Slashdot Mirror
Florida Ponders Communication Tax on LANs
victor_the_cleaner writes "Here in Florida, a little known tax provision may lead to LANs being taxed. According to the article, 'The provision was intended to make sure companies operating their own land line communication systems, which two decades ago was limited to large utilities and railroads, were paying the same taxes paid by those who rely on commercial phone carriers. About 10 companies (in Florida) pay more than $1.2 million annually based on that definition. However, the statute is so broadly worded that it could be interpreted to describe a local area network.'
Internal auditors at the city of Tampa noticed a couple of years ago that the substitute communications service provision was still there and asked state officials why it wasn't being enforced.
And now people like Sharon Fox, the city of Tampa's tax revenue coordinator are pushing for enforcement."
You heard it first: Does that mean I have to pay a tax on all my computers on my NAT network????
I would guess that the people pushing for enforcement don't really understand what they're asking for and that it will cost their offices as well.
Isn't that where most of the spammers reside at?
I see one and only one way a tax on LANs becomes fair. That is if the tax money goes to improving the local and regional communications infrastructure
i have 2 torch lights and a dark room i communicate with someone by turning the lights on and off will that be taxed?
Nowadays home LANs are pretty common. Try to enforce it on individuals and all hell will break loose. I expect them to go after the large companies first, and when they strike it down, the home users won't worry about having to fight it.
--
Retail Retreat
Overlooked Tax Provision Gets Attention
By DAVID WASSON dwasson@tampatrib.com
Published: Apr 15, 2004
TALLAHASSEE - At the urging of Tampa and a handful of other cities, a nearly forgotten provision in Florida's tax code is being dusted off by the state Revenue Department and could lead to the nation's first communications tax on multiuser computer networks.
Business lobbyists and others are scrambling to block the move, which some predict could trigger one of the largest tax increases in Florida history unless lawmakers eliminate the provision or halt its enforcement before adjourning April 30.
``This is a true example of the law of unintended consequences,'' said state Rep. John Stargel, R-Lakeland, who has introduced a bill that would abolish the 1985 provision but has been unable to get it past its first committee stop. ``This is a poster child for bad tax policy.''
The provision was intended to make sure companies operating their own land line communication systems, which two decades ago was limited to large utilities and railroads, were paying the same taxes paid by those who rely on commercial phone carriers. About 10 companies pay more than $1.2 million annually based on that definition.
However, the statute is so broadly worded that it could be interpreted to describe a local area network, which in computer lingo is known as a LAN. Thousands of Florida companies as well as a growing number of private homes have LAN computer systems.
Finding A Solution
Senate leaders oppose such a broad application of the provision but are leery of hastily eliminating it, in part because it would abolish the $1.2 million in tax revenue that has been paid under what is known as the Substitute Communications Services Tax.
The upper legislative chamber is expected to propose a temporary suspension of its enforcement and then look for ways to limit the provision's application without undermining its original intent.
``Back in 1985, there might have been a few engineers at Bell Laboratories who might have understood what a local area network was but not many others,'' said state Revenue Department spokesman Dave Bruns. ``That was essentially pre-Internet.''
Complicating matters is that lawmakers kept the provision intact when they revamped communication services taxes in 2000 as part of an effort to simplify and modernize the tax code. That's what sparked the current problem.
Cities Seek Enforcement
Internal auditors at the city of Tampa noticed a couple of years ago that the substitute communications service provision was still there and asked state officials why it wasn't being enforced.
Cities and counties get a hefty cut of the $2.1 billion in communications taxes collected by phone companies each year. A portion of the money also is earmarked for school construction.
No one knows exactly how much more would be collected by enforcing the broader definition of the tax. The rate varies statewide, ranging from 9.17 percent to 18.07 percent depending on local option assessments.
Stargel predicts it would be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, while some business lobbyists say it would easily exceed $1 billion.
Bruns said that while no one at the state agency believes the provision was ever intended to apply to computer networks, the agency's job is to enforce the policies created by the Legislature. He said the agency asked the Legislature to re-examine the provision last year but lawmakers adjourned without touching it.
With cities continuing to push for collection, the Revenue Department drafted a proposed enforcement rule but delayed implementation until after this year's legislative session to give lawmakers a second chance to amend or abolish the provision. With barely two weeks remaining, bills in the House and Senate are essentially stalled in committees.
``We are awaiting guidance from the Legislature,'' Bruns said.
Among those pushing the issue is Sharon Fox, the city o
The Florida Tax Revenue office is naming this new effort 'Why your business should leave Florida' and including helpful tips on moving your business to another state that doesn't do such stupid things as tax your internal computer network.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Isn't this a dupe? I am sure I read about this before on Slashdot. Can anyone find the post?
Three cheers for continuing government incompetence.
Why do the idiots we elect insist on screwing up everything they touch?
(On a related note, why do we elect them if they are such idiots?)
Degenerate and backward, persisting...
Well, first, I was giong to suggest, "Dude, April Fool's Day was, like, 2 weeks ago", but then I read the article.
Clearly, companies that rely on LANs will go to places that don't tax LANs. Like neighboring states, or non-neighboring states, or non-neighboring countries. I'm sure the tax assessor is not thinking of the medium to long-term consequences.
Do they tax LANs in India? Russia? Other countries?
Alan.
Florida tax auditor found strangled with cat 5 . Police baffled. "Why anyone would use a network cable is beyond us stated........
Analysts predict Florida tax revenues will drop drastically as businesses leave the state in droves.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
As always, yet another example of politicians run amok. They'll tax anything if they are allowed to.
in Florida, but is it just me or is every person who calls from that state dumb as a brick?
Any other folks in tech support notice the same thing?
Not quite off topic, it just seems that areas which have a zip code that begin with the digit "3" have, shall we say, limited computer experience.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I really hate that the system thinks it is entitled to a tax when it is not providing the infrastructure. Sure, if the government is subsidizing a system, but when a company or individual acquires or builds something for themselves, what right does someone else have to came and lay claim to your efforts?
That a tax of this nature was initiated in Florida is just one more reason why I will never willingly choose to live there.
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
Like the British Inland Revenue.
Nothing against the masses of retired folks in Florida, but I'd be more concerned had this bill popped up in, say, California.
:)
OLD FOLKS JUST DON'T HAVE NETWORKS!
What will all the poor old people do?
If this thing covers only ethernet networks, I'm rolling back to coax!
while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
I'm sure people can just make a large adhoc network with somebody outside the building and it's a WAN.
=)
But wouldn't this come under my right to privacy? After all, my Cat5, my choice!
I mean, what next, a tax for using a remote control to change channels as opposed to standing up and doing it physically? The law may be in place, but they can't honestly expect it to stay so... If it's to tax businesses who put a network in place on their own instead of using telcos, they could just define it as "between multiple sites" or something like that... anything that leaves the building, basically. *shrugs* I certainly hope common sense wins the day. If it applies to network data transfer, is it wired or wireless only? Floppys and CDs are data transfer to... how specific is the method? Bah.
Let me be the first to say I applaud Florida's forward looking policies, which are sure to stamp out the dens of evil file sharers and virus writers that hide on their so-called "Local Area Networks". Tax them into oblivion, I say! And while we're at it, I would like to suggest a ham radio tax, as I know for a fact that various people who *could* talk on land lines use ham radio to circumvent the phone tax.
Peas, whirled peas! That's what I want.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
The gov doesn't pay taxes. They don't have to pay to register their cars, they don't have to pay gas tax and they don't have to pay a host of other fees.
The article talks about land lines, so WLANs would be exempt? There is no link to the actual legislation so I can't read for myself.
What a POS anyway. Next thing you know they slap a road tax on browsers because you traverse the information superhighway with them.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Read the article, but didn't see if the statute was broad because it focused on "wiring" or the "networking" side.
Would going wireless be a work-around if they kept the laws intact?
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
So they are taxing people who use network based communication systems not run my outside companies.
On the surface, it seems like it's taxation without representation: the networks are privately built and maintained. And what do those networks run over for companies that have multiple offices? Outside phone lines, which the Gov't helped build. Ok, it can be argued that there is representation here.
But think about it: if those lines are already running to the buildings and being used, then the taxes are already being paid on them, in the form of basic service fees.
It seems like this law was made to make companies that run their own lines to pay taxes on them, which is taxation without representation. Now it's being applied to people who are already paying the service fees and taxes on them, and are now going to be taxed again for using said lines.
This is going to do one of two things:
1) Make a lot of criminals
2) Be challenged and not stand up in court.
Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about, just back it up with reasons and facts, please.
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
They're about 15 days late mentioning this...
hide my "cans on string" communications network before the taxman cometh!
Wireless... Free Unlicensed spectrum. No Tax invloved....
hey! my zip code begins wiith a 3. (Atlanta)
TALLAHASSEE - At the urging of Tampa and a handful of other cities, a nearly forgotten provision in Florida's tax code is being dusted off by the state Revenue Department and could lead to the nation's first communications tax on multiuser computer networks.
Business lobbyists and others are scrambling to block the move, which some predict could trigger one of the largest tax increases in Florida history unless lawmakers eliminate the provision or halt its enforcement before adjourning April 30.
``This is a true example of the law of unintended consequences,'' said state Rep. John Stargel, R-Lakeland, who has introduced a bill that would abolish the 1985 provision but has been unable to get it past its first committee stop. ``This is a poster child for bad tax policy.''
The provision was intended to make sure companies operating their own land line communication systems, which two decades ago was limited to large utilities and railroads, were paying the same taxes paid by those who rely on commercial phone carriers. About 10 companies pay more than $1.2 million annually based on that definition.
However, the statute is so broadly worded that it could be interpreted to describe a local area network, which in computer lingo is known as a LAN. Thousands of Florida companies as well as a growing number of private homes have LAN computer systems.
Finding A Solution
Senate leaders oppose such a broad application of the provision but are leery of hastily eliminating it, in part because it would abolish the $1.2 million in tax revenue that has been paid under what is known as the Substitute Communications Services Tax.
The upper legislative chamber is expected to propose a temporary suspension of its enforcement and then look for ways to limit the provision's application without undermining its original intent.
``Back in 1985, there might have been a few engineers at Bell Laboratories who might have understood what a local area network was but not many others,'' said state Revenue Department spokesman Dave Bruns. ``That was essentially pre-Internet.''
Complicating matters is that lawmakers kept the provision intact when they revamped communication services taxes in 2000 as part of an effort to simplify and modernize the tax code. That's what sparked the current problem.
Cities Seek Enforcement
Internal auditors at the city of Tampa noticed a couple of years ago that the substitute communications service provision was still there and asked state officials why it wasn't being enforced.
Cities and counties get a hefty cut of the $2.1 billion in communications taxes collected by phone companies each year. A portion of the money also is earmarked for school construction.
No one knows exactly how much more would be collected by enforcing the broader definition of the tax. The rate varies statewide, ranging from 9.17 percent to 18.07 percent depending on local option assessments.
Stargel predicts it would be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, while some business lobbyists say it would easily exceed $1 billion.
Bruns said that while no one at the state agency believes the provision was ever intended to apply to computer networks, the agency's job is to enforce the policies created by the Legislature. He said the agency asked the Legislature to re-examine the provision last year but lawmakers adjourned without touching it.
With cities continuing to push for collection, the Revenue Department drafted a proposed enforcement rule but delayed implementation until after this year's legislative session to give lawmakers a second chance to amend or abolish the provision. With barely two weeks remaining, bills in the House and Senate are essentially stalled in committees.
``We are awaiting guidance from the Legislature,'' Bruns said.
Among those pushing the issue is Sharon Fox, the city of Tampa's tax revenue coordinator.
Although she never imagined the provision would be interpreted to require taxing even the most simplistic computer networks, she makes no apologies for insisting
--------------------------------------------- SignalGod ---------------------------------------------
Admin: Somebody set up us the tax provision.
Admin: We get signal.
CEO: What!
Admin: Main screen turn on.
CEO: It's You!!
Florida: How are you gentlemen!!
Florida: All your LAN are belong to us.
Florida: You are on the way to taxation.
CEO: What you say!!
Wasn't this the same city that employed face recognition cameras on all the city streets, just to pull them after finding out it doesn't work?
Isn't this the state that makes having AppleCare illegal?
Of course we all know about the election mess...
There has to be something in the swamp water most Floridians drink.
G5's spare cycles needed to cure disease!! http://teammacosx.homeunix.com/
Yep, dumb as bricks.
Can't even fill out ballots to vote right.
When they pry it out of my fat, greasy, cheeto encrusted nerd hands.
Deaf people are now facing huge fines for their local communications networks. Speaking through an interpreter, Sally Johnson stated "It's unfair to consider a group of individuals exchanging communications through an established protocol a means of bypassing local phone service." Florida's Blind & Deaf Student Members group voiced their concerns about the over-reaching implications of this law. A representative of the group claimed that "Florida legislators are using the long arm of the law to reach into our pants and take our money."
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
They have been talking about doing this in Florida for over six years. As soon as the idea hits someone with a braincell (Granted that often takes a while.) it dies each time.
I work for a cell company that deals with those idiots. At least 1 out of 10 can add, you cant say that for Georgia!
I could swear I saw a story like this on April first.
Haven't found the legal code to peruse, but I think the writer of the article has made a mistake. It sounds to me like the tax was for dedicated lines between offices rather than wires built into a single establishment. Were this not the case, PBX phone systems which are used by nearly all businesses and schools in the US would be taxed as well, and these systems have been in place forever. If my guess is correct, then individuals and most busineses would be exempt, as it's not common even today for many businesses to have dedicated WAN lines, and these are the same businesses that should already be paying this tax.
Even Florida isn't dumb enough to tax LANs. According to the article:
...
The upper legislative chamber is expected to propose a temporary suspension of its enforcement and then look for ways to limit the provision's application without undermining its original intent.
No one knows exactly how much more would be collected by enforcing the broader definition of the tax. The rate varies statewide, ranging from 9.17 percent to 18.07 percent depending on local option assessments.
Stargel predicts it would be hundreds of millions of dollars annually, while some business lobbyists say it would easily exceed $1 billion.
This is an interesting case of reasonable tax laws made dumb and potentially dangerous by advances in technology, but otherwise pretty much a non-issue that will go away quietly within a few weeks.
everything in moderation
For a second there I thought this was Fark. I was expecting to see a Florida tag.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
How would you tax a home owner's LAN anyways? Set fee for owning one?? I mean, I own a wireless router, but I only have one computer hooked up. Don't tax my "LAN" please.. This is entirely stupid :-/
More money in a wasteful, incompetent bureacracy doesn't fix anything. My university pays a business professor I had when I took a business elective almost $86,000/year to teach CIS and she made claims like Microsoft invented OO languages and that OO means using GUI elements. Fortunately I am a computer science major and none of my profs are even remotely that bad. However she is living proof of the argument that more money = better education system.
So here's a novel idea. Cut back the government budget, prosecute people for being wasteful and abusive, fire incompetent employees and give bonuses to those who come up with creative solutions to fixing public problems.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Just a suggestion, but I would propose a fee of $.25 a frag.
This has been discussed on slashdotbefore and was also the topic of a slashback
I know they're a big cash cow for the state and all (why do you think they're so high) but now they're getting in the way of communication. Screw the state governments, they'll have to deal with the loss of revenue some other less sneaky way. Even the much-ballyhooed rural service fee is no longer justified. There are cheaper ways of communicating from the middle of nowhere than stringing copper out there. They pay less to live out in the middle of nowhere, why should the rest of us pay more to support their choice?
Viva la VOIP!
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
his point exactly. :)
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
From August 25th, 2003
GStreamer - The only way to stream!
While most of us are already libertarians, it is an unkown to the mainstream. On this tax day, remember the libertarian party. They were instrumental in repealing a massive tax hike here in Oregon.
-I am an elective eunuch.
I's jsut another tax. They would tax sex and air if they could. What do you do when you get over bugget? Probably stop eating at McD's or cut some other expense. I should think florda should do the same.
can land line be applied to wireless lan too ? if yes, (wireless lan / walkie talkie / ham radio) users would have to pay for this ...
it could easily cost more money to the state to enforce this than what it would earn them ...
Doh !
How would the tax apply to a company that has internal networking? What about a PBX telephone system, would taxes be due? If not, then LANs must also be logically excluded.
More importantly, most LANs integrate with some form of WAN, of which a relationship must exist with a telecommunications company that pays these state taxes already.
From what I read in the article, the tax was only created to level the taxation benefit that large companies would reap from having a private phone system. Even in 1985, the year this tax was implemented, many companies had some form of internal networking to cover such devices as computers, computerized cash registers, etc. and they were not taxed.
Doesn't make sense.
``Back in 1985, there might have been a few engineers at Bell Laboratories who might have understood what a local area network was but not many others,'' said state Revenue Department spokesman Dave Bruns. ``That was essentially pre-Internet.''
Oh, ghod, I'm dyin'.
Chuck
P'raps 'twas one of the Little People? Or Wesley Willis.
Some said tax Latinos but the answering maching message got garbled.
Erm...uh...how does her $86k salary show that more money = better education? Doesn't it show the exact opposite, that high salary does not equal informed teacher?
If I had a teacher that said object orientation meant using a GUI I would have to stand up and bitch slap them. I couldn't help myself.
People complain about corporate greed, of which there are numerous and recent examples. But on April 15th, I am once again reminded of the neverending greed of governments (Federal, State, City, County, sales, etcetera). There appears to be no problem that the government answer to the problem is more and higher taxes (aka "investments"), nor any activity that should not be taxed.
If we actually recieved value for the tax dollars we pay, that would be one thing. But the complete ineptness of virtually every beauracracy that I have ever dealt with (think DMV, USPS, IRS) destroys that hope. On the other hand, perhaps we should be thankful we DO NOT get all the government we pay for!
... is to inforce it religiously.
Go to town! There more than enough money at stake for Florida businesses to spend the money to get rid of this.
Section 12 says that the tax rate is 6.8% of the sales price, applied yearly.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
Apparently this enables taxing of PBX's too, as well as any WinXP box using Internet Connection Sharing or sharing a local printer! Link
this reminds of the stamp act what are we going to dress like MCSE's and start throwing networking equipment into a nearby lake?
Funny, when I wrote about this last August, Slashdot didn't think it was good enough.
It might force programmers to clean up their code and make more efficient LAN communication packages. Image, a more efficient computer system, inadvertently from the actions of government.
> And now people like Sharon Fox, the city of Tampa's tax revenue coordinator are pushing for enforcement
Hey is it true the tax office name there is Taxpax?
They do sound stuck up C^H
Logged off.
Not wanting to troll, yet I haven't reviewed the older article or RTFA, but isn't this a rehash of Florida Proposes Taxing Local LANs ?
Meow. Now!
And just what the fuck are they going to do if I decide not to pay th&$793&&^^^^^^[NO CARRIER]
... that the law only applies to "Public space" infrastructures.
If you have your infrastructure in "Private space", then it doesn't apply.
Anyway, we are talking about US... and we all know how clueless they are there...
"Hi. I'm having trouble accessing my files today."
"Your username?"
"SF3092."
[clickety-click] "Sharon Fox, is it?"
"That's right."
[clickety-click rm -rf, you know the drill] "But you don't have any files!"
"What? OMIGOD, my LAN tax proposal was in there!"
"As if I didn't know."
"Excuse me?"
"I said 'I can't imagine where it could go.' Don't worry, we have it on backup."
"Thank goodness."
"It's engraved on a grain of rice. Bwah hahahaha!"
"AAIIIIIIGGGGHHHHH!"
(with apologies to Simon)
on the residents of Florida. People who cannot figure out how to cast a vote are unlikely to own a computer.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Don't tax you,
don't tax me,
tax that LAN,
behind that router.
Taxing internal LANs will have Florida seeing what California and Silicon Valley is now, all the major corporations in their state crossing the border.
"We have been informed that you have recently bought canned food and a piece of string. According to our information, these can be used to create a telephone system, thus you must pay the relevant taxes."
This is probably a troll, but I'll bite.
No, there aren't really cheaper ways of communicating from the middle of nowhere. Many areas of the midwest and west there is no reliable cell coverage (if at all), for instance. And how do you propose those people get internet access? If you're so sure there are cheaper ways, name one that will work in Middle-of-Nowhere, NE.
Also, it may "cost less" to live in the middle of nowhere (that's debatable), but incomes are also significantly lower. And, where do you think the farmers are _going_ to live?
Further, to turn the tables a bit, why should people in rural areas have their tax money used to pay for interstates in urban areas? You choose to work in a city, why should the rest of us pay more to support your choice?
What exactly is it a tax on. Yeah I know LANs. But the article says it will be a percentage. A percentage of what is the question :) The number of computers on the network? The number of users? The bandwidth used? ...
I know it's a different beast, but I can't help think this is similar to England's absurd tax on televsion sets.
Plumber!
I didn't call a plumber. Who is it!?
Flowers!
Flowers for who?
Plumber!
Why you're that crazy Landshark aren't you?
No ma'am, I'm just a dolphin. Will you let me in please?
A dolphin? OK.
Aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!! You're not a dolphin. You're a filthy A LAN inspector!!!
If they can smell a way to tax something, they will. No matter that this may stifle growth in LANs that may lead to slower growth in OTHER areas in the economy that can be taxed more productively.
Nooooooo..... Let's add a few cents here to their coffers NOW and let us LAN people pass it on to the users as a cost of doing business. Meanwhile, the people in control of the government (and the pursestrings) will have have some MORE cash to implement their little pork-barrel projects to keep them happy and elected.
Remember voting day. My voting strategy--> If I don't have any preferences, I always vote the incumbant OUT. Otherwise they will start to build empires.
Sorry folks. Rant off.
If you hit 3, we're sawing you off and pushing you to Cuba.
They can't very well tax wireless communications. Otherwise they'd need to tax radio, TV, and _voice_. By voice I mean talking to your friend on the street. That's a communications network.
You're right. It IS a completely different beast. The British TV license fee is a price well worth paying for the best public service broadcasting in the world. There's no comparison whatsoever between this and what is obviously a case of a bit of state law falling behind the times as technology marches on.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
With a tribute {and apologies} to George Harrison:
(If you drive a car car) I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk walk) I'll tax your feet
(If you push 'trons on the wire) I'll tax your LAN
(If you push them outside)I'll tax the WAN
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
Property taxes are based on the assumption that the government is the only thing standing between you and somebody else taking your property. The more property you have, the more the government protects for you, ergo, the more you pay in taxes.
In practice, it's a bit different, of course; often property taxes are used to fund schools, which seems it should be based on the number of kids you have rather than the amount of property you own; but I don't complain, since a good education system is required for the future of any socieity.
Of course, there are many good education systems in the world. And then there's what we have. Different issue, though.
Anyway, property taxes are understandable.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
But then again, I saw the fnords. =p
Karma: Non-Heinous
Of course, it doesn't suck as much as all the other states.
If you don't keep track of your network traffic could you be charged with Tax evasion?
I can understand taxation of usage of the telephone network because the government subsidized the original construction of this network and continues to subsidize it's maintenance. I don't understand how one can justify taxing a company's private telephone network, let alone their computer network. The government provides no infrastructure for either! Sounds like a blatant revenue grab to me.
Are they going to tax home LANs, too?
Sure, if the government is subsidizing a system, but when a company or individual acquires or builds something for themselves, what right does someone else have to came and lay claim to your efforts?
Besides having business income taxes, Florida also has a tangible tax system, which says that all business must pay taxes based on their assets. So if you have 10 computers, a router and a switch, you already have to pay taxes SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU OWN THEM.
Florida is king of the weird taxes.
It is just you. And the dumb voters who don't take the time to check their ballots. And include the nut case from Tampa in there too!
Land-line, eh? Bring it on, Florida will be the first state that goes completely wi-fi!
er, wait, I thought I was on Fark. Carry on.
Georgia's on my mind
I've come across this before but I dont' remember where. I work for a State Agency in the MIS department and I asked the MIS supervisor who passed the question on up the chain.
This article is true, but it's in the process of being changed. The wording is going to be fixed.
Abiit, excessit, evasit, erupit.
Florida ponders losing lots of biz to Alabama, seriously if you are a networking company are you going to stay in Florida? hell no ! 'Bama for me!
This is exactly why I want to see government pushed as low on the stack as possible. Don't do something at the federal level if you can do it at the state level. Don't do it at the state level if you can do it at the county or city level.
Right now we are looking at Florida doing this. If Florida is stupid enough to pull this, people and businesses in Florida at least have the option to go to a different state. Imagine if it were a Federal tax law.
This is also a great example of why laws should be clearly written. A few years back, there was an initiative in Washington state with some vague provisions. The anti- guys pointed out that with some broad interpretation, the initiative would give some really broad powers to the government; the backers of the initiative said "Don't be silly, no one would ever interpret the law that way." Oh, really?
Vague laws are ticking time bombs.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And
And
IANAL, but the way I read this, computer networks can not be "Substitute communications system" because "communications services" does not include "Information services", "Internet access service", "similar on-line computer services".
This is just another instance of government officials not understanding the technology they are trying to tax, regulate, and legislate.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The LAN is already paid for because the equipment has been paid for and the bits and bytes being sent around the network are being paid for through the electrical bill. There's nothing left to pay for -- and you would think it's impossible to pay for nothing -- but obviously not in today's world. And that's my opinion.
The LAN tax is a famous hoax. I'm surprised
the trib falled for it.
- The government doesn't protect from you fire. They might put you out (later!) if you light up, but you'll pay for any damage, and you certainly won't be protected. Firefighters arrive after the fire starts. You can only protect yourself. The insurance lottery and smoke detectors is how you do so. The fire department... no. They might protect you from a form of flashover if your neighbor burns, but what if you don't have any neighbors and in fact have a carefully tended firebreak, as I do? Should you pay for fire "protection" then?
- Police arrive after you've been victimized. Usually long after the fact. At which time they typically proceed to annoy the living shit out of you in your time of misery. They don't protect you (hell, they don't even show up in your neighborhood unless they're going to serve someone with a warrant or give some driver a traffic ticket - police have changed their major role from serving the public, to serving the political trough instead. They tell you what you can smoke, what kind of sex you can or can't have, and in Georgia can even arrest you if you have your labia pierced. Now they'll be showing up because you didn't pay Joe Politico for a LAN you built and paid for - welcome to the oughta-be revolution.)
- I have a well. I had to dig it at great cost. I also have a water treatment system - reverse osmosis, cruft removal, all of that. Why should I pay for your water too?
- Road access I'll buy. Also any other true infrastructure costs: Telecomm, heat, power, transport, defense assuming the government is in, or gets into, them.
- I have a septic system, which I had to dig and connect and so forth at great cost. Why should my building a house make me liable for your sewage costs?
- I quit high school and I have no children. I don't use the educational system (and I'm a lot better of for it, frankly - it's designed as lowest common denominator until about Master's level.)
- If I go to a hospital, I have to pay. I'm not low income, so I get no free lunch. I do have to pay taxes for the freeloaders, but I won't get that back if I am sick. I can, of course, indulge in the insurance lottery, a government sponsored "get rich quick" plan for the insurance agencies.
Looks to me like they're just taxing me to pay for someone else. Not because I cut my trees and built my house.It's definitely past time to throw the tea back in the harbor.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It's the lack of personal income tax to blame. They're expecting to fund the state off the tourists...but with the economic downturn not many people are vacationing...hence the need for "chicken" taxes...similar to the old days when the Noble used to charge taxes "just because". They're poor and have to keep inventing stuff to tax so they create taxes on phones, merchandizing fixtures, and other stuff that business primarily have so the serfs don't have to be bothered with paying their own way. It's cheap for seniors, but the only jobs for working folk are all low wage "tourist" jobs.
I as a native of south Florida, I demand a tax recount!
The Florida Intangibles Tax is a tax on stock ownership, which in effect is a tax on bits because nearly all stock ownership is just an electronic record. (Then there's Oklahoma, whose personal property tax [used to?] require that you list every physical book that you own, and pay tax accordingly.)
I guess I may have to pay tax if my five year old daughter uses her computer upstairs to play a game running on my box in my den. Seriously, she has an old computer in her room set up to log in to her account on my main Debian machine to play kid-type games.
Exactly what are they taxing? Are they taxing the use of the actual wires or are they taxing by the amount of bandwidth? If it's either of these things I would see it as double taxation. If sales tax is paid on the cabling when it was originally purchaed, then they got their money and should piss off. Same deal with bandwidth (IMO). If they paid sales tax on their routers switches and hubs, then the government already got their money and once again may go piss off.
If they are trying to tax based on usage, like bandwidth used hourly, that would seem like taxing someone for riding their bike across their backyard even after that person has paid property taxes.
I might be way oversimplifying things here but that is what I see. can anyone shed any insight?
Here in Florida we refer to it as "God's Waiting Room." It just sounds funnier that way for some reason. I can't really complain though. Because of the snowbirds and the tourists I don't have to pay a state tax.
...but I think it'd be best to save it for when my state decides to tax my home LAN.
a selfish little bitch and think about others for a change.
beyond the value of its component parts. It is a value added construct, the sum total of the combination of sysadmins, linelayers and equipment. They are taxable, the reason it hasent been taxed is that government is glacialy slow to pick up on new things but government is required by state constitiutions (at least in my state and many others) to tax anything that has value. If you would rather not tax lans and have the money raised by homestead taxes that's fine. Anyway by the time Florida figures out how to tax lans they will evolve into something else. IAAA (i am a assessor)
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
If we take all the linear TX and RX points between a computer and the access point. Then map all the maximum distances from the computer or device to the access point until a 3D map is rendered. Next calculate all the possible points inbetween the minimum and maximum TX and RX. My name is not Euclid, but I'm pretty sure my crappy 802.11b Lynksys is worth $100,000,000,000 in taxable revenue!
mwuhahahahahaha, mwuhahahaha, muwhahahahaha
okay, that's enough.
Can we please just Give Flordia to Cuba or somthing.
This Sig for rent.
Thanks Florida!
You gave us the Elian Gonzalez debackle, Kathleen Harris's overthrow of democracy, and now, taxation on networking.
Fan-fucking-tastic. Anything else you want to do?
It may be hard for libertarians to believe, but sometimes there are things that central control via a government just works better.
Many minarchist libertarians recognize this and seem to be against power of a federal government more than against power of local governments. Can you think of something where governing on a higher level (federal vs. state, state vs. local) has big advantages over governing on a lower level?
The revolution will come when they try to tax sex.
Many U.S. states collect a sales tax on condoms.
Given the ignorance of the media on technology issues, I'd expect the closing of that breaking news to be "cats 1 through 4 unavailable for comment."
Web Form to mail Sharon Fox
Ask her to clarify her position.
So a tax targeted at LAN's would be a duplication, aka "double taxation." Not that that distinction has ever bothered tax hungry governments.
Ob reference:
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman.
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles, Tax Man
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Besides, I am sure [well pretty sure] that communications would be construed as being person-to-person, outside of the house.
Otherwise they could tax your for yelling down the stairs rather than phoning your wife two rooms down!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Can't even fill out ballots to vote right.
That's probably how the Bush's get elected in the first place...
And why they had to stop anyone from getting an accurate count of the votes, too.
Does that means we can ask for a recount on our tax bills?
A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
Laws were in place that specificially banned indescriminate copying of copyrighted material. RIAA wasn't capitalizing on the vagueness of the law. The practise of pirating music was banned and most people were aware of it. The intent of the law in Florida was to tax long distance use of LAN systems that avoided using local or long distance phone charges, not inner home use. The one thing that could get hit legitimately are web based phone calls. They avoid the tax and would in theory fall under the law. It's kind of like the ban on using farm use gasoline in cars. It avoids the road tax. Most farms actually pay a gas tax on a percentage of the fuel they store so they can use it in their road vehicles.
...if they enforce it on all of the Florida spammers first.
Gee, yeah, I could see businesses leaving the city in droves. Give it 5 years, and no one will work in that town. Then probably the civic pass-time in that town will be hunting down the City Council members in hiding and beating them to death.
Does this include the network or all the computers connected to it?
If the second... businesses will be looking for places to move right after they get their tax bills, this is worse than MS tax and one doesn't even get a bug-ridden OS to show for it. The ones that will stay will be those who primarily serve local customers, and they're going to have to increase cost to the customers immediately to cover the tax.
Anybody seen the proposed enforcement rules?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Just nationalize these goons (like drafting) and send them to Iraq to help set up their taxing structures. It would be interesting to measure the time it takes these folks to learn flexiblity!
Stupid ideas like this tax and because it's to offset some ancient costing structure model of "so many cents" to transmit a few hundred bytes of data in 1972, look how long it took phone co's to go electronic exchanges, here in vancouver, BC canada, the provincial phone company (american owned) (in the early 80's), had mechanical switches serving about 1.5 million people, and they didn't get rid of that crap until people (who moved here from back east) couldn't believe there was no electronic exchanges here, so BCTEll was so embarased, that they did get rid of them, but you can see parallels here with this really stupid tax on LANS, what is this, more wellfare for the phone companies, just like MASSIVE millitary spending WELLFARE for defense contrators.....give me a break!!! no wonder it costs $40/month for slow "high-speed" internet, all the phone co. backbone systems need their $$$$$ for pushing bits around which amounts to fiber-optic systems that don'r really do that much...it's no wonder that most PC's in the world are based on that stupid Intel architecture and run idiot Windows software... the human race is wayyyy beyond stupifd....(oops)
I don't give a damn what the government buys with the money they steal, the point is that they don't have any right to it in the first place.
Misapplication of the law for the purpose of generating revenue is nothing short of extortion. This law was not passed for the purpose they are trying to use it for. It is therefore an abuse of power which it is the duty of every citizen of the state of Florida to resist.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You just tax the ISP and have them collect it for you. You don't have a LAN you say? Then you'll have to file a form at the end of the year to get a refund.
No problem is insurmountable when it comes to a governmental entity generating a revenue stream. If they're entitled to it, they'll find a way to get it.
Slashdot: where racism against Indians is OK...
Only for a minority of Americans who can't grasp the concept of globalisation, and can't fathom that it was the United States itself that lead the drive towards a world-wide economy (And still does). They're bitter idiots.
Live in northern WI, I'm a cheesehead.
To get to Nawlins, I go a little west to I39. Illinois interstates are good, and I avoid Chicago's lousy roads beaten into junk by overweight trucks. PA is the same, the toll roads are awful and the free interstates are newly paved with child friendly rest stops. And the PA turnpike is just getting worse as its rebuilding goes on.
The IL Tristate Tollway Authority was going to be disbanded 10 years ago after the bonds were retired. The current tolls go entirely to payroll, nothing to maint. Can't you people govern yourselves?
This might be offtopic but as ridiculous as it sounds, countries like ireland actuall tax their population for having a television! every year they must pay the government for a "television liscence", its about $20 USD and need one liscence per television. Unlike this, they keep record of televisions sold and who they were sold to to tax the people appropriately.
How would they tax a LAN exactly? I've never heard of something like this (never even thought of something like this). Would it be per computer, or just the network hardware that you own. Either way that would suck, and would really kill anybody wishing to hold a worthwhile LAN-party down there in the Sunshine state.
I'm f#$king magic!
It's not bullshit, but it is a common misconception. Government workers DO pay taxes just like everyone else. However, many of them also get a bunch of perks that more than offset that. For example, a lot of my state assemblymen are driving around in $35,000 cars that I helped to pick up most of the cost of. A lot of them are picking up suits and shoes on my dime. They're picking up meals, flights, and hotel rooms... on my hard earned money. They're redecorating their offices with my money. On top of all that, I'm helping to pay them more than twice my annual salary so that they can bicker like stupid little children with the governor and not put a budget through until it's almost time for the next year's budget talks to start.
When it's all said and done, you may still have to pay your taxes, yes, but it sure ain't gonna hurt to sit in a government position picking up perks on everyone else's tab.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
This is yet another way, in which we have elected these people to screw us.
That is like in my state, until recently every year you would have to pay personal property tax on everything you owned "of value". Once paid you got a sticker that you place on your vehicle windshield.
Even if all you owned was a beater car, and you owed no personal property tax on it, you were forced to pay the $25 for the sticker.
Now in Fla it may be reasonable for the state to tax you for a LAN? Is this where our tax dollars are going?
Hell I have a few light switches at my house.
How 'bout they tax me every time I turn my lights on or off. They could call it a switch usage tax.
My point is we need to put these people on a short leash. For too long we have "trusted" them to make descisions based on relevant information, that would be in our best interest.
Well IMHO it is in mine and my families best interest that I keep as much of the money I make as I can.
In a time where SSI is teetering into obscurity, it would seem prudent to stop taxing people for the "RIGHT TO LIVE IN A FREE COUNTRY". If it is our right to be free, why does it put us into "wage slavery" then?
You own the the CAT-5, you own the PC's, you either own or rent the house.
Exactly when and where does the Government come in to maintain your LAN. Or to troubleshoot it. Or ensure you arent sending out government secrets to your living room.
Or perhaps it's just another way they can get money from us, and we will lay down for it.
Well I have been screwed enough by this government.
I am sick to death of it's politics and hidden agendas.
It's time we as a people hold them accountable.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If you want to tax networks, there are several other things that you've got to start taxing as well. First off, by setting up a pair of tin cans with some string between them, I have in fact created a local point-to-point communication medium. It's a two-node network, isn't it? I guess that my tin cans should be taxed.
Now that we've broadened our horizons a bit, let's look at the other networking equipment around the office...ah, Pigeons. The little buggers are RFC 1149 capable, and thereby capable of carrying network packets. Therefore, 9.17% of the pigeons on and near the office must be reported as taxable hardware. The same goes for Sparrows.
Beyond the simple networking hardware, we have to factor in social networking. The low-delay, high-loss mesh network used to communicate rumors through an office building is a highly complex device that is very expensive to maintain. The nodes in this network recieve pay at regular intervals (AKA "Salary") in order to remain part of the network. Therefore, another 9.17% (or more, if you're part of several social networks, or are a social hub) of your salary should be taxed away, you network node, you. You can dodge this one if you don't talk to any real people though. Keep your relationships virtual, and you'll be able to categorize your communications as part of the existing wired infrastructure. No point in being double-billed, is there?
Let's just hope this tax blows over.
We'll be waiting for you.
Hooptie
"Heavens, it appears that my weewee has been stricken with rigor mortis!" -- Stewie Griffin
From the state that brought you the current president..... nuff said.
Admittedly, we have a high population of retirees (some getting a little senile), but they are our burden to bear. We also have Kennedy Space Center, for one example, so not everybody is an idiot.
I think you are confusing the population as a whole and just those stupid enough to buy whatever crap products you sell/support...
Happens all the time. And it's not always a bad thing. Like corporate income tax.
Feel free to tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about
Well, I was just going to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about, but since you put an "and" in there, I guess I'll have to tell you that you're an idiot, too.
--
E_NOSIG
Being from Florida, this slightly unnerves me. But realistically, you have to consider a few things:
1) Although taxes suck, where in the Constitution does it say that US citizens are immune from stupid, absurd, overbearing, or even intolerable taxation? All we are guaranteed is representation. Am I missing something in this, or did we give the Government permission back in 1787 (Constitution ratified) to tax us in whichever way seemed best to our representation?
2) While this doesn't affect businesses, Florida has no personal state income tax (go us!). So at least folk in NW Florida, life is wild, rich and largely tax-free.
3) If the FL legislature decided to find a way to do this, the most logical way to do it would be to place an additional tax on all network hardware sold or shipped to FL, and grant an amnesty to all existing, in-place hardware.
--flynn
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
How would they rate a LAN tax?
Hey, they could start counting packets and dub it the pr0n meter. The only problem is the World would go broke overnight.
Computers are useless. They can only give answers. --Pablo Picasso
Today, Weekly World News and 407 other businesses were raided and shut down after failing to pay back taxes on LAN usage. 12 residents with large LANs in their homes were also arrested and charged with tax evasion this morning.
Florida governor Jeb Bush defended the initiative -
"This is just the start, we will bring all businesses and residents blatantly violating this law under compliance. Our state is losing millions, perhaps billions, of tax dollars every day."
When asked where he would get the personnel to enforce the law, he stated
"We will pull our DEA agents from Miami to do the network enforcement and outsource the DEA work to India."
In other news, drug trafficking skyrockets in Miami. Bush vows to double the number of DEA agents enforcing narcotics laws and still keep the agency under budget.
A percentage of revenue. On an internal LAN there is no revenue...
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
www.myflorida.com/dor/rules/12a19substitute.pdf