze.
The problem is that on big ticket items, it really hurts the local guys, especially if they're near the border, or if the item doesn't cost much to ship (i.e., memory and CPU's). 6% or 7% tax savings can easily cover shipping or a trip across the line. But what most people don't realize is that they are legally obligated to cough up the tax on these items too.
I think the only practical way to implement collection of Sales Tax for online sales would be if all the states and counties who have a sales tax would agree on a single amount to be paid to the State, who would then determine and distribute what (if any) portion goes to what county.
Many Internet retailers (Adobe, for one) already charge sales tax to everyone who lives in a state that has it. Although not required, it keeps the states happy, and also their retail channel who doesn't have a choice if they are in a sales-tax state.
So it's not really a loophole, it's more like swapping copyrighted music. Most people either don't know it's illegal, or they don't think they can get caught so they don't care.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I wonder how this will affect Vonage 's fight with Minnesota over the proposal to tax VoIP?
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Here in the European Union, it arrived as of July 1st 2003. Purchases made online within the EU are liable to VAT (Value Added Tax, the EU version of Sales Tax), even if the supplier of the goods is based and shipping from outside the EU.
Some details here.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
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