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

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.

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?

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.

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.