States Fight Internet Tax Ban, Cite VoIP Concern

PetiePooo writes "From an article at PCWorld: The Multistate Tax Commission is fighting a bill which makes the moratorium on internet taxes permanent. Their complaint is that it could be interpreted to include VoIP telephony such as Packet8 and Vonage, and they would lose that lucrative tax base as people switch from incumbent providers. The House has already approved the bill. When will the politicians figure out that VoIP is a going to end up as a product, not a service? Voice will be just another form of data. Here's another related article."

Comments

VOIP may be data...

[mOoZik]

...but so is a regular telephone line. sure, it's analog "data," as opposed to digital for VOIP. If we follow that argument, then we shouldn't have to pay for telephone usage, either.

So the only thing that sets them apart is being analog or digital? I think if it is used for communication, they are going to see it as a threat.

Re:VOIP may be data...

[swordboy]

So the only thing that sets them apart is being analog or digital?

No...

I pay taxes on my broadband connection already. If I run VoIP through that connection, I shouldn't have to pay taxes for telecom infrastructure that I don't use.

Telecom tax is not insignificant. This is because PSTN is bulky. If I chose to move to the more efficient packet-switched service, then there is no reason that I should have to support PSTN anymore. It will only keep it alive that much longer.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Taxes at all government levels will be affected

[Wylfing]

Losing the telephone tax base is not the end of the world - governments will increase the revenue stream elsewhere.

This is a Good Thing(tm). The fewer tax streams, the better. It is vastly preferable to be taxed once (say, on income and capital gains, because it needs to be progressive) and be done with it. Taxing citizens 2-5 times on the same money only creates government incentives that are hard to manage. This is a prime example -- government effectively working against the people because of a too-complex tax picture.

Re:"Today is a historic day"

[Motherfucking Shit]

How many of your democrats thought you would be agreeing with a republican today?

Me.

I'm a registered democrat, but only because I lean slightly left of center as opposed to right of center.

I'm pro-gun (typically a conservative trait), but I'm also pro-choice (that disqualifies me from being a true conservative, I suppose). I don't favor taxes (I must be an evil republican), but I don't favor the death penalty either (wait, I must be a bleeding heart). I support the idea of gay marriage (now the neocons surely won't accept me!) but I don't care much for welfare (so maybe I'm conservative after all...).

Goddamnit, it's time that people stop seeing things in black and white!

I'm a democrat but I agree with republicans every day. And republicans agree with me. Not on everything, mind you, but nobody is required to vote a straight ticket. You should vote for the candidate you feel represents your stance on the issues, regardless of which party they're aligned with. If you're a registered republican that doesn't mean that you can't vote for a democrat when he makes sense, and vice versa.

The fact that I'm pro-choice doesn't make me a left-wing nutcase. The fact that I don't like the idea of subsidizing people who are too lazy to find a job and too careless to bother with birth control and wind up with 6 kids whose lives are paid for with my tax dollars doesn't mean I hang out with Rush Limbaugh. The fact is, I can take a liberal stance on one issue and a conservative stance on another. And regardless of how I'm registered, I can and will vote for any damned person I please.

I've voted for republicans and I'll do it again, despite the fact that I'm a registered democrat. There are a fair share of politicians from both parties who "get it." (Arguably there aren't enough from either camp who "get it," especially when it comes to technology, but such is life.) There are also a fair share of politicians from both parties who clearly don't "get it." The ones who don't "get it" - for my own personal value of "getting it" - will not be getting my vote. I don't care what their party affiliation is.

Just because Chris Cannon is a republican doesn't mean that he and I can't see eye to eye on something. Today, we do see eye to eye on the issue of internet commerce. Tomorrow, on some other issue, who knows.

In America, voting is not only a right, it's a duty. Just remember to vote for the candidate, not for the party.