Ban on Internet Access Tax Dies in Senate

Justen writes "The Associated Press is reporting (via Yahoo! News) that the bill to permanently ban federal and state taxes on the Internet, via the Internet Tax Freedom Act, has died in the Senate. 'The problem arose over the definition of 'Internet access' -- services that connect consumers to the Internet. The strongest proponents for a permanent ban want to make sure that all access technologies -- from phone lines to DSL to cable modems -- get equal freedom from taxation.'"

Comments

What the Heck?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should pass this, seriously. You dont even have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Re:What the Heck?

[leerpm]

Well, according to a CNET article, some senators are saying they will be negotiating over the weekend and return to the topic next week. So maybe it's not quite dead yet.

Re:What the Heck?

[velo_mike]

They should pass this, seriously. You dont even have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

Ok, first off, I'm opposed to tax in all it's forms - federal, state, property, you name it, I don't want to pay more than I have to. I'll follow that by saying that I'll bitch, moan, kvetch, vote against and otherwise harrass any of my representatives who tried to institute an internet tax.

All of that said, I don't think the senate has any right to pass this. Why? Doesn't our constitution say something about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". I hate taxes, but I hate the constant increase of federal control into what should be local or state matters even more.

Re:What the Heck?

[squiggleslash]

Not to mention that simply banning taxes on one thing forces a government that has to spend a certain amount to move the tax burden to something else.

This isn't to advocate taxing the Internet, but it strikes me as completely arbitrary to completely ban taxing the Internet and not, say, ban taxing the telephone system (which is arguably more important to its users - there are more landline users than Internet users, and I suspect we're close to a point that there are more cellphone users than landline users in the US - that situation is already true in most of the rest of the world, developed and undeveloped.) If such bans are going into place, they need to cover more than a specific globally accessable TCP/IP network.

Re:What the Heck?

[chadm1967]

I agree. What the hell is the problem with our government? Are they really this stupid? Internet access means Internet access, be it cable, DSL, dial-up, whatever.

I am so sick of electing idiots to run our country!

Re:What the Heck?

[neoform]

Whatever, all companies will simply move their server's to new hampshire..

Re:What the Heck?

[CrowScape]

Except that Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution. From Article 1, Section 8;

Congress shall have the power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

You'll note that the internet is only "tax free" when you're not dealing with a vendor in the same state as you. So Congress does have the Constitutional authority to ban internet tax, and this power has been with the Congress since the nation was founded.

Re:What the Heck?

[ATMAvatar]

There has been a ban in place for awhile. The problem is that it's a temporary ban. This new bill would just have made it permanent.

They can't pass up a revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, they -will- find a way to tax internet commerce. There is too much money to be made.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[ergo98]

Indeed, and wouldn't it be irresponsible (and outside of their mandate really) for a temporarily elected group to attempt to pass a permanent ban? At most they can pass a four year ban and let the next batch decide when their turn comes around.

I like the whole "no taxes" thing, and it could continue to happen if the internet were a technology showcase used by a couple of people, however as the internet becomes (became) an integral part of our lives, and a key point of purchase for a massive value of goods and services, exempting it while continuing to tax other streams (like local retailers) is fiscally imprudent, not to mention unfair. This is the sort of policy that sounds good in theory (I mean who wants to pay taxes?), but it just doesn't work efficiently or fairly when taxes do need to be raised.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[HornyBastard77]

permanent in the political context does not mean absolute. laws can (and are) changed and reversed over time. the permanent implies that the next batch of elected representatives (and the batches thereafter) do not have to pass laws exempting internet related products and services from taxation. but theres nothing stopping them from approving new legislation that would then enforce taxes on said products and services.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[ergo98]

Of course they can, however it is an invisible hand implying that something has momentum beyond the current administration (even the term "permanent" - the term "non-expiring" sounds better to me). It's all just nuances, but nuances are what politics are all about.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[leek]

I'd like to see them pass a law, permanent or otherwise, banning certain kinds of state and federal spending.

Then we'd arguably not need an internet tax.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[nyseal]

Finally, someone who GETS it. Maybe they should start by not being able to vote themselves a raise. When's the last time you were able to raise your hand and say "Hey, I need another summer home and some campaign money for next year.....let's say we give ourselves a 33% pay increase at taxpayer expense? All in favor say 'Aye'"? Crazy.

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[ergo98]

Finally someone who gets it? Do you really think you're in some exclusive little club of people who appreciate that government spending is excessive? I think your ideas are a tad less original than you make them out to be.

Having said that, one argument (that spending is excessive and needs to be curtailed) does not necessarily play a part in the second (governments have basic financial needs, and they will get them somehow, and exempting one sector of the economy while unfairly burdening the others isn't very logical).

Re:They can't pass up a revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

you forget that somewhere around 80% of our nations debt has absolutely nothing to do with normal spending.. around 80 % (cant remember exact percentage) is actually due to social security.

Internet Access...

[falconed]

...includes VoIP

Cowboy Neal & Bob

[newshooze]

Internet Tax Freedom...
.. and in other oxymoron news..

Email

[Luigi30]

So that means that they can charge 5c for an incoming email if they wanted to? They BETTER outlaw spam... or people will have bills going like $20 more!

Re:Email

[KD5YPT]

I thinkn they would charge the sender, instead of the receiver. It would be like most mail. Sender pays. It might actually reduce spam.

Re:Email

[t0ny]

So that means that they can charge 5c for an incoming email if they wanted to? They BETTER outlaw spam... or people will have bills going like $20 more!

By the warped logic of lawmakers, they are more likely to outlaw spam if they tax it than if they dont. The reasoning being that, when you have a service under the government 'protection' of being taxed, they then have in incentive to keep their 'taxpayers' happy. Thus, once they tax each email, they are more likely to legislate spam.

By another twist of logic, if people are looking for VoIP, movie/music services, etc, to be free from taxation, then it means eventaully ISP services WILL be taxed. Why? Because the above services are already being taxed in their non-internet forms (phone, cable, radio, etc), making it HIGHLY unlikely that the government will exempt the service from taxation just because they have changed transmission medium.

Face it, the internet will be taxed. The government needs to have its hands in every pot.

Re:Email

[AKnightCowboy]

So that means that they can charge 5c for an incoming email if they wanted to?

Look, I used to say it all the time to our customers when I used to work tech support in 1996: "Don't be silly, there's no such thing as an e-mail virus. It's just text and you'd have to have some kind of broken client that attempted to execute the text. It's just another hoax like the modem tax."

I blame Microsoft for Internet taxation when (not if) we get it. ;-)

Re:Email

[leerpm]

And utterly destroy email in the process. Just think of all of the additional infrastructure that would have to be put in place to manage a micropayment system for email. Instant messaging ( or a derivative of it ) will completely take over in this case. Instead of having one big open email system based on SMTP where everyone and anyone is allowed to send email, it will decline into a bunch of closed systems.

Re:Email

[anaphora]

There would be ways around this. I would code and start using IP-to-IP pagers so that it doesn't go through a major entity except as a single packet.

Re:Email

[uberdave]

How would it reduce spam? If they taxed email, SpamCo would just host their server outside of the country (like they probably do already). Besides, how are you going to implement this? Put a government router on every internet pipe? Require the use of a government approved email package?

Bad Name to Blame

[Motherfucking Shit]

If they'd just called it the Preserve Access to Telecommunications and Required Infrastructure for Online Transactions (PATRIOT) act, it would have swept through both houses of Congress with little opposition. Haven't our legislators learned anything?!

Re:Bad Name to Blame

[tds67]

If they'd just called it the Preserve Access to Telecommunications and Required Infrastructure for Online Transactions (PATRIOT) act, it would have swept through both houses of Congress with little opposition. Haven't our legislators learned anything?!

My choice would have been Freedom to Access Required Telecommunications Infrastructure for the Next Generation (FARTING). I'm pretty sure it would have passed and swept through both houses of Congress with little opposition.

Re:Bad Name to Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that was just really stupid, dude.

Re:Bad Name to Blame

[Rotten168]

This was the most brilliant comment I've ever read on Slashdot, WHY WAS IT NOT MODDED UP!?!?!

Packetized Regulation

[dmusicstud]

The government is running scared, with the popularity of VoIP. With traditional switched phone systems, the government has all sorts of regulation (read: revenue). With VoIP; however, the regulation has gone away, simply because it is difficult, if not impossible to distinguish voice packets from data packets. Thus, the telcos see an easy route to fall under the radar of regulation.

Be careful what you wish for - regulation has its ups and downs, but I'm pretty sure I don't opt for NO regulation.

I realize regulation and taxation are two different entities, but the government doesn't often regulate that which it doesn't also tax.

So, should this pass? Who I am to say?

Re:Packetized Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL -- difficult? Pass a law: "voice communication services are regulated and are taxed at X rate" -- wow, holy difficult.

You give the masses too much credit. The twin powers of government and industry will do as they will.

Re:Packetized Regulation

[Kierthos]

They are? Wouldn't that require the government to actually be informed on the matter? The same government that most /.ers are convinced knows something between jack and shit about what the real effects of the DMCA are?

Come on... this is why there are congressional aides... "Sir, your re-election campaign received a sack of unmarked bills, some drugs and a couple hookers so you'd vote against this. And remember, tomorrow's vote is in favour of the corp that gave you that other sack of cash, so you need to vote yes on that one."

Kierthos
(Go ahead, mod me -1 Pessimistic)

Re:Packetized Regulation

[LostCluster]

That law isn't that simple. The law would need to define what is a voice communication service, and of course everybody would want to be an untaxed data communication service...

Re:Packetized Regulation

[kfg]

. . . but the government doesn't often regulate that which it doesn't also tax.

Sounds like one of the best reasons to resist regulation that I've ever heard, actually.

Especially in a field where the barriers to entry are so low.

Regulate the backbone to maintain that low barrier and you don't really need much else.

KFG

Re:Packetized Regulation

[calidoscope]

Be careful what you wish for - regulation has its ups and downs, but I'm pretty sure I don't opt for NO regulation.

Hmmm, I'm in agreement with you on that.

No regulation on VoIP - for starters the "Do Not Call List" wouldn't apply to VoIP customers. No recourse for obscene or harassing phone calls. No recourse for billing problems.

I think the VoIP companies are ripping off the public if they get 911 service without paying the 911 taxes.

Re:Packetized Regulation

[ghjm]

Most of them don't have 911 service at all. Vonage has pseudo-911 service, like a cell phone. This is the major reason why I haven't switched my home phone to VOIP yet. Hopefully in a few years time, we'll have appropriate 911 service for VOIP carriers, but it won't happen without government involvement. I actually support reasonably "lightweight" regulation of ISPs - if my phone line goes dead and the carrier refuses to fix the problem, I have recourse to the PUC; if the same thing happens with my Road Runner service, it's really just tough. I don't see why Internet is any less "critical infrastructure" than voice, and it should be regulated as such.

-Grahan

-Graham

Re:Packetized Regulation

[evil_mojo_jojo]

While reading this, a weird idea struck me...

What if end users could have a choice between a regulated and unregulated service, like, ostensibly, they have now with VoIP?

If I want the government to guarantee that I can get service, that 911 calls will make it to a dispatch center (where they will be promptly ignored), and that some form of lowest common denominator of service is available in rural Nebraska, then I'll subscribe to regulated service.

If I'm willing to play fast-and-loose and my phone's won't work if there's an earthquake, 911 may or may not work (market forces would eventually make it work, cf. Vonage), my voice quality may sound as bad as a cell-phone, and my phone will be about as reliable as my connection to Yahoo! or Google, then I'll eschew the regulated services.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? Yes, the unregulated services will eat the regulated services for lunch, for a while, but eventually a new ballance will be struck.

why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[POds]

I know its unpopular, but shouldnt internet shoping and what not be taxed? After all, they are still goods and services.

We've still gota pay tax to keep kids in school, our roads being repaired etc.

I think internet goods and services should be taxed, just like any other bloody good or service.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Slack3r78]

They are, so long as the buyer and seller are in the same state, which is how I personally feel it should stay. In all honesty, I'd have to wonder whether the collection of local sales taxes from companies with no physical presence in a state would be able to stand on constitutional grounds - it sounds dangerously similar to state/local governments 'interfering with interstate trade' if you ask me.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[gl4ss]

beats me totally too..

could someone clarify if normal order-by-post or order-by-phone shopping has the same rules as net shopping? and if not, why on earth not and are your legislators retarded?

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[the_2nd_coming]

this is about taxing internet access, not internet bought goods.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Motherfucking Shit]

I know its unpopular, but shouldnt internet shoping and what not be taxed?

It already is, just the same as mail-order shopping (I'm posting from a US perspective, by your use of "bloody" I can't tell whether you are or not ;)

In the US, if you order something from a company which has a physical presence in your own state, you must pay state sales tax. This is true whether the purchase is made in a brick-and-mortar store, online, or via mail order catalog.

If you order something from a company which does not have a physical presence in your state, you are not required to pay sales tax to either your own home state or to the state of the purchase. In many states, you're supposed to pay a "use tax" or something similar in your home state. In practice, hardly anyone does this except in the case of significant purchases. Very, very few people even know that the "use tax" (or whatever it's called in your state) exists to begin with.

In any case, that isn't what this bill is about. It's about taxes on internet service, not internet shopping.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[KD5YPT]

I think the tax on internet will only apply to federal level. Any sale's tax will also be collected by the federal government if it involves interstate trade.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[thales]

Questions:
What services will a government a thousand miles away offer my business in return for the taxes they are attempting to collect? Will California send Road repair crews out of state to fix the roads near my business? Will New York send funds out of state to pay for Teachers in the school district where my business is located?

If the taxpayers that actually who actually live in areas that need funds for roads and schools don't care enough to pay for them, then why should I care if they have substandard schools and pothole filled roads?

If a group of people think so little of me that they are willing to tax me without providing any benifit to me in return, why should I care what they have to do without?

The desire to tax the internet is being driven by deadbeats who don't want to pay for local services they are unwilling to do without, and by sleezy politicans who are pandering to those deadbeats.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[ducomputergeek]

The internet is no different that catalog or mail order shipping. People label the internet "New and must be taxed differently" when really, its just an innovation by placing a catalog online instead of printing them.

Under mail order tax collection, the rules are: If you do not have offices in other states, you only have to charge customers in the state you operate sales tax. Transactions going to other states are tax free.

Let's say I sell books and I live in Missouri and I mail a copy to someone in St. Louis, I have to collect state sales tax on that transaction. Let's say I mail a copy to someone else in little rock arkansas, no sales tax because I don't operate out of AR.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[AKnightCowboy]

In all honesty, I'd have to wonder whether the collection of local sales taxes from companies with no physical presence in a state would be able to stand on constitutional grounds - it sounds dangerously similar to state/local governments 'interfering with interstate trade' if you ask me.

My state, Ohio, gets around it by calling it a "Use Tax". For example, if I buy something in one county that has a 5% sales tax and I live in a county that has 8% sales tax, I must pay a 3% Use tax to the state to make up the difference. If I buy something from California I must pay the full 8% Use tax since I'm using it in my county in Ohio.

Don't ask me, it doesn't make any sense to me either. It's just damn lucky I've never ever ever bought anything online from out of state or in another county so I haven't had to declare any Use tax on my tax return. :-P

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Knife_Edge]

If the taxpayers that actually who actually live in areas that need funds for roads and schools don't care enough to pay for them, then why should I care if they have substandard schools and pothole filled roads?

Here in Ohio at least, the school funding situation is more complicated than that. You see, schools are paid for by a property tax. The obvious problem is that regions of the state where property is worth more can raise more tax revenues this way, while still having a lower tax! Meanwhile poorer areas generally have much higher property taxes to pay for schools, while at the same time raising less revenue. Can you reasonably say that people in the poorer areas do not care about schools enough to pay for them? They are paying a much higher rate, but it is still not enough for them to be able to afford good schools.

There has been a huge debate about this in Ohio, reaching the State Supreme Court (which did decide the situation is unfair, but the legislature refuses to fix it, but that's another story). People from the wealthier areas make the exact same argument you do, for the exact same selfish reasons. Basically what you advocate is inferior government services to the poor. If they can't pay, why should you care?

Sorry, but I disagree with your position that all taxes you pay should either indirectly benefit everybody or directly benefit you. Some of what you pay is going to have to be for the good of other people. Whether or not you are altruistic or not, I don't care, because I believe there are people who have less than they deserve and that society is obligated to help them out. Especially where things like education are concerned, because that is the best way of allowing them to help themselves if they want to.

You may find this difficult to comprehend, but if done correctly, a little wealth redistribution goes a long way towards benefitting everybody, anyway.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[eberry]

We've still gota pay tax to keep kids in school, our roads being repaired etc.

Property taxes keep kids in school. I am currently paying for someone elses kids to go to school. Taxes on gas are where the money comes from to maintain the highways.

In Ohio they are making it so you have to pay the taxes of where a business ships a product to, not where it was purchased. To get around the "tax ban". Which of course is a big headache for businesses which ship to all over Ohio. Where they have to figure out not just one tax, but the tax for the 1 of 88 counties they are shipping it to. Which is going to increase the cost of products.

Read my lips: Taxes = high prices = less spending (consumer and business) = lost jobs = poverty.

All so government officials can reward their "friends" who bought their way into office with large government contracts and subsidies.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[GMontag]

If we are talking sales tax only then you are correct. If we are talking all taxes you are not.

If they are operatig a business in a state that has a corporate income tax and they generate revenue (not necessarily profit), it is taxed. The owners icome from the business is taxed. The employees salaries are taxed. Right now there is just one less layer, the transaction layer, free from taxes.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Bull999999]

Aren't public schools funded by property tax?

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[John Courtland]

Illinois has the same crap, and they've actually made examples of some people importing goods from various states/countries and not declaring them. Use tax my nut, most people don't even know about it, and those who do (read: me) don't bother to tell them. They won't see a plug nickel ever.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[nyseal]

What if I live in Las Vegas and I buy goods or services in Nevada? Why should I be charged an internet tax? Schools, roads, services and whatnot are all paid for with income and property taxes; why should we pay MORE on the back of a new tax because our local governments can't spend wisely? It's ludicrous. What's next, a "breath air tax"? I was under the assumption (I know, don't ass-u-me) that the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against such taxes and that it worked on the premise of anti-excessive tax verbage in our constitution. I guess not. Our elected leaders (who work for US by the way) can vote themselves a pay increase; turn around and demand more of our hard earned dollars in the guise of an unwanted or unneeded tax. Shit. The more I write about this the more I want to leave this country. Can Canada be just as bad? I'll have to check into that.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[nyseal]

Wow....+100 mod points. I love this debate!

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[leek]

The Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) case is the decision most often cited when arguing that mail-order and internet companies without a "substantial nexus" in the buyer's state should not be required to collect the buyer's state's sales/use taxes.

Quill essentially affirms Bellas Hess.

There's a four-prong "Complete Auto" test which has been used as a criterion for the validity of state taxes on interstate commerce:

1. The tax must be applied to an activity with a "substantial nexus" with the taxing state
2. The tax must provide fair apportionment between the states
3. The tax must not discriminate against interstate commerce
4. The tax must be fairly related to services provided by the taxing state

Relevant quotes from the cases:

State taxation falling on interstate commerce ... can only be justified as designed to make such commerce bear a fair share of the cost of the local government whose protection it enjoys.

... The Court has never held that a State may impose the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or the United States mail.

... If Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes.

The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control.

Other references:

Annette Nellen's Home Page, especially Timeline Review of Activities Related to Discussions on Internet Taxation

Sales and Use Taxation of Internet Transactions

In other news, Barnes & Noble Inc. has offered to buy back the shares of BN.com -- could this eventually mean BN.com will have to collect sales taxes on internet sales to all states which have Barnes & Noble retail stores?

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[dmarx]

They are taxed just like mail order/telephone goods and services: if the buyer and seller are in the state (or even if the seller has a "nexus" (warehouse, etc) in the state), they are taxed, if not, no tax. Why should Internet shopping be treated differently than mail order or phone shopping?

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, in my state, we don't have sales taxes. So this is all moot.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you order something from a company which does not have a physical presence in your state, you are not required to pay sales tax to either your own home state or to the state of the purchase.

In most cases, you are required to pay any local sales tax(es). However, if the vendor doesn't have a presence in the taxing locality, they aren't required to collect it; the responsibility is on the purchaser.

Needless to say, this is a sure-fire recipe for tax evasion. Which is why the states are looking for ways to make it the suppliers responsibility.

IIRC, the last relevant ruling said that, if a sufficient number of states can agree a common code, they would be allowed to require any business having a presence in any of the participating states to collect sales taxes for all sales to any participating state.

The current prohibition is based upon the impracticality of requiring mail-order (or internet) vendors to comply with up to fifty state tax codes plus hundreds or even thousands of municipal tax codes.

If the states can solve that issue, they will be allowed to tax inter-state sales.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Anonymous Coward]

What services will a government a thousand miles away offer my business in return for the taxes they are attempting to collect?

Sales taxes are taxes levied upon the purchaser. The fact that the seller is required to collect them is due to pragmatism: it's a lot easier to impose rules upon a business than on the individual customers.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[IM6100]

Whether or not you are altruistic or not, I don't care, because I believe there are people who have less than they deserve and that society is obligated to help them out.

You really should have trimmed your comment down to just the above, so people wouldn't have to waste so much time reading all of it.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[thales]

Can't pay, or are unwilling to pay? I have been poor in my lifetime, so I know what I'm talking about. Take a drive through a poor neighborhood sometime. Note the number of stores selling alchol. Note the number of Rental shops with steeros and large screen TVs for rent.

The problem isn't a total lack of money in poor neighborhoods, it's fucked up priorities over what to do with limited funds. Robbing me to provide services for these people won't cure that basic problem.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[volpe]

In the US, if you order something from a company which has a physical presence in your own state, you must pay state sales tax. This is true whether the purchase is made in a brick-and-mortar store, online, or via mail order catalog.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying, but I don't think this is correct. If I walk into a brick and mortar store and buy something, I have to pay sales tax to the state in which the store is located, even if I don't live there. Or do I? Is there a little-known loophole that allows me to tell the clerk to hold the salees tax because I don't live here, and here's my Driver's License to prove it?

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[1ucius]

The recipient is supposed to report/pay the sales tax, though few people "remember" to do this. I think most states with sales taxes will enforce the rule w.r.t. automobiles purchased in non-sales-tax states.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[ducomputergeek]

They will on large ticket items, but $12.95 book or the like, isn't worth their time. Altough once upon a time (circa 1998) Dell wouldn't charge sales tax, however a couple weeks after the sale you'd get a note from the Missouri dept. of revenue for the sales tax. Had this happen to several neighbors, although I don't know if they still do this. I doubt it.

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Reziac]

Wandering into the same OT morass as you did [g] -- I call that the "poor mentality", and it is THE primary factor that keeps poor people poor. Get a buck, spend a buck-ten, half of it on the lottery and Big Macs, and the other half on renting something they can't afford AND DON'T NEED, and pay half of that on credit to boot. (We won't get into how keeping poor people poor is in the best re-election interests of politicians who are the biggest advocates of "tax dollars for the poor". Yet everyone wonders why raising taxes on the rich does nothing to truly help the poor.)

As distinguised from people who have no money, but have good priorities on how to spend what they do have. When I was growing up we had less money than anyone else we knew, but our quality of life was just as good as the average, because we budgeted to match reality. We had no money, but we were NOT "poor". Right now, I know plenty of people my age who make more than I do, and whose base expenses are *lower* than mine, yet I've got a 6 figure net worth (even after figuring in mortgage debt) and they've got $300 in the bank. Why? Because they have a "poor mentality" -- fast food and lotto tickets and always looking for The Next Big Thing.

"My father wasn't a poor man. He was a rich man with no money." -- Dom DeLuis

Re:why a difference between net and non-net goods?

[Knife_Edge]

I often feel the same way about comments that are so long that they end up having a 'read more' link on them. Often such posts end with an absurd conclusion, though what was presented initially seemed reasonable (almost as if the first half of the comment was 'bait'). Usually the rants are pretty easy to spot, and it's easy to avoid reading them. If not the tone the extended length usually gives them away.

In this case, not so rantish, or quite as long, but yes, there is an opinion that you may not agree with at the root of it. Essentially, I believe that we as a society should at least try to create equal opportunities for people, and that this inevitably will entail some redistribution of wealth. I'm not advocating the sort of handouts or aggressive taxation you probably oppose and appear to mock me for supporting. Naturally there are reasons why simply socking it the relatively well off in order to help the less well off creates social problems, among them people dependent on handouts, and capable people discouraged from being productive since so much of their income is confiscated.

I do wish the school funding was fairer in Ohio, and my desire for equal educational opportunity is the reason. Nearly everything is better handled by the private sector, but there are some things that can't be provided by any other entity than the government, and I think this kind of social justice is one of those things. How much effort the government needs to put into providing this depends of course on where you think the whim of fortune ends and personal responsibility begins.

Like this post? It's pretty long, too.

Re:Help for G5?

[Anonymous Coward]

does anyone know where I can get a G5 processor that can run at 33Mhz and can run on my 800Mb hard drive with 10Mb of ram?

Well, you could start here, at Microsoft's loading dock... I hear they're trying to do some retrofitting.

you mean (corepirate) nazi execrable?

[Anonymous Coward]

the pateNTdead eyecon0meter also has an admission of error feature not available from the payper liesense felons.

it is also self-correcting. something we know the felons are incapable of.

Article(1)of subsection post(a) of Slashdot thread

[segment]

(1) Subsections (a)(b)(e) and clasues (d)(c)(f) and (fee)(fie)(foe)(fum) state that, while (2)(a)(c) and (3)(1)(a)(b(c))(d)(e) must make (1) true.

Now you can clearly see why this post make sense. And if you can't then you obviously didn't see the modus operandi behind sections (1)(e)(v)(2)(a(b(c(e(2))))).

Silly rabitt

Good Point

[BooRadley]

If they just ban taxation on VoIP, which is the next logical large-scale change in telephony, then that leaves an opening for a feeding frenzy that could possibly topple the Baby Bells and provide a path for decentralized, community-serving telecommunications. Good thing our elected representative leaders caught this in time to protect us from the possibility of getting rid of the Bells.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the American government will never allow unfettered access to free communication, First Ammendment rhetoric or no.

taxation without representation

[Anonymous Coward]

bogus squanderious gangsterious ?pr? ?firm? FUDgePacking(tm) hypenosys(tm) (aka fiscal reprehensibility) buy phonIE stock markup felons, & their capitollist hill cronIEs, is not in the creators' newclear plan for the use of yOUR unlimited resources.

But of course!

[illuminata]

Well, these are taxes that we are talking about here. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to taxes is that the Democrats are a bit more public about liking to tax people. They use those funds to support "public services". Yet, both parties use taxes to fund many secret projects that cost Americans countless amounts of money, but most of those you don't hear about on the news. Anyways, that's besides the point. The fact that a bill like this came from the two party system is a shock enough to me.

Sure, the Act probably was just created to make it look like the folks on Capitol Hill were staying busy. Hell, I've watched SPAN at random and I saw an extremely long debate about how Roberto Clemente should be honored when they should be working. But, doesn't it just piss you off how, even if this was a broad-based ban (and I don't mean broad = woman), that they would still fight over it? Good God, they just won't leave anything alone. It wouldn't fucking kill them to keep taxes away from the internet, period!

This just goes to show you that Congress has a raging boner to tax you, and it's not one that is going to go down anytime soon.

Re:But of course!

[nomadic]

This just goes to show you that Congress has a raging boner to tax you, and it's not one that is going to go down anytime soon.

I've seen this sort of view constantly on slashdot, and I don't understand it. Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before. Personally I think it's an idiotic thing to do, the US tax burden isn't that high, but that's what congress has been doing. Why do you think otherwise, in the face of actual proof? Do you people not read the papers or something?

Re:But of course!

[bj8rn]

Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before.

They are cutting back taxes, but have abolished any of the existing taxes? I don't know the answer, so this isn't a rhetorical question. I suppose they haven't -- they don't want to lose the grip over what goes on. So, you pay less taxes off something, but the state still knows how much of that something you (and others) have.

Re:But of course!

[fenix down]

They abolished inheritence taxes and a number of specific stock-related taxes. Got chunks of the IRS scrambling for a transfer before the backlog of paperwork dries up and they all get laid off. I know an inheritence tax lawyer there. She's pretty well fucked.

I don't think any of the actual abolishments would affect anybody here, since you had to die with 675k in cash before you paid anything on inheritence, and most of the stock stuff was still pretty negligable even on ludicrous transactions, but they're still abolished.

Short Sighted decison?

[tarzan353]

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?

Re:Short Sighted decison?

[BooRadley]

Either this is a well-crafted troll, you are shilling for something here, or you are just plain stupidly idealistic and shortsighted.

"Let's make sure that our access to information is metered and doled out in equal portions, so that everyone gets an equal piece of the pie. Also, let's put the government in charge of our access to information, including news, commerce, communications, and education, and trust them to make sure that we get access to what we need and have a constitutional right to view."

Where do I sign up?

Re:Short Sighted decison?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the blue blazes does the US constitution say that income is to be redistributed by congress from the wealthy to the poor?

The only ones that make out in these income redistribution schemes are the buddies of the redistributors.

Haven't you read your history or was that replaced in your school by courses on self as the universe?

Re:Short Sighted decison?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

Personally I give a lot of money to charity. It's one thing when I choose to reach in my pocket and give money to help others. It's quite another when someone (I.E. the government) puts it's hand in my pocket and confiscates my money to go to others. We should encourage the fomer and run from the later. I would hope that all those who are encouraging higher taxes for the public good are already hefty givers when it comes to their personal income. This tax is a very bad idea.

Re:Short Sighted decison?

[bj8rn]

I don't know where exactly do you live, but around here, you generally pay more for a faster connection than you do for a slow one. I bet it's the same in the US, so I don't see any need for an extra tax.

"Freedom from taxation"?

[heironymouscoward]

Like it or not, taxation is the basis for a stable society. No tax, no government. No government, no authority. No authority, breakdown of civil society.

Although citizens naturally prefer low-tax regimes, sometimes it's just silly: look at California's budget to see what "low tax at any price" does.

The internet is so significant, and carries so much trade, that taxation is inevitable and so long as it's sensible and not punitive, why not?

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Rhinobird]

No tax, no government. No government, no authority. No authority, breakdown of civil society

I call bullshit. I say that it goes the other way. People behave civily so they create an authority, which turns into government, which then beats people up for taxes. If there were no government, people would still behave in a civil manner.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[ZoneGray]

Yeah, right, California - low taxes. Good grief.

My first impression when I moved there was that I missed the low taxes in Massachusetts. Something I NEVER thought I'd say.

California spends like a drunken sailor. They believe, like you, that "taxation is the basis for a stable society."

As a result, the California government is broke, the private economy is a shambles.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorta like Iraq right?

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[heironymouscoward]

Sadly, the evidence points the other way. In every geographic area where government breaks down, violence rises. The opposite also happens: when government becomes more structured, vendettas become less frequent.

People are often naturally civil, yes, but the logic of competition leads to nasty behaviour. The hand of a superior power that punishes all wrongdoers according to predefined rules is one of the main reasons modern societies are generally much more peaceful than traditional societies.

But this is a highly controversial subject, many people prefer the myth of the 'noble savage', despite all the evidence.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[ducomputergeek]

Although citizens naturally prefer low-tax regimes, sometimes it's just silly: look at California's budget to see what "low tax at any price" does

California, and low tax? Isn't that an oxymoron. I mean they have the second highest state income Max bracket in the nation of 9.3% if you make more than $38,000 per year (ie middle class in most other places). SourceTaxadmin.org

Calforina is in the top 10 of highest state corperate income taxes, and the highest bank income tax in the country at a whopping 10.84%

Calafornia has the highest state sales tax rate of 7.25% And that doesn't include California's car taxes, properity taxes, and don't forget local sales taxes etc. Also don't forget Federal Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes you have to pay too, or get deducted from your pay check.

California's budget problems arose from Davis' favors to his campaign donors, the number of social programs, the number of illegal immigrants that tap those social programs, and the general hostility to business on the left coast. Also the downturn in the ecnomy and the fact the dot com bubble was built and bursted.

I mean what do you want, to pay 70% of your income to the state? And California's policies are low tax?

Next time know what the hell your talking about. Not all figures from: http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Free_Meson]

The internet is so significant, and carries so much trade, that taxation is inevitable and so long as it's sensible and not punitive, why not?

Parent is pretty much 100% bullshit, but this part is particularly bad. Say you want to buy a doodad from Joebob's Olde-Tyme Doodad Shoppe in Biloxy, MS. Tax has already been paid on all the doodad parts and on shipping and importing all the doodad parts. You already paid tax on your telecom service, as did Joebob's, and you're paying taxes and tolls to ship the doodads from Biloxy to wherever you are. You've also paid for Joebob's property taxes and any other taxes in Biloxy for doing business or employing doodad-makers. Before any sales tax has been applied, you've already been pretty heavily taxed, so this whole "the poor government, they don't have any way to make any money anymore" idea is pretty much a canard.

Sales tax is the fee the government collects for making an environment conducive to retail trade. It's the tax they use to help make well-groomed minimum wage employees, accessible surface streets, and nearby attractions meant to increase retail activity. If I'm not using those resources then I shouldn't be taxed for using them, and as I'm already paying taxes for having wires hook my house up to the internet and for every other part of the transaction, I shouldn't be taxed for anything else, either. There's no justification for a tax that doesn't arise from an additional service provided by the government.

The government is not a business -- its job is not to make a profit, but to economically facilitate the making of profit by private enterprises. If the government is taxing for services it's not providing then it's not doing its job.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[RenQuanta]

Wow. You really don't know a damned thing about the human condition, do you?

Show me one place in history - just one - where this theory of government being the end result, not the driver of, civil society is proven. It is people's nature to not behave civilly. That's why we have such a large book of criminal law in modern civilization! How many trials about murder, theft, rape, and so forth have there been? If human-kind's nature was civillity, would we need criminal law? (If you doubt the true state of human nature, try raising a toddler! You'll get some impressive insights...)

If there is no government, there is a power vacuum. As the trite saying goes "nature abhors a vacuum". While trite, it is a trueism, especially with human affairs. Where there is chaos/anarchy, a strong despotic dictatorship will quickly arise. Just look at the whole of Africa. Look at various spots in European history (France in the early 1800s, Germany in the early part of the last century, the Balkans post Cold War).

The question isn't whether or not we need government in society. One cannot have a society without government. The question is what kind of government will we have? Allow me now to invoke Winston Churchill, "Democracy is a terrible form of government - but it is better than all the rest".

It's taken Western Civilization over 2,000 years to get to where we are - a large community of peaceful and stable Democracies and Republics. Government is a necessity of society. The uneducated, uninformed opinion that a government is a by-product of society, rather than the skeleton of it, is an insult to our Founding Fathers, and all of the other good people who worked hard to answer the very difficult question "How can a governement be fair and good to its people"

People crave power over others and will take advantage of others to benefit themselves whenever they can. Look at Big Corporate, if you doubt me. The Founding Fathers did an astounding thing when they wrote the Constitution - they pitted ambition against ambition, so that the worst part of human nature would be transformed into the driver for a stable, beneficial government for and of the people.

Of course, as the individual you replied to stated - government needs tax dollars in order to sustain itself. The bureaucrats need to get paid, facilities for them need to be built, the courts need to have people running them and facilities themselves, etc, etc. The machinery of government requires cash to run. It's just the nature of the beast.

Is our government imperfect? Of course! Is it fair? Not regularly. It is a far cry better than anything that came before, though. Go ahead, try and prove me otherwise. Find a spot in history that was better - and lasted!

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Rotten168]

What many republicans and other tax-phobic (heh I'm one of them) types don't realize is that states will just make up for the lost revenue by raising their income tax, and making it more progressive (they won't get away with raising taxes on the middle class so they'll raise them on the rich). An internet sales tax would make the tax structure more fair.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Insightful? Holy Shit Batman! "low tax at any price"? yes, please do look at California's budget. You'll see that it's increased some 40 billion over the last 5-6 years. Their sales tax is one of the highest in the country. They license (a require a fee for) getting up in the morning. Their losing tax revenue because anyone with a brain is moving the fuck out of that state. Do yourself a favor and head over to the library, you'll want to browse the "C" book section.

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[gmhowell]

Joebob needs to examine his business model. He shouldn't be paying sales tax on the parts to build his doodads. He should be able to provide a tax ID number to his suppliers and get that waived (which doesn't eliminate the property tax, phone tax, etc, etc, etc.)

Re:"Freedom from taxation"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... having recently lived in both San Diego and the Chicagoland area, I would say that it is more expensive in Chicagoland to live.

Sales taxes in Chicago area were over 8%. Sales tax in Chicago city limits are over 10%.

CA sales taxes did not seem to be so high.

Property tax on $190,000 house in CA was 3% of $63,000, so ~$1800. Property tax on house in Hainesville, IL (near Grayslake, in Lake Co), assessed value $190,000, valuation ~63,000: $5800.

Car registration was higher in CA, but for the most part, one does not have to take the new toll roads. One cannot get around Chicago w/o going on toll roads.

San Diego had some insane prices as well. >$4.00 for gallon of milk.

Both states also have state income tax, and Chicago residents pay a Chicago income tax as well.

Overall, it seemed that the cost of living in Chicago area was a bit higher than San Diego, at least for me. But then again, in Chicago, one does not have only one restaurant to get Vienna Beef hot dogs at...

Weird.

[bj8rn]

You dont even have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

How come that rocket scientists are always supposed to know the right answer to everything? Yes, I know, it's just a figure of speech, but why rocket scientists? Why not mathematicians or phycisists? Has it something to do with religion? Ideas, anyone?

Re:Weird.

[BooRadley]

People tend to use this phrase as a preamble to spouting off inane gibberish in a completely unscintific manner.

This article has a prety good explanation.

Re:Weird.

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, I know, it's just a figure of speech, but why rocket scientists? Why not mathematicians or phycisists? Has it something to do with religion? Ideas, anyone?

Nothing so complicated. Decades ago, after Russia launched Sputnik, and after our own very public (and successful) efforts in advanced rocketry, being termed a "rocket scientist" was a mark of respect granted by the lay public. Rocket science was a visible symbol of America's technological prowess and world leadership, and those responsible for our successes along that line were considered the cream of the crop. Whether they were mathematicians, physicists, mechanical engineers ... it didn't matter. If you worked on a rocket program you were a rocket scientist and you got a lot of points for that.

Re:Weird.

[KD5YPT]

Because rocket scientists includes both mathematicians ans physicists. It's actually a term that came from the space race between the US and the Soviet. Since at that time, rocket scientists are the one working on cutting edge tech, they are perceived as really, really smart.

Re:Weird.

[bj8rn]

Heh. It still sounds kinda religious -- if they know how to get up there, they surely shouldn't have any problems with something as earthly as solving tax disputes, right?

Re:Weird.

[ScrewMaster]

Nah ... it's just an expression of admiration by non-technical people for those that built the space program. That was back when scientists, and science in general, was held in greater respect by the American public.

Besides, there aren't many (ahem!) "rocket scientists" left in Congress anyway.

Re:Weird.

[linzeal]

I don't know. Nasa is not exactly known for its accounting skills, but than neither is the senate. I don't trust either one of them.

Re:Weird.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never in my whole life have I ever even considered the possibility that there is a religious connotation to the expression. Now that you mention it, I still don't see it.

Re:Weird.

[bj8rn]

If such is the case, the only explanation is, that I'm weird. Not that it's news or anything.

alright i feel silly

[segment]

all access technologies -- from phone lines to DSL to cable modems -- get equal freedom from taxation.'

After talking it over with my Cisco 800, it too agress that it needs its own equal freedom and shouldn't pay any taxes because after all (as it told me) it's "only a damn router for crying out loud".

GET perfidious.org/shadow|perl

Re:alright i feel silly

[Anonymous Coward]

What about bongo drums ??
Are those included?
And what if I upgrade to congas later?

California != "low tax at any price"!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

California has one on the highest tax burdens in the USA. Which is why corporations and middle- and upper-income are pretty much fleeing the state. You know, those things that drive the economy...

See this.

think about it

[SHEENmaster]

Without those taxes, poor Principal S. would make only $100,000/year instead of the $147,000/year he has become accustomed to.
Without those taxes, the high school football team might not be able to afford new lockers this year, instead waiting until next year.
Without those taxes, Echelon/Carnivore might have been made by Microsoft, and be less efficient in their violations of our right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Without those taxes, Iraq might not get the money Bush wants to give it, and every last one of us would have $300 left in our pockets not taken as taxes.

I'd love to see the government cut back to a mandatory 5% tax for the state and 5% tax for the nation on all income, with absolutely no taxes on anything else. Maybe then they'd stop trying to tax every last thing.

Re:think about it

[spiritraveller]

Without those taxes, poor Principal S. would make only $100,000/year instead of the $147,000/year he has become accustomed to.

Holy Shit!

I definitely should have majored in education!

Re:think about it

[smcavoy]

You can't major in education... you fail at everything, then settle for education.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Re:think about it

[agentk]

SHEENmaster wrote:

poor Principal S. would make only $100,000/year instead of the $147,000/year he has become accustomed to.

So... where does that $100,000 come from again? And it's a rare school principal that makes 100,000!

Here's an idea: shave off... maybe 1/10 of the "defense" budget and give it to schools. That should double or triple the income of most school systems at least....

Re:think about it

[Rotten168]

The federal government shouldn't be telling individual states what they can or cannot tax (with a few exceptions). Maybe people in that particular like the taxes because they pay for crucial services (unlikely as it may seem). People have the right to vote so they should fight each tax on the local level, where taxation is easier to defeat. Death and taxes blah blah blah. Also your logic is flawed, the 5% tax limit would assure that they tried to tax every last thing.

Re:think about it

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Here's an idea: shave off... maybe 1/10 of the "defense" budget and give it to schools. That should double or triple the income of most school systems at least....

That won't do anything except inflate the salaries of the higher-ups. the teachers will still get shafted.

Re:think about it

[Salgak1]

Here's an even BETTER idea. Use federal taxes for only the uses authorized in the Constitution.

Here's a hint: education isn't one of them, it's a local responsibility. And for that matter, breast cancer research doesn't belong in the Defense Budget either, but it's there. . .

Lastly, get rid of both tenure and teacher's unions: force teachers and schools to PERFORM if they want a higher paycheck and/or more funding. After all, that's the way it works for the rest of us. . .

Re:think about it

[nyseal]

WAHOOOOO......I wish I had mod privelage rightr now! +100!

Re:think about it

[mOdQuArK!]

Require that all that money be given directly to decreasing class sizes (in other words, training & hiring more teachers). This will help employment, put money back into the economy, _and_ help train all our kids for the future, all in one shot.

I know a lot of teachers who would be satisfied with their current salary & benefits if they didn't have so many kids in their classes that the teachers burnout in just a few years (which results in poor teacher performance). Just having fewer kids per class (I think the recommended level was 12-15?) would allow people who might otherwise be considered "bad" teachers show that they are actually decent teachers (when their resources aren't too taxed).

You don't know what stress caused by frustration is, unless you've tried to teach a class with 15 ADHD kids. Many parents think they know what's better for schools than the teachers because they've managed to raise a couple of kids - those parents would probably be thrown in jail for abuse if they had to deal with the same shit that a lot of teachers do (not just the sheer # of kids, also including all the paperwork that the government bureaucrats force them to do).

Re:think about it

[aardvarkjoe]

So... where does that $100,000 come from again? And it's a rare school principal that makes 100,000!

That's not true. An "experienced" principal at a high school will often make over $100,000 where I live, and I'm sure that in states with more education funding, the principal will make more. Thank the people who think that dumping an extra billion dollars into education will do anything but line the pockets of those who are in administration.

Re:think about it

[anethema]

Those who cant teach, teach gym.

why

[Anonymous Coward]

should the internet have special status anyway? someone care to explain?

Re:why

[Mrs. Grundy]

Although I can't explain it in detail, I can give you some problems that the folks in Washington haven't solved.

So you want to tax internet transactions and allow states to do the same? Which state gets the revenue, the state of the receiver or sender? It the transaction is routed through a node in Colorado, does Colorado get a cut? If you are taxing the sender and they operate in a high-tax state, what happens if they move their server to a low tax state?

Why isn't this an incentive to move MORE technology jobs overseas? After all if internet activity is being taxed in the US, put your servers in Burma and hire a Burmese staff to administer them....viola!

The problem is that nobody has figured out how to reconcile the provincial nature of local taxation with the nebulous, location-less, nature of the internet. The ban on internet taxes was an acknowledgment of this fact and an attempt to prevent state and local governments from screwing everything up by enacting a menagerie of little taxes. The problems are still unsolved.

Re:why

[Reziac]

Why isn't this an incentive to move MORE technology jobs overseas? After all if internet activity is being taxed in the US, put your servers in Burma and hire a Burmese staff to administer them....viola!

No, no, no. You play a violin at an entire industry's funeral, not a viola!! ;)

This call is for you - Earth calling!

[Anonymous Coward]

But I doubt you'll be able to hear it now or at any time in the future.

look at California's budget to see what "low tax at any price" does.

That would probably be funny if you didn't actually believe it.

Such taxation is unconstitutional

[BlueCoder]

First of all unless both paries are within the same state it should be clearly untaxable without the explicit concent of congress. It would be interstate commerce. Of course looking at the track record of the supreme court lately...

One thing I don't get the basis for the state of the customer collecting the tax money. Either congress was bought off sometime in the past or the supreme court messed up. It should be clearly the state the bussiness is in. Although if that were I case I think there might be at least some basis for taxation. Taxation from the customers state is clearly for the political/economic reason that bussiness would move to states with lower or no taxation as should be the case. Of course many of those states have higher income and property taxes to compensate so bussinesses would have to balence many factors.

The only compromise I can see is if federal goverernment imposed an interstate sales tax and redistributed said money amoung the states. It would be divied equally, by population, by where the purchasers reside or by taxation rates or a combination of many factors. That way it might not be as much money as the states would otherwide get it would but they would get something and bussinesses would have an easier job of bookkeeping and paying those taxes.

Re:Such taxation is unconstitutional

[Night Goat]

RTFA. It's not sales tax, it's Internet access tax. Two separate issues.

Re:Internet Access... VoiceXML & ENUM

[G4from128k]

With VoiceXML and ENUM every POTS device becomes an internet access device. Does this means that every mail order retailer that currently collects sales taxes (due to local point-of-presense sales tax laws) can stop collecting those taxes?

I suspect that the senate found it rather hard to create a clear demarcation between commerce based on "internet access" versus commerce based on traditional, taxed categories of custmer interactions.

They are too busy

[toupsie]

Unfortunately, the Senate is having a problem with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee trying to use classified intelligence as political weapons. If Senators had Americans as their priority instead of their seats and their party, we might have some sort of sensible legislation pass in Congress.

Re:They are too busy

[DAldredge]

I know it sucks! Next thing you know, the Dems in congress will have an entire carrier battle group doing circles off the coast so a DEM can land on it!

Now THAT would be using our militray for political purposes and would be almost as bad, wouldn't it?

Re:They are too busy

[toupsie]

And this has to do with what is going on in the Senate, how?

Re:They are too busy

[DAldredge]

As an aside, did you know that as of 36 hours ago, GWB hadn't even mentioned those 16 troops that were killed in that helicopter attack? But, he did find time to note the one firefighter who was killed fighting the fires in CA. Why? Because mentioned the death of those troops whould have made him look bad.

Both sides do what is best for themselves, before they do what is best for the American people.

It is just funny/sad to see people get so upset/so happy because the person doing it has the correct (R/D) by their name, but if the letter was reversed, it would be the WORST THING IN THE WORLD(tm).

Re:They are too busy

[zericm]

I can't believe that this off-topic bullshit got moded up. But what the hell; I've got the mod points to burn in responding.

If the Republicans had Americans as their priority, then US Soldiers wouldn't be dying in Iraq for the sake of Haliburton and Bechtel profits.

thx,
Eric

Re:They are too busy

[toupsie]

Have you checked the financial position of Haliburton in the last two quarters? If you did, you wouldn't be making such an asinine, politically predictable comment. If this was such a benefit to Haliburton, their stock would have skyrocketed. I never heard the complaints when Haliburton was working for the Clinton Administration in Kosovo. It is this sort politically short sighted comments that have doomed the Democrats -- a party I should be voting for because they match my social persuation but cannot stomach because of the empty, bumper sticker rhetoric that has been spewing forth in the last two years.

The "prisoner's dilemma" and gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

In an anarchy, the greediest get the best.

Unless he gets shot for pissing off too many others.

Was it Robert Heinlen who said "A well-armed society is a polite society"?

Low taxes in California

[heironymouscoward]

Yes, businesses pay more taxes in California: obviously the money that is lost from some of the lowest property and sales taxes in the US has to come from somewhere.

My point is that the Californian citizenry has voted itself low taxes on the obvious things - property, purchases, and ignored the consequences of this: higher taxes on the most unstable sources, namely commerce which can easily move to other places that are gentler.

So, outside of the US, no TAXES?

[NoNine]

How would that be measured. It sounds like a mess to me, and more like a gangsta's paradise (again).

A well-armed society...

[heironymouscoward]

Is just a mess.

Look at Albania, Africa,... an armed citizenry is an accident waiting to happen.

LOL, Heinlein had some interesting POVs but did not look closely around at his own planet.

Re:A well-armed society...

[gmhowell]

I won't dispute the overall point, but I will take issue with your exemplifying Albania and Africa. In both instances, gun ownership is a privilege of a small minority.

Re:A well-armed society...

[Salgak1]

You're so right, I look at the daily breakout of armed mobs storming malls, churches, and goverment buildings all over Switzerland, every day.

What, you mean people AREN'T doing this, with a government-mandated and ISSUED Assault-rifle and ammunition in nearly every home???

But that's the point: there's a big difference between an armed CITIZENRY and an armed mob. . .

Re:A well-armed society...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's why the lowest rates of violent crim in the US are in places with the highest percentage of private gun ownership...get a clue!

Congress needs a data dictionary

[DescData]

Would this bill read a lot better if things like commerce and minor were define in some official library of congress dictionary?

It seems like they are saying that for three years, no tax authority can impose additional tax on providing network access or commerce on networks. But there are so many words, I'm not sure.

One more thing, Since every legal seller and every legal buyer has an address, why shouldn't the half the value of the transaction be taxed as if the sale occurred at the sellers address and half at the buyers address?

Re:Congress needs a data dictionary

[Motherfucking Shit]

Since every legal seller and every legal buyer has an address, why shouldn't the half the value of the transaction be taxed as if the sale occurred at the sellers address and half at the buyers address?

Because sales tax rates fluxuate wildly from state to state. This raises several questions, not the least of which would be:

a) Which state would get the bigger benefit from their "half?"

b) Why should I pay e.g. 9.5% sales tax on half the transaction to a state I don't live in, but only 6.75% sales tax to the state where I do live?

c) What good is the 9.5% I'm paying to the other state doing me?

Et cetera ad nauseum.

Oh! I almost forgot. There's also that pesky Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which states (no pun intended) that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."

Re:Congress needs a data dictionary

[DescData]

I don't understand your points a,b, and c. Each state or sets it's own tax rate and gives out the benefits of government. Some of those benefits go to each party. When New Yorkers sell to New Yorkers, all the benefits and all the taxes go to New Yorkers. But when the parties only meet on a server, who gets the tax. I say both.

About Article I, Section 9. Are we really talking about an export duty or dividing up the taxable transaction that occurred 'on the border'?

some things just caN'T be fixed?

[Anonymous Coward]

recent pateNTdead eyecon0meter readings indicate that the chronic, advanced stage ?pr? ?firm? scriptdead rhetorrhea proffered buy the phonIE georgewellian fuddite corepirate nazi execrable, to declare false victory after each defeat by the 'hand' of an invisible 'enemIE', is causing damage to many of the creators' innocents.

for each of the creators' innocents harmed, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the aforementioned walking dead will not be available to make reparations, as the big flash is already occurring.

get ready to see the light.

agh,,, I have a much better idea

[Lord Bitman]

How about: pass the bill as it is now, then pass an ammendment later on.

"Storm's coming"
"Don't worry, I put up a steel barrier."
"Steel? I wanted Titanium!"
"Oh, okay, I'll tear down the steel one until we can get the titanium one built"

Re:why a difference ... complicated local tax code

[G4from128k]

Why a difference? Because some places (like Colorado) have insanely complicated sales tax codes. Where I live, the tax districts include: state, county, city, regional transportation district, cultural facilities district, a special downtown district, and probably some others. Each district's tax depends on the nature of the goods (food, clothing, electronics, services, etc. all have different tax rates in different jurisdictions). The difference is that a local retailer can (with difficulty) figure out their tax liability based on their own address. But what address do you use for an internet retailer when decide which local sales taxes to apply?

The only solution with internet sales taxes is to use the address of the recipient. And that means that each internet retailer must figure out which of all the overlapping tax districts EVERY customer is in and the calculate the tax on each item based on the type of item and the district's tax structure and then remit them to the appropriate agency.

Its not as easy as it looks.

unprecedented evile takes IT in the .asp AGAIN?

[Anonymous Coward]

mynuts won: you phreaking morons are vicious in yOUR assault on the greed/fear/ego based execrable?

do you have know/lost respect for yOUR fauxking eyecons?

do (you) not fear the last gasper refudlicking corepirate nazi bouNTy scamsters/softwar gangsters?

that newclear power must be some fairly potent stuff?

Taxta's Paradise

[Motherfucking Shit]

It sounds like a mess to me, and more like a gangsta's paradise

As I browse through the listings at Amazon,
I take a look at my life,
And realize malls are all wrong.
Cause I've been shopping online for so long,
That even my government thinks my money is gone.

But I ain't never paid a tax if they didn't deserve it,
May be treated like a felon but you know that's unheard of,
You better watch how you're buying
And where you're spending
Or you and your homies might be federal pen-ding

Been spending most our lives,
Doing all our shopping online,
Keep spending most our lives
Doing all our shopping online.

(With apologies to Coolio ;)

Re:Taxta's Paradise

[Anonymous Coward]

Apology accepted, mothafucka.

- Coolio

Internet Tax: Maybe it's a good idea

[SpaceRook]

[devil's advocate]
An internet tax could be a good idea. There are many technical areas the money could go to:

1) Improve the government's online services. For example, make it so we can perform more DMV actions on the web instead of waiting 5 hours in line.

2) Improve the technical capability of libraries. Get some better/quicker search engines for browsing the catalogues.

3) Fund grants to colleges doing useful research (anti-spam R&D, security, etc...)

4) Fund the anti-electronic fraud teams in the DOJ.
[/devil's advocate]

Re:Internet Tax: Maybe it's a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

If the democrats have proven anything, it's that you don't get better public services by taxing the shit out of everyone to pay for them.

Re:Internet Tax: Maybe it's a good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

!!! You'd have to be pretty naive to believe any of that would happen. Taxation always starts benign and then grows into a tumor--another fund with which they can say "oh, but if you cut taxes we lose another service. think of the children!!!!"

1. The government(s) already has online services, so obviously someone on the payroll has been working on them. So what do these people do for an encore next year? Nothing unless we tax the heck out of everyone now? The local police set up a website to fill out forms over, but it is irrelevant. They are still corrupt and inept at following up on anything. Taxing me more isn't going to change that.

2. How much better and quicker can it be? Even local libraries back home havd an old VT100 terminal based computer catalog whose speed was limited more by how fast I could type. And is using an old-skool card catalog really that hard???? 5 seconds faster search time isn't going to matter next to hours of reading time.

3. Colleges already get grants from elsewhere for research. Who defines what is "useful"? How much security research and funding does it take to realize patching a system -- or not using Outlook -- is the first line of defense?

4. You mean the DOJ's fraud teams aren't funded already?

More taxes aren't a solution to anything.

Re:Internet Tax: Maybe it's a good idea

[SpaceRook]

And is using an old-skool card catalog really that hard????

When you're trying to access the catalogue over the internet it is.

Could this be due to instrustry pressure--

[Epistax]

I mean, I am correct in assuming the ground telephone system is starting to die. It'll take a long time, but there just isn't as much use as a cable line, which can easily handle telephones and whatever else you throw at it. It parallels the situation of getting rid of the big polluters: it's worse for everyone, but they have friends to keep things how they are.

Re:Article(1)of subsection post(a) of Slashdot thr

[Anonymous Coward]

stop posting

The US Tax Burden is way high

[Anonymous Coward]

"the US tax burden isn't that high"

Yes, it is ridiculously high. So much of the money is outright wasted (look at the example of Congress voting itself a hefty pay raise), and so much is wasted on things the government does not need to be bothered with. Let's cut spending AND taxes by 80%. That would still leave government filthy rich.

Re:The US Tax Burden is way high

[illuminata]

I second this. We piss away money rather than give it back to the people. I think that it should be up to the people to decide how to spend money, not the government. Sure, support the basics required to run a country, but let people decide how their money is best spent.

Anyways, why are you asking me for proof when you're not showing any off yourself? I'd really like to know what your proof is. You act as if people should automatically take what you say as fact. If I'm wrong, prove it, don't just say it.

Re:The US Tax Burden is way high

[illuminata]

Just to note, that last paragraph wasn't towards you, Anonymous Coward, it was towards nomadic.

Conflicted.

[Rotten168]

As much as I believe in federalism, this is clearly a case of interstate commerce. Allowing states to tax e-commerce would be the equivalent of allowing states to impose tariffs on each other.

On the other hand, states will probably increase income taxes and probably make them more progressive, or they will drastically cut services. I also don't like the idea of the federal government telling states what to do.

I'm not sure which one I think is the best solution.

Freedom from Taxation (Funny?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of a story about Michael Faraday (19th British physicist, derived the eponymous laws of electromagnetism which put that field on a firm theoretical footing and which also raised some non-trivial questions that were instrumental for Einstein's work on Special Relativity). Apart from his research and teaching he was famous as what we'd now call a populariser of science: his public lectures attracted a wide audience from the polite society of the day. After one of these lectures, he was approached by a gentleman he recognised to be the government's Chancellor of the Exchequer (translation: the finance minister). What, this worthy wanted to know, was the practical use of this new-fangled "electricity"? "One day, Sir," Faraday replied with a straight face, "you will be able to tax it."

I don't see any good reason, given acceptance of taxation, in principle[1], why any particular goods or services should be able to claim exemption, in principle.

What are the appropriate rates for particular goods and services is another matter[2].

[1] Taxation: "demanding money with menaces, a criminal offense if done by anyone other than agovernment". Old joke, feels like either Mark Twain or Androse Bierce but I can't be bothered to look it up.

[2] There's a sardonic comment waiting to be made here about RIAA/ MPAA, but I'll resist the temptation.

Figures...

[Nonillion]

There went the last reason why I bought stuff online. What's next, taxing the air we breath? I guess it was just a matter of time. If there is a way to tax something you can be sure the government (terrorists of taxation) WILL make it happen no matter how muc we object to it.

"If shit was worth something, poor people would be born with no ass holes." Eddie Murphy

Re:Figures...

[Anonymous Coward]

There went the last reason why I bought stuff online.

Back to phoning in orders I suppose. The Intarweb is horrible and must be taxed, but let's just ignore the massive phone order market.

I'm just a Canadian, but...

[schon]

Didn't you guys start a revolution over this kind of shit?

What services will a government a thousand miles away offer my business in return for the taxes they are attempting to collect?

I thought that's "taxation without representation" - Isn't there something in your constitution that outlaws this?

Hidden Taxes

[Music To Eat]

I've seen this sort of view constantly on slashdot, and I don't understand it. Congress has spent the past few years cutting taxes. You pay less now than you did before. Personally I think it's an idiotic thing to do, the US tax burden isn't that high, but that's what congress has been doing. Why do you think otherwise, in the face of actual proof? Do you people not read the papers or something?

That's because you're just looking at the obvious taxes. The one's on your paycheck and the one's printed out on your receipts. There are many hidden taxes that are not as easy to see. The sin taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, and gambling. Taxes on gasoline. Taxes that are levied against businesses that they kindly pass along to you in the price of their goods and services or pay you a lower wage because of. All these taxes may not be broken down in a nice, easily digestible manner, but they all add up to be about half of your income going to pay taxes in one form or another.

Re:Hidden Taxes

[nomadic]

Irrelevant. My point was that you pay less in taxes now than you did before, so obviously congress isn't completely obsessed with taxing you as people here think. You pay less in total taxes--even with all those non-income taxes--than you did before.

Re:Hidden Taxes

[Music To Eat]

Irrelevant. My point was that you pay less in taxes now than you did before, so obviously congress isn't completely obsessed with taxing you as people here think. You pay less in total taxes--even with all those non-income taxes--than you did before.

Before when?
Before Bush Sr. and Clinton raised them?
Before FDR's new deal?
Before the Federal Government unconstitutionally started taxing it's citizens' income in the first place?

Re:Hidden Taxes

[nomadic]

Than 10 years ago. I don't see how you people keep missing the point.

I was responding to the common sentiment here that congress ALWAYS raises taxes when they have a choice, that their lives are spent figuring out ways to tax us. It's not true. They sometimes lower taxes.

And by the way, federal income tax is constitutional.

Re:Hidden Taxes

[fenix down]

It's not fucking unconstitutional because there's a fucking ammendment to the fucking constitution that fucking says that the fucking Congress shall have fucking power to lay and collect fucking taxes on fucking incomes, from whatever fucking source derived, without fucking apportionment among the several fucking states, and without regard to any fucking census or fucking enumeration. Fuck you.

Re:Hidden Taxes

[Music To Eat]

I'm sorry, what I ment to say was, "Before they went and altered the constitution so they could get their greedy little paws all over your money?". Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

PS: You'd think that after the third or fourth "fucking" it would lose it's impact, but it doesn't. It just builds and builds. Bravo, your highscool debate team must be so proud.

Re:Article(1)of subsection post(a) of Slashdot thr

[Epistax]

you forgot the refence..

John( 16:4 )
looks like code to me

Taxes for what purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the taxes coming to %40 or more- sales tax, income tax, property tax, license fees, etc. people should be asking, WTF are we getting for it?!

Half a person's working life is devoted to paying the government- and the only services my government provides are roads, minimal healthcare, and , umm, what was it again? Exactly shit-all!

This is Canada, but it's similar to the USA in this regard. I'm going to bend over now, and let them take what they want, because they know what's best for me.

Re:why a difference ... complicated local tax code

[nyseal]

Again, the article is not addressing local state or city tax liabilities....it's addressing INTERNET COMMERCE. Just by purchasing something online is what they want to tax...and on the federal level. Your local tax complications have nothing to do with it.

The Golden Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Just more examples of greedy government enriching itself. It's the Golden Rule: those who make the rules get the gold.

no taxes = no services

[Doc Ruby]

If governments don't tax any Internet commerce, how will it pay for the services it offers to the Internet? Like emerging spam legislation, FBI fraud investigations, business certification, infrastructure protection, research, and everything else that contributes to a running Internet? Once most transactions are Internet, not postal, or voice/phone, where will the money come from? Do you want the police, fire, medical, education, and every other service to suffer, because taxes on the commerce that they protect are diverted from their upkeep, to subsidize government Internet services? Surely the Internet offers a break in the hypocritical morass of tax status quo, but "no taxes" won't rationalize the service model, it will just destroy it.

Access tax != Sales tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Im surprised that everyone here is jumping straight to the internet sales tax debate.

This Bill was _not_ about enforsing sales tax over the internet. It was simply whether state and local governments can levy an access tax for ISP service. Just like they do with your phone service or TV or whathaveyou.

For example, it is now possible for you to get a DSL line, no phone service, and use VoIP instead. In this case, you wouldn't pay the phone tax that is associated with phone service.

Now imagine that everyone started doing this. Your state and local governments would immediately lose tax revenue and be forced to either a) slash existing services like funding for the police dept or the fire dept or b) raise sales, property and/or income taxes. Is this fair for the people who don't have internet access, or even worse the poor sops who are still paying taxes on their outdated phone systems?

maybe a better solution?

[tonythejuice]

How about we abandon sales tax -- and just jack up the state income taxes a nudge? Think of all the computational power and paper shuffling involved with taxing my stupid 99cent burger to be 1.07 --- And all the time wasted counting out the 93 cents --- We should just abandon sales taxes anyway- they are a bad idea... And even as it stands now, no body understands how interstate taxation is supposed to work anyway.

RIAA looking for a cut?

[cronian]

Next thing you know the RIAA will ask for its own tax to recoup the supposed costs of piracy. They can then try to make WIFI networks impossible due to complicated tax regulations. Soon the government will have to monitor internet routers to properly access taxes, etc.

Yeah right

[geekee]

"The strongest proponents for a permanent ban want to make sure that all access technologies -- from phone lines to DSL to cable modems -- get equal freedom from taxation."

Given the amount of taxes and fees I pay to the govt. for phone service, and given that phone and data service will be indistinguishable from a network perspective sometime soon, I doubt the govt. going to give up this cash cow without a fight.

First and foremost, a ban on "bit taxes" is needed

[rollingcalf]

They need to focus first on getting a permanent ban on data transfer taxes, i.e. taxing based on units such as megabytes transferred. Then once that is done, tbey can haggle over the other details. A bit tax would be the most destructive thing for the Internet in the USA.

When private parties such as web hosting services charge for bandwidth used, competitive pressures and improved technology make them charge less per megabyte as the years pass on. But whatever tax rate a government sets on bandwith usage, even if it is reasonable at first, within a few years it could become ridiculously exhorbitant as broadband and bandwith-heavy uses of the Internet become more commonplace. You may be able to afford to download a 650MB ISO today, but forget about downloading Linux in 2010 when it occupies a 50GB super-duper DVD.

interstate commerce == waste of fuel

[js7a]

As if we need to subsidise shipping companies, i.e., waste fuel. Back when the constitution was written (prior to pony express etc.) it might have made sense.

Death & Taxes

[skaht]

The U.S. needs a new Telecom infrastructure to keep itself competitive in the World market. Imagine all the imported oil that would not be needed in the U.S. if knowledge workers did not have to commute. Imagine the reduction in pollution in big cities. Imagine the extra time people would have not commuting. Imagine a new telephone/video system that is not vulnerable to huge black outs or rouge passenger/cargo aircraft. An IP centric Telecom infrastructure will put the fear of God in most any intellectual terrorist's mind.

I think the Democrats need to get a vision like the days JFK wanted to send a man to the moon. A loss in tax revenue is double-speak for creating justification for more taxes. I would like to see the tax-free day for Americans to move to the left for once. Our Society was founded because of a tax revolt some 227 years ago.

It would be interesting to see if the Baby Bells are swaying Senators to tax the Internet. Political motives are more than skin deep. This tax debate is really about VoIP technology and the excessive taxes levied on the PSTN Telecom industry and paid by the average Joe. I believe up until a few years ago Americans were still paying Telecom taxes for the Spanish American War.

Tactics and policies always lag technology. Technology is the only weapon for the triple constraint (Cost, Schedule & Quality). Americans must learn to embrace and adapt to new technology or accept a diminished quality of life.

Senators please go ahead and vote for taxing the Internet so we reduce the standard of living for our children, grandchildren...

net taxes hurt little guy, not big guy

[Cryofan]

therefore taxation will proceed as per normal.

And of course CEOs and big corporations will not care about any kind of net taxes.

No doubt it will kill the small solo businessperson. But then again, that small solo businessperson does not feed the Senator's bulldog.And of couse John BlueBlood the CEO does not want the small solo businessperson crashing the online party, so therefore expect more taxes on the Internet, formerly known as the Great Equalizer.....

Re:why a difference ... complicated local tax code

[rsmith-mac]

Wait? Isn't that backwards? Wouldn't it be easier to base the tax on the location of the seller, since they only have to keep 1 set of codes on hand?

Re:why a difference ... complicated local tax code

[1ucius]

SMOP, and probably not all that tough anyway. The national chains already have to do this.