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."

Comments

States Rights

[Dancin_Santa]

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.

Re:States Rights

[freeefalln]

'levying taxes unique to the Internet.' The

Unique to the internet. that is whats important here. we all know that sales tax is long overdue on the internet, it will come into effect sooner or later.

Re:States Rights

[tbase]

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.

Re:States Rights

[princewally]

Also, there has been a ban on interstate sales tax in many jurisdictions for many, many years. If you order something by mail from Oregon and you live in New Jersey, you don't pay sales tax.

In most states, you do have to pay sales tax if you order something from another state. The company isn't required to charge the tax. You are supposed to get an additional form from the state and declare your purchases yourself.

Re:States Rights

[NickFitz]

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.

Re:States Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

That is correct. It's called a "use tax", but it's basically the same thing. It's hard for them to enforce, however.

Choice quote...

[Ratface]

"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?

Oh well, can't complain too much, at least it's positive news. I just though it made good spin! :-D

Re:Choice quote...

[Talthane]

Because if you're a company that has something to do with internet services, and there were rumours of a 'net tax, you'd probably stop some of your initiatives and hoard money as a contingency fund.

When the quote says 'certainty', that means a lot to any risk-conscious company. If you have a risk mitigated or removed, you feel safer in going ahead with an initiative like setting up broadband, etc.

Finally, a step in the right direction!

[goldspider]

Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation? In a country where we roughly pay an average of 1/3 of our salaries to variuos governmental entities, I welcome anything that potentially keeps money in my pocket.

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.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[mental_telepathy]

I welcome anything that potentially keeps money in my pocket

You're in luck. I think "Anything to keep money in my pocket" is the Bush campaign slogan for '04.

The reality of a law like this is that it's a PR move. The only thing that can legitmately reduce the tax burden is a cut in spending. Trust me, you'll end up paying that Bush deficit eventually, no matter how sweet a nice fat refund check is now.

You: Yay! Not Internet Tax
Government: Your Walrus pacifier tax is due.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[cwernli]

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>

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[King Babar]

1/3? I don't know what tax bracket you're in, but after Fed, SS, Medicare, State, Local, property tax, Sales tax, auto registration, and other various fees, most of us in the U.S. pay over 50% of our salaries to the gov.

In a word, no we don't. Not if by "most of us" you mean "most US taxpayers". For a decently readable account of this and other economic "facts", there's a piece in the NY Times (free registration blah blah).

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[perly-king-69]

Here in Europe whilst we do have healthcare free at the point of delivery, you Americans do have some wonderful ships, aircraft, tanks, missiles etc.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[goldspider]

"The reps, however, want to get rid of all the taxes, but still have enough to only pay for the stuff they care about, like the military."

You say that like that's a bad thing. Whatever happened to the concept of "limited government"?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

While this famous quote isn't a comprehensive examination of our government's structure, it is a decent summation of what should be the boundaries of our government's role in our lives.

Nowhere in that quote is mentioned a guarantee of prosperity, nor does it speak of a responsibility of the government (through taxpayers) to provide for those who can't or won't provide for themselves.

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.

"I learned in economics class that if x then taxes should go up and if y taxes should go down. I want a government that took economics class."

I'm 100% in agreement with you there. That's one of my beefs with the current administration.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[Beatbyte]

You're in luck. I think "Anything to keep money in my pocket" is the Bush campaign slogan for '04.

Yeah the only problem is, this was voted by the House of Rep. Bush hasn't seen the proposal yet.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[DickBreath]

Europe is looking more and more attractive. You actually GET something in return for your taxes there.

I disagree. Just look at all of the additional value we get here in the US for our tax dollar...

• DMCA
• UTICA
• CALEA
• COPA
• CDA
• Our well-oiled smoothly running Patent office -- where applications are processed and granted quickly -- probably most smoothly running in the world.
• Our enlightened Copyright extensions
• War on Drugs
• War on Terror
• War on Freedom
• The largest NoooKuLar Arsenul in the world

...and, think of the tax dollars we save by having our legislators and judges bought and funded by private corporations. After all, the ability to own property, such as legislators or even mere ideas, is one of our basic values.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[TamMan2000]

It isn't a "Bush" deficit because we already had an increasing deficit before he moved into office!

Does anyone else remember Bush using enormous budget surplus predictions as justification for a tax cut?

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[guacamolefoo]

Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation?

Poll tax. The Twenty Fourth Amendment was passed by Congress on August 27, 1962, and it was ratified by the several States in early 1964.

GF.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[guacamolefoo]

The only thing that can legitmately reduce the tax burden is a cut in spending. Trust me, you'll end up paying that Bush deficit eventually, no matter how sweet a nice fat refund check is now.

Not necessarily true. The tax burden can be minimized by a deficit. Here's how:

1) If there is no deficit, spending temptations explode, and expensive spending proposals will be pushed. If there is a deficit, it is less likely that spending programs will be passed, because there is a legitimate cover in "We can't feed the poor children, because we'll leave them with a big national debt." The GOP realized long ago that public choice theory and the federal budget process makes it impossible to cut spending directly, so by cutting taxes and creating a deficit, they have helped to curb spending in the only feasible manner.

2. What about the deficit, you say? What deficit? Sure, there is a small one right now (say $500,000,000,000.00 per year), but this is insignificant. Why? Monetization of the federal debt. With an inflation rate of approximately 2.5% and a federal debt of approximately $7,000,000,000,000.00, the ongoing devaluation of the dollar over time decreases the real value of the national debt by $175,000,000,000.00 per year.

If you look at the difference ($500 - 175, or $325/year), you have a deficit that is minimal as a percentage of GDP and one that is much smaller in real terms than anything that happened in the late eighties or early nineties. No, I won't end up paying the "Bush deficit". And no, you do not need to cut spending to reduce the tax burden. You can reduce it over time by applying downward pressure on spending by keeping a nice little pet deficit bogeyman in the closet to scare the public.

GF.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[adam613]

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.

Hey! I'm a Bush-basher, and I think this is a great law. It's what we've all been saying on slashdot for years: don't write new laws for the internet, reuse existing ones.

Re:Finally, a step in the right direction!

[Jhon]

Pull out a calculator and your pay stub from dec 2002.

Now. Check your Federal income tax, state income tax, SSI, unemployment, etc etc. Calculate all those together.

Now, figure out how much you spent last year at the supermarket -- electronics store, etc etc etc (sales tax). Calculate that.

Now, check your utility bills -- figure out how much you paid for gas, water, power, telphone service, cell phone, pager, etc. Calculate that.

Now, figure out how much you spent on fuel for your car. Calculate how much tax you paid for THAT last year.

Car registration, professional state licence fees, property taxes, etc. Calculate that.

God help you if your a smoker.

Add all those taxes together and divide that by your income last year. You should end up with 50% (+/- a few % points). Last year, I paid out over 52% of what I made in taxes. I itemize everything, too. EVERYTHING.

I am not wealthy, either. My wife and I have just spent the last several years saving for a house that will further eat close to 1/3 of our income (whats left after taxes) as a house payment.

There needs to be more equity in taxation.

How could they legally tax those products anyways?

[StormyWeather]

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.

Finally...

[Clinoti]

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. :)

Re:Isn't this a state thing?

[I8TheWorm]

Um.... since the Uniform Commercial Code was enacted?

Why?

[pubjames]

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).

Re:Why?

[SmallFurryCreature]

You already pay a tax on broadband silly. Well at you least in europe. It is called a sales tax. or BTW or VAT or whatever other name they have given to the tax applied to everything that is sold.

What a internet tax would be is a tax not on your vacuum cleaner but on how many times you hover with it as well.

An email tax would be a double tax. First you pay for the bandwidth, then for the use of that bandwidth? Like charging me BTW for a loaf of bread, butter, and toppings. Then charging me a tax when I make a sandwich out of it and eat it myself.

Re:Why?

[Twylite]

I'm glad someone else is questioning this Bill ... the devil's advocate in me has to find the bad points ;)

In general we pay taxes where the state has an interest in providing or overseeing infrastructure. The principle of special taxes is to impose a tax on the use of infrastructure that isn't essential or not everyone uses.

In most countries income tax pays for government in general, the military, social security, education, and at least partially funds critical instructure like electricity, water and rail. Sales taxes (at least in theory) tend to fund protectionism and transport infrastructure. Airport taxes fund the cost to the state of maintaining airports and controlling air traffic, plus the oversight of the FAA.

Now, if you prohibit any Internet-specific tax, you probably rule out any federal/state regulatory body that can lay down and police minimum standards rules for ISPs and ISP services (including quality of service).

Some people see this as a good thing -- that market forces should address the problem. But the problem is that the Internet is becoming a critical infrastructure, and private investment is focused on money centres. In other words if there's not enough market pressure in a particular area (geographic, type of service, etc) there won't be an investment, and the users lose out.

I'll take a concrete example from the telecommunications market: privitised network operators focus their services at business customers in commercial centres -- these are the juciest pickings. But the state has a responsibility to ensure that everyone has access to this critical infrastructure. So most telecomms markets are regulated to ensure that you can get a telephone, at largely the same price, whether you are a business, an individual in a high density residential area, or a farmer on 1000 acres with no-one in the vacinity.

Assuming the Internet is a critical infrasturcture, doesn't it stand to reason that similar regulation is (or may be) required; and if so, where do we find the money to fund the overseeing body?

Whee

[shoptroll]

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

missed opportunity on SPAM fight

[scsirob]

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.

Re:missed opportunity on SPAM fight

[mental_telepathy]

And it would only cost $80,000,000 a year to regulate. We'll need to invent a new tax to pay for enforcing the email tax.

Re:missed opportunity on SPAM fight

[FrostedWheat]

SPAM houses would pay through the nose

Yes, because as we know most of the spam we get comes from the USA. Really tho, that's just a stupid idea. Even for fighting USA-based spammers.

Go stand in the corner!

Re:missed opportunity on SPAM fight

[I am Jack's username]

They tried: House sends spam bill to Senate; Senate spam filter deletes it

Tax not always bad...

[m_dob]

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.

Re:Keystrokes

[richie2000]

But then, maybe they should just tax pr0n.

By the inch?

Re:Problem

[Stiletto]

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.

Damn Republicans....

[snatchitup]

Oh wait.... Is that right? We like this don't we?

Re:Damn Republicans....

[snatchitup]

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.

Short Sited decison?

[jez_f]

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 Taxing Be Feasable?

[kaellinn18]

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.

Re:Why don't they do something useful...

[snatchitup]

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

What are you talking about. Let's add up some of the debt these companies fed on in the 90's.

AT&T owes about $70B (less now after divesting cable)

WorldCom owes at least $40B

Sprint owes at least $30B
Qwest owes at least $40B
AOL has close to $40B in long term debt.

Then there are the countless other little guys. the Global Crossings, Frontier Networks, eSpires, etc. etc.

We're talking more than $500B was already borrowed to build broadband. That's more than the entire defense budget, and foreign aid budgets put together. I'm not trying to flame you, but you are a stupid liberal who lost track of how big the world really is. The private sector finance machine is the big leagues, the federal govt. and it's budget is a small potato

Prohibits taxing access, not e-commerce

[wayward_son]

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.

Re:cool

[nomadic]

"What?! They voted against something I want? They're all a bunch of slaves to special interest groups!"

"What?! They voted for something I want? They're only doing it to get re-elected!"

This is a great day for democracy and breasts.

[joeszilagyi]

Thank goodness I will no longer have to worry about unfair or adverse taxation on my free pornography.

Re:Isn't this a state thing?

[digitalunity]

The point of this regulation wasn't to limit the states rights, it is to protect the citizens from unfair and discriminatory taxing. That's always a good thing. If this goes through, states can still tax you on things like online shopping, as long as it's a sales tax that applies to everyone. I would hate to go to amazon or ebay and get a message that they were collecting a 'Special Internet Tax' for whatever state of %(arbitrary#). Imagine checking your DSL or cable bill and finding a special tax line:

Network Access Tax: $23.30 @ .005 per MB

I don't think many people would put up with it. It's good that this bill came along. Along the same lines, it's also sad that they had to specifically prevent states from implementing discriminatory taxes as sources of revenue. Look at the Seattle dime espresso tax and the turnout; 67% of citizens said no. If states went along and implemented an internet usage tax, it's nearly a sure bet that zero of that revenue would be used to support the internet. It would have been especially unfair.

Re:It isn't about Commerce...

[91degrees]

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.

Which makes it even more of a per state issue.

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.

So it's now the responsibility of the federal governemtn to stop state governments from making bad decisions? Why do we bother with states at all if thet's the case?

Re:cool

[RevDobbs]

Im ready for this, and confident I can handle it.

... until your internet access goes down.

It's not "permanant" at all

[ironfrost]

"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.

Leaves door open for Federal Tax

[Helmholtz]

"H.R. 49 would permanently extend a moratorium on certain state and local taxation of online services and electronic commerce, and would eliminate an exception to the prohibition for certain states..."

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.

Don't forget the aircraft carrier...

[alexhmit01]

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

Re:Don't forget the aircraft carrier...

[salesgeek]

Ummm...the USA didn't spring out of fresh air. It's an offshoot of European colonists and numerous waves of immigrants (Irish, Jewish, Italian, Mexican &c) The 'headstart' comment is laughable.

LOLx3. My family is made up of a bunch of people the bugois in France, Britain and Germany didn't want. The problem with Europe is that no one rows the boat in the same direction, and when you do its either:

A) Tyrant brings (er... encourages)togather several nations to try to conquer the world. Row row row the boat -- or else.

B) Nations unite against a Tyrant trying to conquer the world. Row Row Row the boat -- or else.

It's ok though. We love our slightly less than responsible, sometimes n'er do well uncle - Europe. Next time somebody comes along and starts bullying you, we'll use our very nice shiny missles, tanks, guns, and of course aircraft carriers to run them off and then we'll rebuild you again. And again.

Of course, that's what you get for sending us good wine, find cheese, nice cars and cool threads from time to time. Just don't be an ass about it.

New Taxes?

[thogard]

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!

Is VoIP Unique to the Internet?

[Mikkeles]

I wonder how this will affect Vonage 's fight with Minnesota over the proposal to tax VoIP?

No taxes - yet.

[nightsweat]

This is known as the "We're gonna tax the crap out of you but not yet" bill.

The "exemption" will run out and it'll be a question of proactively passing a ban on taxes again. That won't happen forever.

In other news...

[Izago909]

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.

Re:Interstate is not Intrastate

[e5z8652]

Translation to help moderators understand the original post (It is a good point, linuxislandsucks probably types too fast and left some stuff out):

Taxing or restricting Interstate commerce accross state line sis a fed eral ba ili wick and is not controlled by the states '..

Email Tax??? Pleasssseee . . .

[subjectstorm]

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.

This will never get signed by Bush

[beef3k]

Uhm, lets see.. "Dubya dubya..." Errr.. can I have another copy of this please?

Email Tax

[MacGod]

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.

Re:Email Tax

[DeathPenguin]

An interesting proposition, but much of the spam we recieved either originates or is relayed through routers in other nations, not respect US law. So who foots the bill for spam that comes from countries that lie outside US Jurisdiction?

What happens when spam kingpins in America outsource to people in other countries that do not respect US law to take the blame for spamming?

What this really means...

[deblau]

(if the bill passes the Senate and gets signed into law) is that no state may tax you for Internet access. This bill basically says that such a tax would be financially discriminatory, since apparently a tax on access would deprive some Americans of the ability to use a common communications medium. I guess the 'Net has finally hit the mainstream.

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.

I'M JUST A BILL

[BasharTeg]

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.