U.S. Congress Poised To Vote On Internet Tax Ban

jangobongo writes "'After more than a year of leaving the threat of new state- and city-levied taxes looming over Internet access providers and online merchants, Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access,' according to eWeek. The House had approved a permanent moratorium while the Senate had approved a temporary ban. Members of the House are pushing to compromise and to vote today on the Senate's approach. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed."

Comments

Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[xmas2003]

$1 a junk Email ... or a day in prison ...

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[Nadsat]

No, Bush's policy has always been to ease taxes on the rich while shifting them to lower icomes. The question is... how can Bush tax the poor users of the internet while letting the rich shop for free?

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[chris_mahan]

No fees on high speed, high fees on modem.

That will also kill AOL as a side effect, but we have to do what we have to do for National Security and The Country...

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[bofkentucky]

On the plus side, they might take CNN and Time with them down the drain.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[ErikTheRed]

Nah, I propose they be forced to donate one organ per junk e-mail...

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[LiquidCoooled]

Shares in Hammond skyrocketed on news that Eriks Law passed through congress today.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[spectre_240sx]

I say they take the one they're always advertising to grow for us :)

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[britneys 9th husband]

Actually, Bush's policy has been to ease taxes on everyone (with a focus on rich people) while shifting them to future generations. That's what the huge budget deficit (Congress just voted to raise the debt ceiling another $800,000,000,000.00 they're spending money so fast in Washington) does. If you're under 18, you can't vote, but your parents can, and they care about your future (hopefully). If you haven't been born yet, your parents are partying or getting drunk or attending college or posting Slashdot comments or whatever, and they're not thinking about your future yet -- as a result, Bush can screw you without political repercussions.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[Peyna]

Not only that, but his plan to "privatize" social security is founded on the same principles.

In short, he wants to phase in a system where part of your social security taxes go into a private account that you can choose how to invest, and the rest go to the general public fund.

So, what is going to happen is that the amount of money currently moving into the social security fund will drop, the money moving out will continue to rise with the number of people retiring and living longer. Things won't really even out until those who are 16 when the program is implemented retire. The only way to fix this gap is to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. Of course, Bush won't raise taxes or cut spending, so when finally get a president with the guts to do that, he'll be portrayed as a horrible person who wants to stick his hands in our pockets and rob us. When the real thief is the person that created the deficit in the first place.

I find it amazing that while telling us that "privatizing" social security is putting our money in our control, what it is really doing is the government is not only forcing me to pay for everyone else's well-being, they're forcing me to invest some of my own money.

I wonder if the government will only allow me to invest in funds they approve of and don't violate their morals.

A few interesting links related to political parties and economics

Federal Deficit by Political Party
Jobs by President and Party
Economic policies of Bush administration result in more abortions

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[N3WBI3]

Ummm, I notice this ignores the congress, but usually people make the mistake of thinking the president has the power to tax or spend money..

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[mi]

forcing me to pay for everyone else's well-being

This part is hardly Bush's invention...

they're forcing me to invest some of my own money

Somehow I fail to be outraged by this... Of all the things, that governments past and present force us to do, this one is among the mildest...

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[Peyna]

The problem with them forcing me to invest money for my own welfare is that it is hypocritical for the Republican to do so!

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[jdc180]

Yeah, except it's a republican Congress and the President is the head of the republican party. The argument that the president doesn't legislate is old. Of course the president legislates.

Why is it they use the arguement that the "President doesn't tax or spend money" but the president will be the first to take credit for the "Clean Air Act" or "No Child Left Behind"

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[stanmann]

Technically Ed Gillespie is the Head of the republican party. The President is the Senior elected official of our government and he happens to be a member of the GOP.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[N3WBI3]

This time, and yse the reason I did not vote republican was because of their abuse. However under Clinton it was A republican congress who brought him kicking and screaming into welfare reform, and a balanced budget. Under Regan it was democrats who spent all the money.

Co a more accurate analysis would be of congress not the president but that does not make for simple charts aimed at simple minds...

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[chitownIrish]

Hard core aristoctratic republicans hate Social Security and Medicare, and would like to do away with them. These programs are successful and widely popular, so doing so would be political suicide. Their answer to that is what they call "Starving the beast", or cutting off streams of revenue to the government, creating a fiscal crisis that brings programs to the chopping block that before were political taboo.

Here's my tinfoil hat prediction of what will happen.

1. Propose allowing a portion of your Social Security funds to be invested in a personal account. A potential gain for you, an unprecedented windfall for mutual fund managers.

2. When questioned about how diverting money from the general fund will help avoid a shortfall in that fund, avoid answering and say things like "it will be cheaper than doing nothing".

3. Gradually increase the percentage to be placed into the personal accounts over the next 20 or so years, thus diverting more money from the general fund and worsening the shortfall for the Baby Boomers.

4. Seed the public's perception of Social Security as a scam and a "Ponzi Scheme", feeding on their mistrust of government. This actually could be placed as #1, since it is going on right now in talk radio world and other conservative circles.

5. Wait for the inevitable collapse, where the trust fund cannot meet its obligations to retirees.

6. Proclaim the system dead, and completely abandon it. Make pious statements about how Social Security was the epitome of the failure of goverment to meet peoples' needs, and thank God that we're finally emerging from the dark shadow of the communist New Deal.

7. Convert all the private accounts to accounts in whatever financial services firm contributed the most to the RNC in the previous election.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[daveo0331]

The President does have the power to veto spending bills and, as John Kerry pointed out during the debates, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during his first term. Therefore it's fair to assign at least part of the blame to Bush.

Also, as others have already pointed out, the White House and Congress are all controlled by Republicans. Unlike Reagan, Bush can't blame his massive deficit on a Democratic congress.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[Caseyscrib]

First I'll address the Grandparent poster...

I agree with you spending is out of fucking control in washington. On top of that, Bush has shown he doesn't give a crap about the debt - he passed a tax cut despite the enormous deficit. Personally, I think the government should be required to pay back any money it spends within a reasonable time frame (ie: 10 years). This will let us spread out financing so it doesn't hurt our wallets so much. People will start to question whether or not they really need all this security bullshit in airports, trains, FBI agents at every corner if they see their taxes go up to 60%. Is hand checking every passengers baggage on a tour bus really beneficial for the costs involved? By allowing the government to use its charge card, a lot of the spending goes unnoticed by the public. Our future is going to have to deal with this debt, or we are going to have to sell Alaska or something.... too bad... I like Alaska :).

Here's an interesting point I once thought of that puts the debt into perspective. If you won the lottery ($300 mil), and donated all of it to the national debt, you wouldn't even make a dent. Thats just one day's deficit.

I somewhat agree with the privitization of social security. I do not know how Bush plans to go about it, but if I were in congress (I may just run someday), I think you should be required to take 10% (or 5% or whatever) of your paycheck and put it towards savings. The money would come out of your paycheck as a tax, and be deposited via direct deposit into a savings account of your choice. The bank would know this was a mandatory savings, and would not allow you to withdraw the money for use. When you reach retirement (or contract a fatal disease), the money will become available to you in incriments. This will help make sure you do not rely on society to feed you or heat your home. Asking society to do so puts an unfair strain all of us -"feel bad or pay up." No, be responsible with your own money.

As far as investing goes I have mixed emotions... if they invest and lose all their money then they will become a drain on society anyways, but on the other side its their money and if they manage it well they can be even more successful. I would probably go for a split plan, allowing them to put some money in stock and some in stable securities. Allowing the government to pick and chose the companies is an awful idea because if they pick poor choices, the only one accountable is them - good luck getting your money back. As the parent said, you also may not agree with their business practices. These choices should be left up to the person paying the money.

I suggest you vote the congressmen who voted for this bill out of office. Go figure, all 51 republicans voted yes.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[mdfst13]

"So, what is going to happen is that the amount of money currently moving into the social security fund will drop"

There is no "social security fund." All they do when there is more collected than they spend is they loan the money to the general fund. When social security stops collecting more money than it pays out, they will have to run a general fund surplus. Privatizing can partially alleviate that (particularly if they start by allowing people who are projected to retire before the social security system starts running deficits).

This would have been easier if they had started twenty years ago, when the social security system first started running surpluses. However, even if it doesn't start until next year, it can start reducing payouts almost immediately. All they have to do is to reduce the payout proportional to the privatized to traditional quarters ratio.

It would also be simple enough to create a requirement that any balance left at death would go back to the social security administration, reducing the cost of the privatization.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[Anonymous Coward]

SS already pays more than it collects.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[mdfst13]

"SS already pays more than it collects."

Page 283, 2004: Income = 555 billion; Outgo = 417 billion; Surplus = 138 billion

Those are estimated numbers (2004 isn't done yet), but consistent with 2003. This surplus is actually projected to increase over the next five years in that table. This may or may not be true...are there a lot of seniors who are in their 80s?

Could be. WWI ended in 1919, so the early 1920s had a baby boom of sorts. 1929 to 1945 was a slow period for births. The baby boom was in the mid 1940s (until the late 1950s or early 1960s) and won't be retiring until at least 2008, with 2012 being the real kickoff point (1946 + 66, which is the retirement age for full benefits). Thus, we need to start dampening outgo by 2012.

Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers?

[diabolo-nerd]

I agree

so...

[Anonymous Coward]

would this mean no more NewEgg taxes?

score!

Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is. As more and more of the economy shifts to the Internet, keeping Washington's greedy mitts out of it will mean a defacto tax cut for everyone.

(If you doubt that we are overtaxed, look at the money wasted on paying millionaires like Ted Kennedy a Congressional salary, no-bid Halliburton contracts, fish atlases, and pork barrel projects so multi-millionaire moguls don't have to pay to build their own stadiums).

Re:Excellent idea

[mtrisk]

Agreed. If they tax us, the government should put that money back for the public's benefit. How would we benefit from an internet tax? Libre Fiber connections, courtesy of the government? I don't think so. It's simply a money grab.

Re:Excellent idea

[pclminion]

money wasted on paying millionaires like Ted Kennedy a Congressional salary

So you're saying different Senators should be treated differently depending on who they are and how much money they have? Who gets to decide this complicated set of rules and exceptions? You?

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use it to fund the USA's continuing legacy of aggression attacks.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you're saying different Senators should be treated differently depending on who they are and how much money they have?"

Means test it. If the Congresscritter is independently wealthy, don't waste taxpayer dollars on them. If they need the money, pay it to them. There is no point in wasting money like this. They are supposed to be their to serve, not get ever richer.

Re:Excellent idea

[MorboNixon]

Perhaps your argument isn't so much that we're overtaxed, but that the proceeds from taxes aren't being spent wisely?

I agree with both points. I think we are overtaxed, but I think the far larger problem is that congress does not spend the money appropriately.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm saying that I'm going to write an abstract Slashdot poem.

Cowboy Neal, cowboy Neal,
he gets the gil
and the bill.
and takes her home to mummy.
He's a tart, but then
everyone.loves.Ned.Flanders

Ha yar yar yar!

Re:Excellent idea

[KarmaMB84]

We aren't so much overtaxed as our money just isn't be used effectively.

Re:Excellent idea

[MorboNixon]

Eh, well, as you probably read, I agree with you completely. However, I would think that if we actually "used our money effectively" that we wouldn't need to tax quite so much at the same time. Just a guess.

Re:Excellent idea

[Hatta]

I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is.

While the end result may be ok, is it really the place of the federal government to dictate what states can and can't tax? But it's not like the 10th amendment means anything anymore.

Re:Excellent idea

[g0hare]

America hater. Move to another country where you have the same opportunities, freedoms, and a lower tax bill. What's that? There isn't such a place? Sure there is, it's uh, uh, uh, I'll get it in a minute, well, wherever it is go there. Because claiming we're overtaxed is ridiculous.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I think its the same people that decide what "rich" means during tax season.

Re:Excellent idea

[mordors9]

That damn Bush and his Republican Congress. Waiting until after the election to try to pass this through... what, oh wait, we like this..... oh never mind :)

Re:Excellent idea

[mogrify]

As an American, I'd gladly pay 60% income tax if it meant I could get health care, good schools, low crime, lots of vacation, decent maternity leave for my wife, cheap higher education, and a social safety net if something should go wrong. Or I could just move to Germany.
But you're right, this tax shouldn't go through... not necessarily because of general overtaxation, but just because the costs of good access keep rising, and are subject to lots of miscellaneous fees already.

Re:Excellent idea

[tafinucane]

Politicians are inherently unable to spend money wisely.

The job of taxpayers is to disregard the demagogues' expansive promises and limit the amount they have available to waste.

Re:Excellent idea

[Ktuluvic]

Try pulling your head out of your ass and learning about the county and it's history, and I'm not talking about the bullshit the tv and news tells you. Or that shit your teacher fed you in school, there's a lot more going on than the watered down crap in text books. It's this kind of ignorance that's fucking up our world. Try and objective look at reality, learn about your own history and the things you're responsible for as an American.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It fits right in with his conspiracy with the Saudis to lower gas prices right befoH^H^H^H^ after the election.

Re:Excellent idea

[burns210]

The concept of democracy and debate is largely a joke when all three branches of the government are the same party. It is like the communist party in a communist country.

Yes, they are a 'party' like any other, but when they are in power, ONLY they are in power.

OK, this is enough unintentional trolling. The true nature of the constitution, the patent system, copyrights, power to the states unless specifically given to the federal government.. All of it is has been lost from the big picture of today's politics.

Re:Excellent idea

[goon america]

Slow down, there. You're talking about spending, not taxation. And as the past few years have shown, there is no relationship between these two variables.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that the US runs a budget deficit, obviously people overall are taking more in government spending than they are paying for in taxes.

You'll need to cut down on all of those forms of spending just so you won't be morgaging your children's future for low taxes. If you want further tax cuts, a good place to start would be stop spending more on your military than the rest of the world combined...

Re:Excellent idea

[sysopd]

I think we are overtaxed, but I think the far larger problem is that congress does not spend the money appropriately.

I believe the problem is the ever-increasing scope of government. The way to effectively solve a problem is to be involved in it as your profession- a part of the industry, with competition. "Necessity is the mother of invention," and in capitalism profit/growth is the necessity and competition is the catalyst.

Congress attempts to solve a problem by throwing money at it. But in order to be successful they have to know more about what they're doing, which in turn costs more money. So either you pay a lot for a little, or you pay a whole lot for a little more.

If government would reduce their role in our lives and thus their spending, everyone could put money into things they care about. I believe putting faith in people you can hold responsible, people that know what they're doing and are involved in their specific industry is the best answer. Why do people keep asking their congressman to fix some supposed problem? Maybe because they want everyone to be forced to pay for a cause they believe in. But if this is the case they need to realize that their time and money would be better spent starting up a non-profit or volunteering for one.

Today we have nosey people that want to impose their beliefs and/or morality on everyone else through the strong arm of government (liberals with welfare plans and conservatives with morality) and groups of industry lobbyists that desire to limit freedoms in the name of the almighty dollar through the back door of government.

If we had true reform, true radical restructuring of government with the freedoms originally intended by the founders and a small yet effective government acting according to its purpose-- politics would be a lot more boring.

Re:Excellent idea

[FuegoFuerte]

How would we benefit from an internet tax?

Well... let me tell you. When was the last time you needed some specialty product, and needed it right away? How did you get it? Did you order it online? No? It would've taken 3 days to a week to get it, or cost an extra $20 plus in shipping? Or you needed it RIGHT THEN and couldn't even wait a day? Ok. So you went to your local shop that sells that sort of specialty product (whatever it might've been... computer hardware, musical gear, electronics, auto parts, tools, whatever).

Now, let me tell you (as the manager of a small retail store), internet sales are killing small businesses left and right because of a couple things. One is the low overhead, the other, and probably one of the primary reasons, is the lack of sales taxes. The lack of sales tax alone means a savings of 8.8% to people living near my store in Washington state.

If this insanity continues, next time you need that little item "RIGHT NOW," you aren't going to be able to get it. Why? Because the only place left to go will be online, where you will be buying from somewhere across the country and won't possibly be able to get it for at least a day or two.

Personally, I'm all for taxation of internet sales. I really think they should have an equal or greater sales tax rate compared with any brick-and-mortar retailer. I do agree that there shouldn't be a tax on internet access however.

Re:Excellent idea

[frankvl]

Well, he is a taxpayer so his decision should count for 1/300 millionth:1 in this democracy.

Oh, wait, we're talking about America..

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You can partially thank Bush for that. His spending is atrocious.

Re:Excellent idea

[anthony_dipierro]

Most states are required by their constitutions to have balanced budgets, though. If you cut taxes, you have to cut spending. You really can starve the beast, unlike when Reagan gave us those ever-increasing deficits during his Presidency.

Re:Excellent idea

[ViolentGreen]

Try reading the article. This isn't a ban on Internet sales tax. This is a ban on taxing Internet service. Sales tax is determined by whether the store has a presence in your state.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes, it is the role of the government because the Internet falls under INTER-state communication. That automatically makes it the role of the government. If our Internet connections only gave us access to systems within each state, then it would fall under the 10th Amendment. Since the U.S. government was created primarily for matters of mutual defense *and matters between states and other countries*, that makes issues of the Internet fall under Federal regulation.

Of course, IANAL, but I am very interested in matter such as these because I'm considering what options are available to stop states from implementing "use taxes", which are in violation of the 10th Amendment.

Re:Excellent idea

[atta1]

Sounds like you should move to some socialist nation. Do people really believe that a) it's the governement's job to provide your every need and coddle you from cradle to grave and b) that the government could really do a good job of it?

Re:Excellent idea

[mogrify]

yep :)

Re:Excellent idea

[N3WBI3]

As an American, I'd gladly pay 60% income tax if it meant I could get health care, good schools, low crime, lots of vacation, decent maternity leave for my wife, cheap higher education, and a social safety net if something should go wrong.

And as an American I can not, I guess we should have an election about this.. Wait we just did. The fact you think this is the federal governments job means you should move to a socialist nation and try your hand there.

As a Minnisotan, if Californians decided they want to pay a 60% state income tax to have better schools, low crime, good health care, ..., the government to tuck you in at night, somebody to chew your food for you, a rocket powered sled, a free puppy, and a really comfortbale pair of shoes Im ok with that. But dont try to push a nanny state on me.

Re:Excellent idea

[mogrify]

The fact you think this is the federal governments job means you should move to a socialist nation and try your hand there.
Yeah, I've considered it. But I can also try to change the system... I'm not trying to push anything on anyone, and I know mine is a minority opinion. But I still like it here, so I'm not giving up yet... I'll just keep voting and talking to anyone who'll listen :)
I would like a rocket sled though. :)

Re:Excellent idea

[caswelmo]

The problem with a single party 0wning everything is that the individual branches overlap too much nowdays. The judicial branch is too much about inserting the judges personal ideas & thoughts into the laws they are asked to rule on. They're real job is just to interpret the law as it was intended by the legislature (even if it's stupid) and rule accordingly. That's why the 9th circuit court in CA pisses everybody off, they legislate instead of judge.

The legislative branch seems to forget that it is not their job to influence executive orders. It is their job to uphold the will of the people by writing and voting on legislation (bills). It is the executive branches job to run the country and deal with other countries.

The republicans were voted into power fair and square. Thus the legislative branch should feel free to propose and vote on legislation along those lines. The executive branch should run the country & our foreign policy along those lines as well. The judicial branch, however, should be completely free from party influence because it isn't really part of their job. Of course, that's what happens when you give lawyers power, they just do what they think is right and to hell with everybody else & the way things are supposed to work.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to newegg you will get it tomorrow!!!

Re:Excellent idea

[legirons]

"I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is."

But how will it help that the federal government is spending your money to investigate, debate, and implement additional rules like this for your state to comply with?

As far as I can tell, this only makes your tax bill higher, because the various organisations who tax you will still need as much money as before, and in addition, the size of the federal government has now increased to incorporate a "preventing people from levying an internet tax" function.

Re:Excellent idea

[Hatta]

Actually, yes, it is the role of the government because the Internet falls under INTER-state communication. That automatically makes it the role of the government. If our Internet connections only gave us access to systems within each state, then it would fall under the 10th Amendment. Since the U.S. government was created primarily for matters of mutual defense *and matters between states and other countries*, that makes issues of the Internet fall under Federal regulation.

The federal government can regulate interstate commerce. I don't think the constitution says anything about interstate communication. So the gov't shouldn't have any say about me buying bandwith from a local carrier, but they probably have something to say about the local carrier buying bandwith from the backbone.

Of course, IANAL, but I shouldn't have to be. The constitution is written in plain language that can be understood by any 8th grader. It's just that there are 200 years of distortions and power grabs disguised as "precedent".

Re:Excellent idea

[AntsInMyPants]

Of course it is. I didn't RFTA (of course, why would I), but if the tax involves products bought in one state and sent to another, its inter-state commerce which the Federal Gov't absolutely has a right to regulate.

Although I do agree,for all intents and purposes the 10th amendment no longer exists. This is the fault of the States themselves as well as the Federal Gov't. The Federal Government appropriates so much money that is solely for State's needs that they essentially blackmail states into compliance.

For instance, with the national speed limit, the state's didn't *have* to implement the law, but if they didn't, the Federal Gov't would withhold money for roads. The same thing's true for education, drunk driving, etc.

The State's are forced to comply, because if they refuse the money, their citizen's are being penalized twice. They lose the money from the gov't (which they have paid in taxes) and the state must tax them at a higher rate to cover the services that the Federal money originally paid for.

Of course the alternative, which people rarely seem to discuss, is for the States to seriously slash away at the fat in their operations, and reduce their scope to only do what they are supposed to, and *then* tell the Federal Government to take a hike when it tries to blackmail them.

Re:Excellent idea

[Asterisk]

The judicial branch is too much about inserting the judges personal ideas & thoughts into the laws they are asked to rule on. They're real job is just to interpret the law as it was intended by the legislature (even if it's stupid) and rule accordingly.

No, it isn't, and it never has been. It's always been the courts' responsibility to determine the constitutionality of statutes. Look at it this way: the constitution is a superior source of law relative to legislation. So the courts are interpreting and applying the constitution to inferior statutes.

The courts never "legislate" - they don't create new positive law from whole cloth and establish an enforcement apparatus to apply their decisions to the whole of society. Only legislatures do that (and personally, I think legislatures shouldn't have this power either), but it's the courts' job to reign them in when they go too far.

Re:Excellent idea

[Hatta]

The republicans were voted into power fair and square.

The problem is that the democrats and republicans are both essentially branches of the same party that represents the interests of the property holders. Of course the corporate owned media won't give any air to candidates that represent the people instead of corporations.

Re:Excellent idea

[pclminion]

There is no point in wasting money like this. They are supposed to be their to serve, not get ever richer.

Rich people don't get that way by getting paid a salary. People tend to spend money at the same rate they earn it. The truly rich get that way through investment or pedigree, not paychecks.

The point being, Ted Kennedy is not getting "ever richer" because of his Congressional salary.

Re:Excellent idea

[FuegoFuerte]

I fully understand how the internet sales tax thing works currently. There has been much talk of changing that, and from the wording of the initial message (about this mattering to online merchants) I thought perhaps someone was finally about to do something about it. But yerright, this is one article I didn't read (cause I didn't care that much).

Re:Excellent idea

[dave420]

You're confusing taxes being mis-spent with paying too much in tax. Taxes are neither a good thing nor a bad thing - how they're spent determines that. If your taxes went straight back in your pocket, you'd think they were good. If they went on Ted Kennedy, you'd not.

America spends not enough on a lot of worthy causes - if your taxes went on them, you wouldn't think they were so bad.

Re:Excellent idea

[leecn]

You are typically ignorant. Go mate with your sister, just like adam and eves (your ultimate grandparents) kids must have.

Re:Excellent idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That was pointless and biggoted, thanks for adding something to the thread..

Lets hope so

[Realistic_Dragon]

If they tax the internet the real geeks can go back to fido/bbs and we can let the useless languish in commercialised hell.

Re:Lets hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont now about that, I made some expensive long distance calls back in the BBS days.

Re:Lets hope so

[Anonymous Coward]

Your dragon isn't very realistic. Maybe you should have used pico rather than vim?

it was always unlikely

[howhardcanitbetocrea]

it was obvious, think about it and the possiblility of the US taxing me in Australia is pretty remote - unless they get the RIAA to track me down.

Re:it was always unlikely

[John Seminal]

it was obvious, think about it and the possiblility of the US taxing me in Australia is pretty remote - unless they get the RIAA to track me down.

They will tax you at the point of sale. So the guy selling you the X will add on 1% or 2% sales tax.

Re:it was always unlikely

[Frogbert]

Why would they? Rotate RIAA one place and you get ARIA.

Same scum, different names. They are like supervillians flaunting their actual intent in some cleverly disguised name.

Re:it was always unlikely

[verzonnen]

If the tax was added at the point of sale, A foreigner would be able to get the tax back when the item is exported, thus creating paperwork and more wasted tax payers money. Let alone the potential for fraud.

RTFA

[Greg01851]

"Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access" Internet Access... not all internet purchases... i.e. your bill from your ISP will be a bit lower, unless you use AOHell :)

Re:RTFA

[Peyna]

your bill from your ISP will be a bit lower

How many jurisdictions currently tax Internet access, and how many ISPs will lower your bill, or just raise it up to the rate you were paying with the tax on top of it anyway?

Re:RTFA

[doodlelogic]

How many jurisdictions currently tax Internet access?

The EU does - VAT, the only pan-European tax, is charged but some companies (including UK AoL) get round it by basing their operations in places like the Channel Islands.

A greed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A greed" is right. This is about nothing more than our greedy rulers wanting more and more

PARENT POSTS REDIRECT TO POSSIBLY SHADY .INFO TLD

[oldosadmin]

:) Just letting you know, I didn't click it, but if it smells like a troll, it probably it.

Re:Gmail Invites from Michael O'Connor

[Anonymous Coward]

All links are fake Gmail invites. Mod parent down -1 Troll.

Re:Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Man Man,

you failed it with extreme loserness. But atleast you posted within the first 10 freaking minutes unlike all these other freaks.

And next time you don't post anon, make sure you get it first!

PS. looking through your comment history, you've been buring through the karma the past little while. Getting the blues?

I like the idea of an internet tax...

[John Seminal]

*This is 100% from a USA point of view* If it costs more money to do buisness on the internet, maybe brick stores will have a better shot of getting buisness. I don't know about all of you, but it scares me to think that in the future I will have to rely on the internet to buy, say for example, books, because amazon is profitable and Borders is not. I want a brick store, it adds jobs to my community. With the internet, dollars I spend could concievable go to a warehouse outside the USA. What if amazon decides to set up shop in mexico?? That means the money I spend will no longer support american jobs.

Secondly, if they start taxing something like bandwith or emails, that works for me too. I already pay for my internet connection, and would not mind paying a penny an email. Anything to get the spammers out of buisness.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[MorboNixon]

Err, so, is it the companies that are going to feel the pinch of these taxes or the consumers? I'm not sure this will have the effect you describe if people view it as a "convenience charge". That's the best thing about Amazon is that it's so convenient. I'm as worried about American jobs as you are, but I'm not sure this tax will save any of them. Do you really think that the Internet is going to destroy the two big conglomerates that sell most of the books in this country? Last time I checked they both had websites selling books too.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

ideally I agree with you about trying to keep jobs. But in a practical world with a store on home. The home store will still buy supplies from overseas. Just because the man in the middle is on the home front won't change the fact that the manufacturing is done overseas. Essentially there is not much difference between buying from china directly from the internet or buying from walmart.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[mog007]

Since when did the Constitution say that the government was supposed to favor one business over another? The United States is capitalist, if the brick and mortor stores can't compete with the internet, then they can't compete. Let them fade away just like the horse and buggy. It's the future; you should embrace it.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[ad0gg]

Umm. Point of the internet is competition. If brick/mortars want to compete on price with internet retailers, they are going to lose. It will force retailers to provide something else. Look at the state of retail market, go to best buy and try to get help. If Bestbuy goes bankrupt, i won't be missing them. On the other hand look at Fry's, they easily compete on price with internet retailers. How do they do it? Volume.

As for moving overseas. If amazon wants setup their warehouse in mexico, so be it. Its gonna cost a bunch of money to ship stuff to the US. Remember internet retailers have shipping costs to either factor into their price or charge the customer.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the choice, I would prefer legislation that would prohibit the likes of Amazon setting up shop in foreign countries. Neither choice, however, is acceptable imho.

Internet retailers may be profitable but their very nature puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage to so-called brick stores. For one, you can't trust every store on the Internet no matter how nice the site looks. People who buy online do get ripped off, and in a way that would never happen in a brick store. At a brick store, you pick up the product, you take it to the checkout, you pay for it, you leave _with_ your product. Online, you pay first, then hope you actually get the product you purchased.

Also, there are a ton of brick stores that you can't really replace with online stores, such as clothing stores. Sure, you can order clothes from Old Navy, JCrew, The Void (Gap), and most other major stores, but you don't know how they fit. In an increasingly appearance-concious society, the way your clothes fit is enough to make you go to a real store as opposed to shopping online. Even Jewelry stores are the same way -- would you buy a 3-karat diamond ring online or would you go to a real reputable store in person to drop that much cash?

Last but certainly not least, when you run a brick store, you're only competing with the stores within about a 5-50 mile radius of yours (depending on how far people are willing to drive to buy a certain product). When your store is online, you're competing with literally shitloads of other stores all over the world. That's a hell of a lot of competition.

So yeah, taxing Internet businesses might be a nice way to help brick stores, but you'd be screwing a whole bunch of retailers who have enough headaches to deal with as it is. Hardly a real American approach to the issue.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[KarmaMB84]

By your logic, the government should NOT be disallowing taxes on the internet.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[back_pages]

Since when did the Constitution say that the government was supposed to favor one business over another? The United States is capitalist, if the brick and mortor stores can't compete with the internet, then they can't compete. Let them fade away just like the horse and buggy. It's the future; you should embrace it.

In my opinion, that ended (if it wasn't already over) when the American president, a candidate of the Republican party which supposedly contrasts the more socialist Democrats, told American citizens that buying identical pharmaceuticals for a lower price in Canada was scary, dangerous, and bad. Apparently, we're only interested in "free market" as a slogan. We're really in favor of corporate profits in spite of the quality of life for the average citizen declining.

I wish this didn't sound like a Democratic rant. I'd love to see a Republican candidate in 2008 who actually stands for what the Republican party supposedly represents.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[g0hare]

As long as you live in a place that has a population density that supports a Fry's goody for you! Let's all move to big cities now! All you people who don't live in major population centers, you should be dead anyway because you're losers!

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Prof.Phreak]

As far as I know, most book stores (at least in NYC) make quite a bit of money not from books, but from coffee and other extra thingies. The books and comfy reading areas bring customers in to get overpriced coffee. That cannot go online.

Now is they lower the price of books to that of amazon, they can break even on books---AND make a load of profits selling coffee and snacks.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

I WEEP for the sad state of economics education in our schools today that this idiot pipe-dream of "oh, drugs are expensive, let's just buy them from canada". The reason for the price difference is twofold:

1: Drug companies charge higher prices in the united states because the US has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and can afford to pay more. It's sort of like the left's "Tax the rich" scheme.

2: The Canadian government subsidizes prescription drugs

So, once 'reimportation' of canadian drugs reaches a critical mass, there are two parties that are going to do everything in their power to stop it: the manufacturers, who's profits are threatened, and Canada, who will be watching their tax dollars flow south to the richest country in the world. At that point, 3 things will happen:
Drug companies charge canada the same rates as the US
Canada either bans foreigners from buying drugs or requires them to be charged full price
The entire retarded scheme falls apart. Hooray.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[mrchaotica]

Or alternatively, the government should not be allowing taxes on any industry.

Not to mention that the whole argument is irrelevant (yours and the grandparent's) since we're this particular law is about (not) taxing ISPs, not e-commerce stores.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[ikkonoishi]

The solution is simple.

America must take over the world.

That would totally eliminate outsourcing.

And most places would be better off. (Ask the thousands of illegal immigrants.)

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[nolife]

1: Drug companies charge higher prices in the united states because the US has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world and can afford to pay more. It's sort of like the left's "Tax the rich" scheme.

Agreed, part of doing business. So why does the government have to step in and/or discourage consumers from looking elsewhere and provide artificial protection to the companies that desire to charge different rates in different areas? US companies can buy products and outsource factories to cheaper locations in the world but there are many hoops to jump through for an american citizen to buy products directly from that same cheaper place. Too many companies either artifically or though the help of the US government, are providing hurdles to prevent the us consumers from buying elsewhere. DVD and console game region coding and prescription drugs are some very good examples of this racket.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[1lus10n]

By which point in time we could buy them from other countries who would be inticed to compete with canada on the importation of drugs. The entire problem with this comes down to three letters: FDA.

As long as agencies like that exist this will not be a free market because they drive up prices. The reason the drug companies are charging so much is because they can, most of the products are needed so its not like consumption is going to stop. Right now we are regulating everything in the wrong places (the system is setup to help the big companies) and ignoring where the assistance is needed. Its going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I already pay for my internet connection, and would not mind paying a penny an email."

Do you mean, "you wouldn't mind, so you'll voluntarily send the government a check for your email usage", or do you mean "you wouldn't mind, so you think everyone else should be forced to"?

If the latter, how do you propose to enforce your email tax idea? Government-mandated spyware on every computer that reports how many POP and SMTP headers your computer sends? Tax auditors with the authority to seize your hard disk and analyze it for deleted email? Or perhaps a government filter at your ISP, which can also make sure - since it's there anyway - that you're not reading anti-government information or visiting websites that are hostile to the President.

And of course, new Internet technologies and applications would have to be approved by the government before being used, just in case they provided a means of sending electronic mail with new protocols that bypassed the taxman. Can't have any loopholes, now, can we?

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to troll, but haven't Borders and Amazon been joined at the hip for some time now?

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[NardofDoom]

If I were a Canadian I'd be pissed off that Americans are using my tax dollars so they don't have to pay so much for medication.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[Politburo]

GP isn't arguing that buying drugs from Canada would actually be cheaper (or that Canada would continue to allow it if it occurred en masse).

What GP is saying is that the GOP says "Free Market! Free Market!" and then they go and restrict the market. It's the same with "Fiscal Responsibility". They go on and on about "tax and spend liberals" and yet they're running the highest defecits, and we've had to raise the debt ceiling 3 times in 4 years!

They're hypocrites, plain and simple. That's the GP's point.

Re:I like the idea of an internet tax...

[back_pages]

You are correct. thanks.

Re:PARENT POSTS REDIRECT TO POSSIBLY SHADY .INFO T

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely a troll, just look at the whois data!

Domain ID: D6264273-LRMS
Domain Name: NYUD.INFO
Created On: 08-Sep-2004 05:53:52 UTC
Expiration Date: 08-Sep-2005 05:53:52 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: Spot Domain, LLC, dba DomainSite (R263-LRMS)
Status: ACTIVE
Status: OK
Registrant ID: C5566088-LRMS
Registrant Name: Dong Bird
Registrant Organization: Gay Nigger Association of America
Registrant Street1: 3750 Coit Rd.
Registrant City: Richardson
Registrant State/Province: TX
Registrant Postal Code: 75080
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.9722342322
Registrant Email: lastmeasure@gmail.com
Admin ID: C5566091-LRMS
Admin Name: Dong Bird
Admin Organization: Gay Nigger Association of America
Admin Street1: 3750 Coit Rd.
Admin City: Richardson
Admin State/Province: TX
Admin Postal Code: 75080
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: +1.9722342322
Admin Email: lastmeasure@gmail.com
Billing ID: C5566092-LRMS
Billing Name: Dong Bird
Billing Organization: Gay Nigger Association of America
Billing Street1: 3750 Coit Rd.
Billing City: Richardson
Billing State/Province: TX
Billing Postal Code: 75080
Billing Country: US
Billing Phone: +1.9722342322
Billing Email: lastmeasure@gmail.com
Tech ID: C5566089-LRMS
Tech Name: Dong Bird
Tech Organization: Gay Nigger Association of America
Tech Street1: 3750 Coit Rd.
Tech City: Richardson
Tech State/Province: TX
Tech Postal Code: 75080
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: +1.9722342322
Tech Email: lastmeasure@gmail.com
Name Server: NS1.DOMAINSITE.COM
Name Server: NS2.DOMAINSITE.COM
Name Server: NS3.DOMAINSITE.COM
Name Server: NS4.DOMAINSITE.COM

Re:Square Peg into a Round Hole

[Kenja]

"Once again, a case of politicians that can't grasp the concept of a transnational entity that doesn't fit into their neat little system of sovereign nation states.

Once again a slashdot reader that failes to read the summary much less the FA. This is a bill to STOP taxs on the internet. Does that fit into your world view?

current tally:

[bersl2]

good things Congress has done this week: 1
bad things Congress has done this week: a lot more

That's better than most weeks...

Re:current tally:

[goon america]

Whoah, slow down there, cowboy. Since when does Congress do more than one thing a week?

Re:current tally:

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea. Right now they're trying to sneak in a change to the H-1B limits. Say good-bye to your job. The dying IT job market is about to be kicked in the teeth.

Re:current tally:

[TykeClone]

When they think that no one is looking!

Re:current tally:

[Tablizer]

When they think that no one is looking!

That is how the first H-1B visa worker increase got through. Somebody tacked it onto a large bill with lots of items at the last minute. Nobody wanted to delay their vacation by questioning it and stopping an entire bill for just one item (I think there were a few other sneakers), so it floated through with almost no debate.

Re:Square Peg into a Round Hole

[pclminion]

Get real. Except for the specific kinds of data passing through it, it's absolutely no different than the international telephone system, and that is heavily taxed by nearly every nation in the world.

Get over this stupid idea that the Internet is some other-worldly, unparalleled phenomemon. It isn't. It's an evolutionary step in human communication, not alien technology, and it can be taxed just like everything else in history has been taxed.

Easing taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, Bush's policy has always been to ease taxes on the rich while shifting them to lower icomes"

That is a very misleading way to look at it. Under Bush's tax plan, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the non-rich (as well a a higher actual dollar amount, of course). The Bush tax cut policy was really aimed at the middle class: most of those who had their taxes reduced are middle class.\

"Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich" is a lie cooked up by some think-tank, and parrotted by Democratic candidates everywhere. Fortunately, everyone saw right through it. Might as well has called it "Tax Cuts for Gays", because more gays and lesbians had their taxes reduced than rich people did.

Re:Easing taxes

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Yeah, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rage-on for class warfare! Stick it to the man! Authorize me the power to beat the rich Jewish, sorry, generic businessman's head, and I'll make your life better. I promise! :rollseyes

Re:Easing taxes

[obeythefist]

Most modern taxation systems are progressive.

Suggesting that Bush is somehow unique in following a progressive tax scheme is farcical.

What we do see is that Bush is very good at ensuring corporations and the very rich are able to "evade" taxation wherever possible.

Bush and the conservative governments have worked hard at the bidding of the MPAA and similar companies to ensure that corporate motives, including tax breaks, are always met. Ever noticed how just about every major motion picture company always operates at a loss? I probably pay more tax than some of them.

What is most significant however is that Bush is openly and directly following a mandate that progressively widens the rich-poor gap. It might seem like nothing to a relatively rich american, until you consider that things like the rich-poor divide are partially responsible for creating the conditions that inspired terrorists to go for a joyride on september 11. Now just imagine how nice it is that Bush is inadvertantly creating the same conditions within America.

Re:Easing taxes

[Council]

That's pretty misleading, too -- everything you've said is common knowledge from a different angle.

Under Bush's tax plan, the rich pay a higher percentage of their income than the non-rich (as well a a higher actual dollar amount, of course).

That's a progressive income tax, a pretty universal feature of modern income tax. The question is, does the Bush plan tilt it MORE toward or away from the rich than previous plans? (draw some graphs, it's fun). As far as I know, he taxes them less. Is this good? Debatable.

The Bush tax cut policy was really aimed at the middle class: most of those who had their taxes reduced are middle class.

Of course; there are more members of the middle class, so more of them had their taxes reduced. This is trivial.

I don't know much about economics and I honestly don't know what the best system is. But I try to stay clear on how things are now and what the options for change are.

Re:Easing taxes

[spuzzzzzzz]

Does anyone have figures for the tax rates in the US before and after Bush's cuts? In Australia, the (progressive) taxes range from 0% for the first $6000 to 47% for every dollar above $60000 (or somewhere around that). What were the American rates before and after the cuts? I have seen lots of people arguing over whether Bush has cut taxes for the rich with very few hard figures.

Re:Easing taxes

[TykeClone]

Our base tax rate is 15.3% on "earned" income (FICA - Social Security and Medicare is collected on the first dollar) - but that is a little misleading. Under the right circumstances, a taxpayer earning even a small amount of income will get an "earned income credit" that is meant to pay back the FICA taxes collected from him or her throughout the year.

If you are running a small business at home, you will likely pay at least 30% federal income tax plus whatever the state taxes are - and that's if you're in the "15% middle class" tax bracket. It only gets worse from there.

Re:Easing taxes

[Nadsat]

What fact? OK, do the math. Show your stuff. Don't hold out. And don't assume anyone is left here. Or right. What's with all these assumptions?

Looking for truths here. Not left or right blah blah blahs.

Although, seriously, are you really trying to convince me that Bush is adopting a sort of anti-reagonics strategy?

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

are you a retard?!? Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

I wanted to say, Mod Parent Up...but then I read that he said middle class had their taxes reduced...have you seen any of the Tax Cuts that went into effect?!? Earning 1 Million Dollars does not make you one of the every-day American middle-class...you can sink that into an interest bearing savings account (even at todays rates) and make a decent living for putting your clothes on and feeding yourself every day ... what do you think is the middle class, the people eating crap out of the garbage?!? seriously...you have some problems...

Re:Easing taxes

[jadavis]

I'd just like to add that nobody really takes into account what the rates actually are.

SOMEbody has to reduce taxes on "the rich" otherwise the taxes will asymtotically approach 100%.

So the real question becomes "what were the rates before Bush's tax plan, and are the new rates better or worse overall, and why?".

Most of the people who shout "tax cuts for the rich" don't even know what the old and new rates are, which really eliminates any basis for their argument.

To be honest, I don't know that data either. But what I do know is that the question has nothing to do with whether the rates were raised or cut, it only matters whether we are closer to the optimal rate (the optimal rate is of course a matter of opinion that depends on the individual you ask).

Re:Easing taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong in almost every respect. Did you even attend economics in school?

The top 50% of income earners pay 98% of ALL TAXES. You can't get a tax cut if you pay no taxes. How about people who earn their money keep more of it? Oh wait,is that a little too 'free' for you?

Cite some examples of this 'gap'. You won't because its a myth. People MOVE around the income brackets. Sphere(?) research did a study of lower 20% income workers in the late 70s, and 80% of them reached the top 20% within 20 years.

It is the height of stupidity to suggest a PROGRESSIVE tax which makes it harder to obtain wealth(it was devised by 2 rich kids, Marx and Engalls) somehow brings people up.

If I already have a million dollars and I want to keep YOU from ever getting a million dollars I would certainly push for a high tax on upper income levels. Then I can get useful idiots like yourself to support them.

OR, you could just take some basic economics and quit with the demogoguery. WEALTH != INCOME.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Eveyone had there taxes lowered. The top four brackets are down and the cutoff for the 25% bracket (in the past the 28% bracket) is 25K single, 56K married hardly millionairs. In addition to the top 4 being lower there is an increased per chiled credit from 500$ -> 2000$

God the hate tax cut crowd does not even try to look something up..

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Old -> New, High Cutoff (Married) 38.6 -> 35, None 35 -> 33, 311K 30 -> 28, 174K 27 -> 25, 114K 15 -> 15, 56K 10 -> 10, 14K So if you make more than 56K (as a married couple) you taxes went down. If you make less your taxes stayed the same (as a not ususally if you make less than 50K as a married couple you get all of your taxes back at the end of the year.

Re:Easing taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't get a tax cut if you pay no taxes.

Wrong on that one ... the Bush tax cuts included pure payments to all filers, even those who paid NO taxes.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

are you a retard?!? Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen.

Umm I cant speak to his IQ but he seems to be more informed than you. While bush did give a cut to people making 1 Million or more he gave a cut to every couple making more than 56 thousand dollars, and ever individule making more than 26 thousand dollars. does 26K = 1 million to you? The only brackets that did not get cut are the two lowest whos members usually get everything back (including FICA). Damn it man there is not tax bracket that starts at a million dollars so how is it that the Bush plan gave a tax cut only to those makign a million or more?

Old -> New, High Cutoff (Married)
38.6 -> 35, None
35 -> 33, 311K
30 -> 28, 174K
27 -> 25, 114K
15 -> 15, 56K
10 -> 10, 14K

WTF is wrong with you!

I think his problem is that he bothered to buy a clue before posting a rant on slashdoat...

Re:Easing taxes

[superpulpsicle]

Please, the average credit coming back after the cuts was like $100. Is this worth arguing over?! That's like one electric bill.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

Or perhaps I just wasn't being as narrow-minded as yourself.

From Citizens for Tax Justice; but what would they know about taxes, right?

* From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
* From 2006 through 2009, the share of the tax cuts going to the very rich jumps to 41 percent of the total.
* By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.

Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...

-It's easy to prove someone wrong when you don't understand what they are saying.-

I'd recommend reading my post and finding the part where I say "The ONLY tax cut" or anything like that...it's hard to do, try it.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Can you site something saying what the average back was or are you just blowing smoke??

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.

By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?

By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.

Are you aware that 'very large estates' include sub chapter s corporations? so if I run a small gas station and want to pass it to my kid should he have to pay half the worth of the station in taxes?

And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...

hmm and whom do small business employ?

Here are the facts:

Income taxes were cut across the board, and the wealthy still pay a higher % of their salary than the middle class.

The tax credits for kids apply to everyone

The estate tax will keep me from having to pay 40K on my mothers 80K worth of assets when she passes.

You said only millionairs got a tax cut under Bush which is compleatly wrong.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

again, I'd love to see where I said the only tax cut was for people earning more than a million dollars. And I'd love for you to ask those families how much that thousand dollars is going to put their kids to college or seriously improve their life. Meanwhile, the millionaire is paying significantly less dollars in taxes. Are you following?

Please read post for source. Basically, my best response is to simply ask you to read my post.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?

here we go...percentages are a ratio, the percent of each dollar and the percent of overall dollars would be equal.

2% of one dollar = 2 cents.
2% of 100 dollars = 2 dollars.
2% of 1000 dollars = 20 dollars. and so on...

I hadn't realized you were having trouble with math as much as reading and comprehension. As for source, I think I already answered that, twice.

Re:Easing taxes

[mdfst13]

Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.

It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich. On the bright side, people can now argue that a flat tax would raise taxes on the rich.

Incidentally, the 1986 tax changes came very close to creating a flat tax. If you combine the income tax with the Social Security and Medicare wage taxes, you get (.15 + .153) / 1.0765 (since half the contribution is paid by the employer, so it doesn't appear in the nominal income. This creates an effective minimum rate of 28%. The top rate was also 28%. The only people who weren't paying a 28% marginal rate were those in the middle, some of whom paid 33% plus the wage taxes.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

So If a rich person pays 36 cents out of every dollar and a middle class person pays 25 this is somehow unfair to the middle class??

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?

Yes it is because:

1) Most rich people did not inherit their wealth, they work for it, take chances
2) The farmer alreay pays tens of thousands less in income tax
3) People money does not belong to the Government
4) Rich people dont sit on their money, they invest it
5) Chances are someone who would get back 10,000$ (and thus makes 500,000) either employees, or through stocks subsidizes someone who gets back 500$ (thus making 25,000)

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while. do you know what an example is? did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives? And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch. So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it. Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while

Yes because I disagree with you, im narrow minded... Ill let that sink in.

do you know what an example is?

Sure my first job at a fast food place, the guy owned two stores and brought home about 300K a year. He was born with nothing and worked his way to wealthy.

did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives?

duh, im not the one who in the last post said: and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself? News flash most rich people dont inherit daddys money.

And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch.

And is there something to back this hunch up? Anything at all? Do you think the guy that owns a home depot franchise, or a pizza hut, or a sub-way, makes more than 1 million a year?

So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it.

Lets start with the fact college is not a right, I come from a poor family and I went to school on loans. No matter how much I make my kids will go on loans because its better for them to appreciate their education.

Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.

Maybe just maybe if you thought for two seconds before you said:

are you a retard?!?

Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!

You start byt slinging insults (later on to call me close minded) and imply that only millionairs got a tax cut under bush.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

ok, you have too much time on your hands, proof: you can go through my posts line by line and take them out of context (similar to being narrow minded) and refute them. This is easy. I'm asking you look at the big picture, not the tiny world view you seem to enjoy.

I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?

I said you are narrow minded because you are taking everything I said into your context, not the context in which I am saying it. Also, you're looking at one thing and thinking everything else should follow the same rules. The world doesn't work like that!

I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000. Again, ignoring what I am saying to refute the argument you think I am making to fit your rebuttal. This is ignorant.

College is not a right, you can argue health care isn't either...but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education and health care? I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?

Here's another example of your ignorance, I said 'just a hunch' and you immediately responded demanding proof. Do you know what that means if I say 'just a hunch'. Look it up yourself, but I'm still pretty sure I'm correct. Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year. I'm sure most of the cashiers may not have full benefits, but I also feel safe in saying most of the top half of the administration, etc... has benefits. Again, this is a hunch, but maybe more of an educated guess. So please, please, please read my posts and not take them out of context when arguing back. One can easily argue that that is an ignorant thing to do. Plus, it only makes you look more ignorant and foolish when you ignore these warnings and continue to take what I say out of context to fit your argument.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?

Why bother arguing if its just, its not true... Is it true the gap has changed? yes! is it true that the poor stay poor, no. I come from a poor family I now make enough that my wife does not have to work.

I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000.

Oh so once again, you dont know but take your first impressions as Bible truth, what a suprise. The fact is he does not take home a million, neither does the guy who own $diner who employees six or seven people.

but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education

My point is everyone can! I got through school compleatly on loans and part time jobs.

I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?

By all mean voulenteer, give money to college funds, free clinics. Voulenteer your time at soup kitchens, give give give. I give more than 10% of my pre tax salary to the poor every year. But it is dead wrong to expect the government to make people provide for other people, its dead wrong to force someone to care for someone else.

This nation got throught the great depression without federal welfare why do we need it now?

Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year.

I sad a store, not the chain. Go to a mall, look at all the people with jobs and ask youself how many of them work for the poor.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

wow.

Do you want a cookie or a medal or something? Your wife doesn't work, that's great. You should be thankful that you can, but don't be so ignorant to believe anyone with the will also has the way or means to do so too.

My first impression was that 500,000 is half of 1 million, and 1 million is twice 500,000. This IS Bible truth. Who is this guy?

Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.

The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise. This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education. Just because you and I could, does not mean everyone....do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

Why bother arguing if its just, its not true

You don't think the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Are you retarded? (yes, I said it again, you can quote me if you want.)

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Do you want a cookie or a medal or something?

No I was hoping you realize that maybe, just maybe you should get off your duff and help people rather than hope mama government does it. People like you are too lazy to give of yourself so you demand others do it for you.

Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.

On your advice I did just that, while at the mall shopping with my wife I ask at several places about the benefits they gave employees, you migh be suprised to find out many offer health insurance.

The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone.

Now I call BS, at minimum wage in most states two people working 40 hrs a week will make nearly 30K a year. My parents raised seven kids on not much more than that. It means driving beaters or using the bus. It means shopping at the GoodWill not Marshall Fields. It means no steak dinners, corn beef hash and veggies. It means endless hand me dows for toys, cloths, books, and movies. It means no cable and you get your 'rentals' from the library.

My sister and her husband are raising four kids on a little more than 30 and doing a bang up job. With proper spending you can even buy a home. There is a great article called Poverty American Style, it worth the read but I will give you some highlights.

Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

So I dont ever buy the poor cant crap, I have lived it, I see some in my family live it. And the census itself shows that 'poverty' in america is not quite the dictionary definition. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise.

But its does mean you should stop crying that the poor can not afford to go to school, because they can!

This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education.

Why? You did it and I did it on part time jobs, and loans. My parents were near retirement by the time I was in school so I ask for nothing from them, they gave up enough for me.

do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?

No I see a man who calls those who disagree with him retarded and ignorent. I see a man who did not answer my point about giveing from ones self and not getting the government to mug those you think shoudl give.

Re:Easing taxes

[CrackerJack9]

it's impressive how much you think you know of me from a few simple comments posted on a website. I call you ignorant because you ignore what I say to argue points I never made. You change my words to make them words you can argue with. This is ignorant. Perhaps you aren't retarded. Perhaps you're only a moron, but I doubt you're an idiot. Actually a moron would be by definition retarded, so I'll leave it to you to figure that out. Perhaps it was more of what you were doing that was retarded and I used the ol' 'judge a man by his actions' stance. Do you know where I volunteer, which church I work at, or where I donate my money? Do you know where my old clothes go when I do not wear them? Or perhaps you were only being ignorant.

As for the mall you went to, I'm sure if you ask the right people you will get the answer you wanted to. If I asked the right people (and I don't have to since I know enough of them to already know the answer) I would get the answer I want to. When you mesh these two points together, we get a fact that many people don't have full benefits.

The bulk of your post was an answer to a question no one asked, so good job buddy. I never said there weren't poor people that could make better, I said there were some poor people that couldn't. You're taking what I am saying, assuming I am talking about the majority, and proving it wrong. But what you aren't doing is looking at the whole picture and where my points are coming from. This is ignorant, and stupid. I call those who make ignorant points ignorant, and I call those who act retarded retards.

You see a man who did not answer my point? I saw you rebutting my point (initially) and skewing it to fit your said rebuttal. That's not making a point.

Is your point that some poor can make better for themselves? I never disagreed. Do you want another cookie?

Here's a newsflash:
I never said we should increase taxes, my original point was that we shouldn't decrease them for the millionaires.
But you would know that already, since you always read my posts before responding, right?

Your last statement is completely contrary to that. So I ask, who isn't answering to my point but his own?

Oh, and you wouldn't happen to be ignorant to the fact that it is more expensive to live in some places than it is to live in others, right?
If you work at a mall in New York (for example, don't get all excited) you may get paid more than if you worked at the mall in Kansas City (for example, again-calm down) and these differences may not cover the cost of living differences completely. (Don't forget, if you disagree with this completely-you are ignorant to the fact that it could happen in one situation, making me correct to say that it could happen. See what I mean by ignorant?).

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

..its dead wrong to force someone to care for someone else

Right, so it is dead wrong for the government to take care of poor people - even though it says in the Bible that you should, but it's dead right for the government to ban abortions...

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Right, so it is dead wrong for the government to take care of poor people - even though it says in the Bible that you should, but it's dead right for the government to ban abortions...

Umm yes, The Bible tells *ME* to care for people not the Government. There is a serious lack of consideration for our fellow human beings today, this despite more social spending now than at any other point in history... why? Its because we never connect with people, we never voulenteer our time, skills, money, or even just talk to someone who might need it.

As far as Abortions go thats a compleatly different issue and I am not going to let you take me off this topic..

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.

So long as income is being taxed a capital gains tax is unseemly. You tax the income, then you tax them again if they invest something of whats left and make out on it?

It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich.

Ignoring the fact the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of the taxes is not valid. In reality the income tax has to be eliminated go to a straight sales/gains tax and fees for federal income.

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

Hypocrite!

The Bible tells *ME* to care for people not the Government

So if *YOU* help poor people *YOU* are doing what *God* tells you, but if the government does then they are pinko commie fags, right?

You contradict yourself though, if you really believe what you say then maybe *YOU* should decide whether you have an abortion or not, not the government. I don't expect you to see the lack of consistency though, your fundamentalist religious leader / conservative radio host has probably brainwashed you into thinking that your ideas are consistent.

Off topic I know, but if I am a barbarian (as you pointed out in a previous post) - at least I have a good command of the English language.

I can spell, and form grammatically corrrect sentences, can you?

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

And one could call you a hyprcrite for believing one has the right to kill an unborn baby yet not have the *choice* to decide who they will help and how.

Again I have explained myself on abortion on another thread, when dealing with the very life of a second human being is not all about *your* choice anymore than murder is. You may not agree with it but I think its a simple enough concept to understand..

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

So if *YOU* help poor people *YOU* are doing what *God* tells you, but if the government does then they are pinko commie fags, right?

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

So if *YOU* help poor people *YOU* are doing what *God* tells you, but if the government does then they are pinko commie fags, right?

If I help the poor I am going what I should do, If I point a gun at your head or threaten to put you in prision if you dont I am not doing what I should. Its a simple concept, pity you dont understand it..

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

Its a simple concept, pity you dont understand it

I don't think it is the case that I don't understand what you said. I just don't see why you should have a problem with the government raising taxes and changing laws, in order to give poor people a better quality of life (and a better chance at escaping the poverty trap).

I think it reflects badly on you to try to demean my intellect, given that:

(a) It's not a christian thing to do
(b) You dont know me. I may well be smarter than you are.

Given your repeated misuse of the english language:

If I help the poor I am going what I should do

... and seeming inability to use punctuation, I suggest you stop insinuating that I am a barbarian of low intellect.

I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid? The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling. Included in your 'foreign aid' is $3 billion per year to israel (who pump a lot of money into US arms companies). That is barbaric.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

I just don't see why you should have a problem with the government raising taxes and changing laws, in order to give poor people a better quality of life (and a better chance at escaping the poverty trap).

Because we have this nifty little thing called freedom, in which I should be able to decide how to do things with my assets as I see fit. I am not *in princaple* against the government helping people, but it has to be done within the defined scope of the Governments power and at the federal level that is ver limited.

I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid?

Of course I feel that way, the UN is a joke they can take their 'international courts' and suggestions and jump into the east river.

The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling.

Glad your using your freedom of expression, I dont have the numbers handy but Ill take your word that the US give less than the natios of europe. I will ask if your numbers include *private* giving. My small church took it upon themselves to build schools in Africa, that money does not show up as 'Us Aid'.

That is barbaric.

Im trying to keep this civil, if you can not do the same we have nothing further to say to each other..

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

Because we have this nifty little thing called freedom, in which I should be able to decide how to do things with my assets as I see fit

Ah yes, freedom. You are free in your country to own a handgun (and now assault rifles too is it?) and are trusted to use it properly, yet its a big deal if someone under the age of 21 drink a beer. So young people are responsible enough to own a weapon that is designed to kill, but not responsible enough to touch *alcohol*. How is that free? Are you free from the threat of violence, the fear of assault, or of murder?

Of course I feel that way, the UN is a joke they can take their 'international courts' and suggestions and jump into the east river

Wow, nice attitude. The UN is far from perfect, but then so is your country, who are you to say that the UN is 'not good enough for us'. Im not surprised by your response though, you have an attitude typical among your well travelled countrymen, who think that the USA deserves to be treated differently to all the other loser countries.

Im trying to keep this civil, if you can not do the same we have nothing further to say to each other.

You called me a barbarian, and insinuated that I am ignorant. Then when I call your 'country' barbaric I am not being civil? That wasn't meant as an insult, but as a fact. There are 12000 gun deaths in your 'country' every year, 4 times more each year than have died in the entire history of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

I will ask if your numbers include *private* giving. My small church took it upon themselves to build schools in Africa, that money does not show up as 'Us Aid'

I'm glad that you donate to charitable causes. I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation. You are correct to assume that your money does not show up as 'US Aid', nor does ours.

Your country constantly breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians. These are barbaric acts.

Im trying to keep this civil too, please dont accuse me of being a barbarian, or of being stupid.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

You are free in your country to own a handgun (and now assault rifles too is it?) and are trusted to use it properly, yet its a big deal if someone under the age of 21 drink a beer.

Something with wich I greatly disagree. The Drinking age should be 18 (the same as the voting age) but the Federal government decided to coerce the states (Drinking age is not set at the federal level, how much do you know of our laws?) into putting 21 as the standard.

How is that free? Are you free from the threat of violence, the fear of assault, or of murder?

I am free to own a weapon to protect myself. Do you really think that the problem is people who legally buy guns? I am sure often they do use them wrongly but the people who will shoot me on the corner will try damn hard to own a gun even if its illegal.

You called me a barbarian, and insinuated that I am ignorant.

And you started the whole spheel by calling someone a retard. But if it helps your feelings Im sorry.

I'm glad that you donate to charitable causes. I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation. You are correct to assume that your money does not show up as 'US Aid', nor does ours.

Do you have something to back up "I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation."

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

But if it helps your feelings Im sorry

It does, thank you. I'm sorry for calling you ignorant.

Do you have something to back up...

...people continue to donate more to charities on a per capita basis than those in any other country (from gov.ie)
I can't find a study, a bunch of other quotes though, but no study as yet.

You are utterly entrenched, why did you ignore all the other horrid things your country does? Breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

You are utterly entrenched, why did you ignore all the other horrid things your country does? Breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians.

Because to be totally honest our nation is no more or less horrid than any other given our situation. Look at what England did to Ireland, Look at Japan to Korea. In the sixties five nations decided to invade Isreal and nobody screams *illegal war*. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing because if anyone looks objectivly at their own history they will put down the stones and enjoy the view their glass house gives them.

Breaks international laws

International law is a joke, When Belguim put out a warrent for the arrest of US Government officials, and people in Canada call for tge arrest Bush it shows what a joke its become. There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam. Look I did not vote for Bush and I disagree with Iraq but as far as wars go we have not been sub par in out execution of the war. International law say Isreal cand build a fence to keep suicide bombers out... A stinking Fence ...

While I think the war in Iraq was illegal, I point to our constitution (not international law) to say that. The US was part of a war in 1991, and with others signed an agreement that if Iraq did x y z we would not attack. Well Iraq not only did x y z, they used the un 'oil for mone^H^H^H^H food' program to do it.

tacitly approves apalling human rights violations

Youre referring to?

tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners

And the people who did it are being punished, I think the first case is over and there is 15 years in prision.

and slaughters innocent civillians.

Please show me a nation who did not do that in a war. Did England commit warcrimes in WW2 by bombing Dresdon? The US pioneered smart bombs, we have spent a ton of money on 'Jdams' to convert conventional boms to be more accurate. We try damn hard not to kill civilians but well, war is hell. And when someone does cross the line they are prosecuted.

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

International law is a joke

Textbook response, clearly showing that you have no respect for any nation other than your own. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing

if anyone looks objectivly at their own history they will put down the stones and enjoy the view their glass house gives them

I accept that in general it is correct to say that every country/group of people has/have, at some stage committed horrid atrocities. That's not to say that it's ok to still commit atrocities. You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?

That is like saying that because the US saved France (and the world) in WWII, that France (and the world) have no right to complain about US actions today. I utterly reject that notion.

There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam

I am assuming you can back this statement up?

International law say Isreal cand build a fence to keep suicide bombers out... A stinking Fence ...

The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws.

Youre referring to?

I am referring to US support for the Kuwaiti and Saudi regimes, I am referring to US support for the military coup in Venezuela (Helping to put self admitted dictators back into power)

And the people who did it are being punished

Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers?

Please show me a nation who did not do that in a war

You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off:

well, war is hell

Is that not
(a)extremely coarse
and
(b) a contradiction?

How can you justify those deaths?

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

Textbook response, clearly showing that you have no respect for any nation other than your own. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing

How does it show that? I dont think any nation should be beholden to the definitions put fourth by any other. I dont think Ireland should change its ways for the US, GB, France, Russia, China, or any number of nations.

You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?

Glass, House, Stone, Bingo... You can go after the people who do it, this nation bashing by the euro's is over the top though.

I am assuming you can back this statement up? Its not much but the best I can do so quickly is: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for bush war criminal. (0.54 seconds), and Results 1 - 10 of about 644,000 for saddam hussein war criminal. (0.30 seconds).

The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws.

And yet where is the outrage from the international community at the Palistinians from breaking international law. Arafat is more a war criminal than anyone can make a case for Bush being but when he went internationally was he arrested?

Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers?

I think for the most part yes the soldiers were acting out of bordom, and lack of supervision. I think them and their commanding officers should be investigated but that does not happen over night.

You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off:

No I never said I did not disagree with 'war' in Iraq I said I disagree with how the was was done. The was no declariation of war from the US senate and thus this war in unconstitutional (hence I did not vote for Bush). I also said that Iraq had been ignoring the terms of a cease fire and attempted to kill a former US president, so if it had been done right I would not, in princaple, oppse the war. I oppose how it was done

How can anyone justify any deaths? Really? Is it ok that 'fewer' people dies during the troubles? I did not see the calls of 'Clinton War Criminal' when he bombed Iraq in the late 1990's. I did not see NATO nations being called despotic imperialist for going into Kosovo so why is Iraq any different.

I did my duty as an American I voted against Bush *and* Kerry. Because they ignored the laws of the US and the oath they swore to uphold.

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

I dont think any nation should be beholden to the definitions put fourth by any other ... or any number of nations

What you just said implies that you think Iraq (or Iran, N. Korea or anyone!) has the right to behave as they see fit. Thats a goood idea.

this nation bashing by the euro's is over the top though

I'm sorry if it upsets you (and it clearly does). But a lot of people in Europe really despise the current US administration, and have a right to voice their concern.

Its not much but the best I can do so quickly is: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for bush war criminal. (0.54 seconds), and Results 1 - 10 of about 644,000 for saddam hussein war criminal

So Saddam had basically the entire world against him, all his neighbours, the Sanctions, all the UN resolutions etc etc. yet you say that:

There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam

And your back up is the number of hits in a google search? This does not lend any legitamacy to your outrageous claim. Please acknowledge that Saddam was more persecuted by the international community, please.

No I never said I did not disagree with 'war' in Iraq

Sorry, my mistake.

I did not see NATO nations being called despotic imperialist for going into Kosovo so why is Iraq any different.

Did they not have UN support for that? Broad international support?

Btw, I dont particularly like the UN, I think it's absolutly apalling that the UN farts around and sends in people to study whether genocide is actually occurring, then only sends in troops after the mass murders have been committed. Some of the stories I read about UN peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavia are just awful. Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it. But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.

Re:Easing taxes

[N3WBI3]

What you just said implies that you think Iraq (or Iran, N. Korea or anyone!) has the right to behave as they see fit. Thats a goood idea.

And if in the process of doing what they see fit they piss of another nation enough to declair war than so be it. And if other nations in the world are pissed enough by the war and they want to embargo so be it. Governments are put into place to serve those who put them there, *NOT* the other way around.

So Saddam had basically the entire world against him, all his neighbours, the Sanctions, all the UN resolutions etc etc. yet you say that:

Would that be the 'oil for food' sancations you were talking about?

Did they not have UN support for that? Broad international support?

Broad international support != a just war. UN Support != a just war. The fact is NATO bombed the hell out of a second world nation and in the process killed many civilians..

Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it.

Dont forget sitting by while the KLA has begun the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, including the distruction of monistaries more than 1000 years old. I dont think many people know the full story on Kosovo and more mass graves have been found in Iraq but it was a 'popular' war with 'international support' so it was ok.

But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.

Huh? if that were the case we would have the league of nations not the UN. The LON was scrapped because it was a useless buch a beaurocrats who did nothing (sound familiar?).

The problem with the UN is people insdie and many on the left want it to be a world government of sorts. Hell the UN is proposing taxing all gun sales in the world! what right do they have, not a one of them are elected by the people of their nation.

I am a strong nationalist, I believe if the people of Ireland dont want to own guns its their right to put in place a government to enforce it. I also believe that if the UN thinks the American people will tolerate a 'world tax' on anything they have been drinking out of the east river.

Re:Easing taxes

[leecn]

I think you have a very simple and clear view of how you think these issues should be handled. I can see why you might come to that view, and why you might find it attractive.

I suppose it is difficult for anyone to be truly objective about these matters, because a persons education/family/religion/society often biases them towards one way of thinking or another.

I must say that I find most of your opinions to be completely contrary to my own, and would absolutely hate to live in a society where the majority - or near majority, whatever - of people shared your values. I guess we are lucky that we each live where we do :-)

I cant see any point in my continuing to argue these issues with you, you have your opinion and I have mine (of course i suspect that I am right :-)

Im sorry if I was rude to you in previous posts. I have never discussed these issues with someone who has the same values/ideas as you, and I may have (did) go a bit over the top in trying to illustrate how vehemently I disagree with you.

NO TAXATION!

[sciguy125]

Personally, I don't think that they should be allowed to tax any communications. Actually, I take that back. They can tax it if they only use the money to pay for it.

Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

Re:NO TAXATION!

[DeVilla]

Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

Shut Up!!! Dude! They're bad enough without the help. Want to suggest something else so they can go for the triple?

Re:NO TAXATION!

[derkaas]

Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but your argument for untaxing communications could be extended to just about anything. For example, food and a place to sleep at night are just as essential, yet both, especially the latter, are taxed heavily by many governments.

Re:NO TAXATION!

[1lus10n]

They could tax the Sun.

Void where prohibited and where we havent invaded yet. Includes all derivative products including sunlight.

Re:NO TAXATION!

[anthony_dipierro]

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but your argument for untaxing communications could be extended to just about anything.

And this is a bad thing because...?

Re:NO TAXATION!

[gl4ss]

*Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?*
indeed why not? or why not make one general tax that 's X dollars and you have to pay it yearly. "living here costs 30 000$ per year - there is no other taxes. bad luck if you're thinking of being a student or going to have babies."

specific taxes optimally work as a way to tax things people can afford, so that the taxing would be fair. the state system needs a certain amounts of dollars to run and provide the things they do, taxing specific things can also be used to shift the burden on entities that by public opinion 'deserve' it(tobacco companies and users, for example).

the people who only want specific taxes(like, pay road tax if you use the road, or pay military only if you want your house protected or whatever) usually fail to see that such a system wouldn't work, at all. sometimes i wonder if they're the same people who would prefer to live without insurances too. if you want pretty specific taxing move to russia or elsewhere corrupted(you'll be paying off officials quite specifically)...

MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is the problem with this? Do you have something wrong with black people or gay people?

I hate homophobes and racist. I hope bigots like you burn in hell for the shit you bring to this world.

Re:MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Not trying to be racist, that is the REAL whois result for the domain nyud.info

Don't believe me, do the query yourself at www.whois.info

Re:MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why are you trying to put gay black people in a bad light?

Racist fucker.

Re:MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[lucifer_666]

Ignorant fucker.

He is quoting verbatim from the whois database.

The information in the whois database is entered by the owner of the site - not buy the guy who made the grandparent post.

Have a clue about how the system works before opening your trap and blurting out crap.

Re:MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:MOD DOWN - BLATANT RACISM

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are one racist son of a bitch.

Its people like you that really make me think we need more control in society, some kind of mandatory testing to weed out racists like you and lock you up for the good of the openminded non-bigoted majority in society that you so openly hate.

Its really sad that just becuase there is a black organization involved that it must automatically be "bad" and then people like you come in and encourage this kind of hate and intoleration.

If I had your address, I would personally come to your house and beat the living shit out of racist pigs like you. You are fucking lucky that I don't know your sorry ass.

Re:Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Or someone's got it in for you...hmmm.

Who have you been pissing off?

Yar yar ha yar!

The UN

[Anonymous Coward]

"One could draw parallels with other transnational organizations that the United States doesn't seem to understand, but that could be a bit of a stretch."

You are probably referring to the UN. It turns out that the US understands it more than most other countries, and recognize the problems with "oil for palaces" programs, UN peacekeepers presiding over civilian massacres in Bosnia, and the laughably frequent anti-semitic resolutions made by the august body.

Re:The UN

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I know. There needs to be a new world organization that is based from enlightenment values instead of communist ones.

Go go go!

[Money for Nothin']

I *so* hope this bill passes! Keeping Internet access tax-free will aid poor people in getting online by keeping the price of access limited to market rates.

Adding a tax on top of that price would only drive out people who would otherwise get online.

Re:Go go go!

[vondo]

Yup, much better to add a sales tax to their food, as my state does. Being able to get online is so much more important than being able to eat.

Frankly, this bill is horrible. I can afford $4/month tacked onto my cable modem bill. A family at the poverty line has a much harder time affording $40/month tacked onto their grocery bill.

Re:Go go go!

[Anonymous Coward]

just what we need more niggers online

Re:Go go go!

[1lus10n]

Where do you live ? I want to make sure I never move there. Or stop to eat for that matter ....

Just as a side point, one thing has nothing to do with the other. These people use no logic.

Re:Go go go!

[vondo]

Nashville, TN. But, hey, it's great. There is no income tax, so if you make a fair bit of money, you can save knowing that the poor are paying a higher share of their income in taxes than you are.

BTW, you pay sales tax almost everywhere on restaurant meals. But we pay 8.75% on our groceries.

Re:Go go go!

[ViolentGreen]

I didn't know anyplace did that. Kentucky, I know, has no tax on groceries.

Re:Go go go!

[1lus10n]

Yeah I knew about the "eating out tax" just paying taxes that high on grocieries would tick me off ....

Jeez

[IBeatUpNerds]

How about utilizing the billions upon billions (trillions?) of annual tax dollars and eliminating the bullshit and spend it wisely. Oh yeah, because nobody can agree on what's a wise tax.

Penny-an-email tax would kill email

[Anonymous Coward]

"would not mind paying a penny an email."

You may like it, but I don't. It is absurd. All that would happen would be that it would kill email in name only. We'd have a few months of uncomfortability while everyone ditches "email" and starts to instead use a version of IM (instant messages) modified so that that it acts like email. Only now it is not called email. Thankfully, the greedy pigs would not have taxed it either. If the boars get their eyes on "static IM", we'll switch instead to "text-tagged Internet shipped picture files".

The technology, again thankfully, does not lend itself to taxation of a type of blast of bit/packet transfer that cannot be distinguished from any other.

Re:Penny-an-email tax would kill email

[aussie_a]

PMs on message boards sound like a good e-mail replacement to me.

Hypocritical Moderators

[Anonymous Coward]

Always mods down anyone who disagrees with the truth but never mods down anyone else in the thread for being offtopic

Is this your job?

[maximilln]

Consider: "The right to regulate the internet"

Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there any mention of the internet in that document? No? Let's have a look at Amendment 10:

Amendment X
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.

Okay. So the "right to regulate the internet" is not under the authority of the Feds because it's reserved to the States or the People.

"What of interstate commerce?", say the trolls.

Let me point you to Amendment 9

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The "right to regulate the internet" has already been established as retained by the States or the people and, therefore, the interpretation of "interstate commerce" can not be enumerated to include it. It is forbidden to expand the meaning of interstate commerce to include anything not specifically defined in the Constitution.

Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me. Don't like it because 95% of what the Feds do is disqualified by this assessment? Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.

Re:Is this your job?

[cpt kangarooski]

That's a very bizarre reading.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is delegated to the United States. It is not also prohibited to the several states, so therefore they can regulate it as well to a certain degree, though the United States always has the last word based upon the commerce power and the supremecy clause. (See jurisprudence regarding the negative commerce clause)

The regulation of interstate commerce is not a right, it is a power. Therefore Amend. 9 is not relevant. Rather, you'd have to argue that there is a right to engage in unregulated interstate commerce that simply is not enumerated. Well, that might be, but since Congress expressly has the power to regulate it and there are no guarantees as to unregulated commerce generally, it doesn't seem to matter.

Re:Is this your job?

[hitchhikerjim]

Logging onto the Internet is logging onto an interstate (and international) communications and commerce system. If that doesn't qualify as interstate commerce, I don't konw what does.

Just like the Feds deal with the interstate highway system, so should they deal with the interstate communications systems.

IMHO, that's one of the *few* places they have a place.

In fact -- since broadcast TV and radio have small broadcast areas, they could be said to NOT be interstate. So the feds have more business making rules about the Internet than they do about TV and radio.

Re:Is this your job?

[ErikTheRed]

Generic response from congresscritter: "What is this 'Constitution' thing of which you speak?"

Re:Is this your job?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The penile deficiency comment adds an unnecessary element of mockery to an otherwise reasonable post, and it is overused too.

Re:Is this your job?

[hitchhikerjim]

Actually... when you think about it, one reading might be that they dont' have the right to regulate the onramps (taxes on connectivity), but they do have the right to regulate the backbones (transit charges and such).

And since all vendors on the internet are engaged in interstate commerce (by selling into other states), the feds should be able to regulate them.

What i'd really like to see them do is ban taxes on interstate sales. IOW, if I'm in CA, I should only have to pay attention to state taxes in CA. That would make internet sales just like telephone and catalog sales. I know a few states want to do otherwise (charge sales tax on all sales into their state regardless of the origin of the sale). Even playing fields for all methods of selling -- that's what we should be striving for.

Re:Is this your job?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Although I agree with you that I'd prefer the Federal Government stay out of things like this, your interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. Or, at least it's not correct based upon existing case law.

I point you to this excellent breakdown at Wikipedia.org. The Interstate Commerce clause, as it's typically referred to, has been the source of considerable Constitutional debate for a long, long time. Here is the actual verbage:

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".

The key phrase here is "among the several States." Key court cases such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), Swift v. United States (1905), and Stafford v. Wallce (1922) have repeatedly confirmed the Federal Government's role in regulating interstate commerce. This is not to say the FedGov has rights to interfere with internal state commerce (although it does) but the wording strongly points to the right of the FedGov to regulate commerce between the states, or commerce that involves more than one state. Telecom, and by extension ISP's, fall under such rules.

There's another article here that lays it out again. The same conclusion is met, supported by existing case law.

As I stated in the beginning, I'm all for less government intrusion, but in this case it seems the Founding Fathers wanted the FedGov to have this power. Short of a disqualifying amendment, I don't see that changing. Your references to Amendment IX and X are not relevant since they only refer to things not explicitly defined in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 does explicitly define the role and is not subject to Amendment IX or X.

FWIW, I am not a lawyer, but I have spent more than a passing amount of time studying Constitutional law as a personal hobby.

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

At best I can see an argument based on Section 10 Clause 2, which states,"Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws...", but at best that indicates that Congress should address the states on a case by case basis, and still is not empowered to pass a blanket law.

As for the power to regulate interstate commerce (Section 8, Clause 3), I still do not agree that this can be enumerated to include regulation (or preemptive consideration thereof) of internet access. Access is not commerce. There is a clear delineation between entering into an establishment and actually conducting business or commerce there.

As usual, politicians are wasting my tax money debating issues they have no legal authority to be debating on company time. If they want to debate it around their coffee tables at home then that's their own business.

Re:Is this your job?

[MorboNixon]

Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me.

Does this mean that you don't vote? Or that you haven't voted since the 1800s?

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

I have very little regard for the interpretation of the courts or of the legal profession. Amendment 10 is very particular in its statement that, if it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's not something the Feds have any jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce CANNOT (per Amd 9) be enumerated to include internet access. Conducting transactions with vendors in other states is interstate commerce, but as long as your ISP has a local office, it's intrastate commerce.

Re:Is this your job?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I have very little regard for the interpretation of the courts or of the legal profession.

As do I, but one of the foundations of our Constitution is the Supreme Court's duty to properly interpret it, making sure the Executive and Legislative branches don't monkey around where they shouldn't. The Supreme Court is doing the job it's supposed to do. It's not required that we agree with them.

Amendment 10 is very particular in its statement that, if it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then it's not something the Feds have any jurisdiction over. Interstate commerce CANNOT (per Amd 9) be enumerated to include internet access. Conducting transactions with vendors in other states is interstate commerce, but as long as your ISP has a local office, it's intrastate commerce.

Existing case law does not agree with you, based largely on the fact that a local ISP could not function without implicitly providing access to other areas of the Internet, those being interstate or international. It's a stretch, no doubt about it, and I don't like it. But case law firmly supports it.

Re:Is this your job?

[cpt kangarooski]

Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.

So it's a tax on the line because the line can be used in interstate commerce.

This isn't a very contentious thing. I'd get all up in arms over the Wickard case first. It's much more expansive.

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.

Odd. I don't see that expansion anywhere in the Constitution. Are you making that up?

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

The Supreme Court is doing the job it's supposed to do

That statement is true only if you summarily and naively ignore political influences.

Existing case law does not agree with you

Money talks. That doesn't make it legal.

The pithy response is,"and b___sh_t walks" but, as usual, a pithy saying is nothing more than a pithy saying. The law of the land is the Constitution. It's not my fault if we've had a Congress full of criminals for nearly 200 years.

Re:Is this your job?

[hab136]

Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.

Odd. I don't see that expansion anywhere in the Constitution. Are you making that up?

No, the Supreme Court has. See http://www.landmarkcases.org/gibbons/power.html, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause, or just google for "Interstate Commerce Clause Expansion".

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that just about anything that has to do with interstate commerce - even by the most contorted logic - counts as something that Congress can legislate under the commerce clause.

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

It is perfectly possible for the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That is precisely what I am asserting.

Re:Is this your job?

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm not making it up. This is how the courts have interpreted the clause, and it's hardly nonsensical to imagine that in order to regulate interstate commerce that Congress might have the power to regulate the methods by which it occurs.

Re:Is this your job?

[maximilln]

There's nothing interstate about me sending my check to a local ISP.

Re:Is this your job?

[rmohr02]

What i'd really like to see them do is ban taxes on interstate sales. IOW, if I'm in CA, I should only have to pay attention to state taxes in CA. That would make internet sales just like telephone and catalog sales. I know a few states want to do otherwise (charge sales tax on all sales into their state regardless of the origin of the sale). Even playing fields for all methods of selling -- that's what we should be striving for.

Even playing fields? It seems to me like that would imply all purchases you make in CA get CA sales tax applied to them. Also, you are currently required to report the items you buy and ship in from out-of-state (whether you bought them via catalog, telephone or internet) and pay the sales tax on them on your own. Of course, nobody does that, and they all get offensive when the government asks for what it's owed.

Re:Is this your job?

[cpt kangarooski]

The method to whic I refer is the Internet. Have you read that case cited above, btw?

Re:Is this your job?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Re:Is this your job?

[hunterx11]

As do I, but one of the foundations of our Constitution is the Supreme Court's duty to properly interpret it, making sure the Executive and Legislative branches don't monkey around where they shouldn't. The Supreme Court is doing the job it's supposed to do. It's not required that we agree with them.

And where is "judicial review" in the Constitution? Never mind, I'm sure they interpreted it, after all, they do have the power of judicial review :)

I'm not saying that the Supreme Court decided without basis that they get to intrepret the Constitution; however, this power is not explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

Re:Is this your job?

[ducomputergeek]

How about we look at the consitution. (forgive spelling, 3AM on 4 hours of sleep night before).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Okay, with that said let's look at what the Supreme Court has ruled over the years. While the Consitution may outline our rights and system of government, what it means is ultimately determined by the justices of the Supreme Court in accordance to Common Law.

There have been cases like this before only in the 1800's it was the railroads that served as the vital link of communications. Let's just see what some of the rulings have been shall we:

Fletcher vs. Peck (1810)

A new state administration had passed a law voiding a land grant made by the previous administration. When the landowners sued, Marshall ruled that the contract had to stand. Article I, Sect 10 of the Constitution forbid state laws "impairing" contracts. Thus the contract law was created making written contracts legal and binding.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

In the case Munn v. Illinois (1877) Midwestern farmers felt that they were being victimized by the exorbitant freight rates they were forced to pay to the powerful railroad companies. As a result, the state of Illinois passed a law that allowed the state to fix maximum rates that railroads and grain elevator companies could charge.

The Supreme Court of the United States upheldthe Illinois law because the movement end storage of grain were considered to be closely related to public interest. This type of economic activity could be governed by state legislatures, whereas purely private contracts could only be governed by the courts. The Court held that laws affecting public interest could be made or charged by state legislatures without interference from the courts. The Court said, "For protection against abuse by legislatures, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts."

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)

An Illinois statute imposed a penalty on railroads that charged the same or more money for passengers or freight shipped for shorter distances than for longer distances. The railroad in this case charged more for goods shipped from Gilman, Illinois, to New York, than from Peoria, Illinois, to New York, when Gilman was eightysix miles closer to New York than Peoria. The intent of the statute was to avoid discrimination against small towns not served by competing railroad lines and was applied to the intrastate (within one state) portion of an interstate (two or more states) journey. At issue was whether a state government has the power to regulate railroad prices on that portion of an interstate journey that lies within its borders.

The Supreme Court of the United States held the Illinois statute to be invalid and that the power to regulate interstate railroad rates is a federal power which belongs exclusively to Congress and, therefore, cannot be exercised by individual states. The Court said the right of continuous transportation from one end of the country to the other is essential and that states should not be permitted to impose restraints on the freedom of commerce. In this decision, the Court gave great strength to the commerce clause of the Constitution by saying that states cannot impose regulations concerning price, compensation, taxation, or any other restrictive regulation interfering with or seriously affecting interstate commerce. [One year after Wabash, Congress enacted the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). This commission had the power to regulate interstate commerce.]

Source

Re:Is this your job?

[anthony_dipierro]

Wow. This is quite misinformed. First of all, States don't have rights. Only people do. Amendment 10 talks about powers (which States can have). Amendment 9 talks about rights (which according to our founders are God-given, and God didn't give them to States but to people).

Further, protection of people's rights to engage in interstate commerce free from taxation by the states is precisely what the founders had in mind when they put in the Interstate Commerce Clause. It wasn't until much later that Congress figured out that it could use the clause to hinder commerce, rather than to promote it. Frankly, with the dormant commerce clause it'd be questionable whether or not the states could tax the internet in the first place. With Congress speaking directly to the point they certainly can't.

Finally it should probably be noted that the 9th and 10th Amendments are redundant. They are basic truisms upon which the entire Constitution is built. I agree that much of what the Feds do goes beyond the way the Constitution was originally intended, especially with regard to interstate commerce, but this just isn't an example of it.

Re:Is this your job?

[westneat]

Besides the interstate commerce clause, Congress makes good use of the 16th amendment, which is the amendment creating the federal income tax. Congress can exchange money for state laws, which is how they mandated the drinking age, for example.

Re:Is this your job?

[Rotten168]

The IHS is supported by the "right to post roads" mentioned in the Constitution, not interstate commerce.

Re:Is this your job?

[strikethree]

"These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me."

Oddly enough, in my 20 years of voting, not once has the person that *I* voted for been elected. Voting is the most pointless exercise; but, I still vote.

strike

Ban on taxing access, not taxing purchases

[MaineCoon]

So many posts here seem to assume this article is about taxing purchases made over the internet. That is not the case. This is a ban on taxing ACCESS (i.e, a tax on your DSL/cable/dialup services).

RTFA, people.

Re:Ban on taxing access, not taxing purchases

[Ravenrage]

forgive him he's new to /.

Re:Man

[Anonymous Coward]

penis penis vagina?

ah, yes...

Re:Gmail Invites from Michael O'Connor

[Anonymous Coward]

the [google.com] indicates that it is a legitmate link and not a troll. its there for a reason.

FALSE INFORMATION IN PARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

The links all have [google.com] next to them. the last time I checked, google.com was a legitimate domain, so the parent is trolling and lying

Re:FALSE INFORMATION IN PARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you actually try following the links? The first one is a redirect to a pic of a guy with a knife through his ass. Very legitimate...

Re:FALSE INFORMATION IN PARENT

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, I said I created a link with one of those invites.

Re:Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, does that mean you're too busy fucking a married couple to get first post?

Dude, all is forgiven if you post the photo's.

Har yar yar ha!

You can quit cheering tax-and-spend Democrats now

[Anonymous Coward]

At least until this vote is over.

Care to tally the votes by party line after it's over?

Anyone want to bet Republicans will tend to vote against it, and Democrats will vote for it more heavily then Republicans?

whoa there...

[Cryptnotic]

I think he was inplying that Ted Kennedy is a worthless sack and his salary is a waste of everyone's money.

I'm actually in favor of the idea that congressmen should be paid by the people of the state they represent. Who is it they represent anyway? Do they really represent the people of Massachusetts for example, if their paycheck comes from the United States Treasury?

Re:whoa there...

[Hatta]

Do they really represent the people of Massachusetts for example, if their paycheck comes from the United States Treasury?

You misspelled "Disney, Halliburton, Pfizer, Microsoft, Monsanto, etc..."

Re:whoa there...

[burns210]

Why not something like paying the government politicos a 'living wage' or the mean national wage. The President is(traditionaly) rich or at the least well off, besides which his entire term as president is payed for... No air fare for Bush, he has his own plane! Shouldn't the prestige, and free life for 4 years be enough, why should he get 200k+ a year as well..

Not to mention his 10s of thousands dollar checks he gets for speeches post-presidency.

Re:whoa there...

[dreamchaser]

I won't even bother arguing your 'point's about Kennedy's accomplishments because you're trolling.

My question to you though is thus: let's accept for the sake of argument that you're points are correct. Does that mean he should get away with vehicular homicide?

Re:whoa there...

[Politburo]

Why not something like paying the government politicos a 'living wage' or the mean national wage.

The traditional justification for paying Congresspeople more is two fold. One, it gives people incentive to do the job. Yes, serving the people and all that bullshit should be the real reason, but let's be realistic. People want money. That hasn't changed since the Constitution was written. The second reason is that congresspeople have to maintain two residences: One in DC, and one in their home state. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's the reasoning.

Re:whoa there...

[circuitrider]

I heartily agree with this. They should only be permitted to accept campaign contributions from the people they represent as well.

Re:whoa there...

[macrealist]

Is the problem really that they are paid "too much"? Pay them less and see how well that works - might open the door to more corruption.

Try making it easier to run for office. Having to spend millions to get elected causes incoming politicians to be encumbered by more than just the views of the voters of their districts.

Congress did something right!

[laughingcoyote]

Now, if they'd only kill off those copyright/anti-privacy bills, I might develop some flicker of respect for the bastards.

Well, Duh

[aredubya74]

President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed.

Of course he will. He has yet to veto a single bill as President. It's easy to not have to, when your party controls both houses of Congress and is on the edge of a long-term conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

Re:Well, Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he won't veto it. Only the tax and spend liberals would want a tax on the internet. How else can the liberals buy more votes!!

Re:Well, Duh

[sd790]

There's a very good reason for that, too. With Republicans in control of the House and Senate since he's been in office, the bills he would have vetoed were stopped before they reached his desk. For crying out load, you think the President doesn't hammer out those kinds of things with Congressmen?

Re:Well, Duh

[anaesthetica]

Unbelievable. President Bush and the Republican Congress are actually poised to do something good for us geeks--keeping internet access tax-free--and some slashbot still manages to find a way to turn it into an anti-Bush troll. Simply stunning.

Re:Well, Duh

[Peyna]

Your comment about the Supreme Court assumes that the more liberal Justices will leave will Bush is in office. They're not morons. Expect the more aged conservative Justices to leave, and expect the liberal Justices to hang in as long as they can and hope for a President that will replace them with a like-minded person.

Re:Well, Duh

[aredubya74]

I'm not a slashbot, troll. The point is that other presidents whose party also controlled both houses had the balls to veto bad legislation. GWB doesn't, and won't. He's a Party Man through and through. This may be an example some of us can get behind, although any geek who also can deal with the proposed ban on commercial fast-forwarding doesn't deserve his/her geek stripes.

Re:Well, Duh

[aredubya74]

Nope, they're not morons, but they do get old. Justice John Paul Stevens leans liberal, and is 84 years old. I'm tremendously hopeful that the moderates and liberals on the court can make it four more years, but I'm not optimistic.

Re:Well, Duh

[SewersOfRivendell]

you think the President doesn't hammer out those kinds of things with Congressmen?

Yes, actually, he doesn't hammer out those kinds of things with congressmen. He hands orders from Karl Rove to the Republican congressmen, and ignores the Democrats, who then roll over for fear of being portrayed as 'obstructionist,' when in fact they'd be happy just to be included in the discussions -- which, as previously noted, don't actually occur in the first place. And so it goes...

Re:Well, Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Unbelievable. President Bush and the Republican Congress are actually poised to do something good for us geeks--keeping internet access tax-free--and some slashbot still manages to find a way to turn it into an anti-Bush troll. Simply stunning

Stunned? Are you new here?

Re:Well, Duh

[Jerf]

Yeah, I was going to post a sarcastic message somehow tying this in to Halliburton and something the Nazi party once did, but I was afraid I'd be modded "Informative".

People are 100% good or evil, right? If I dislike someone, that means I have to dislike everything they do, right? Black and white, right?

(That, by the way, was sarcasm. I feel the need to label it as such because too many people have been blinkered into simply shutting off their forebrains when the topic of Bush comes up. Ironically, many of these same people believe that this inability to hold a nuanced view is a sign of their intelligence...)

Re:Well, Duh

[anthony_dipierro]

Or maybe it's just that the Republicans don't control the Senate, which is why the Senate was forced to make a compromise. Sure, they have a majority, but they don't have a filibuster-proof majority.

Re:Well, Duh

[_Sharp'r_]

Well, in this particular case, Bush has publicly stated that he is in favor of a permanent ban on internet taxes, so it's not really surprising he'd sign the bill.

Re:Well, Duh

[flyingsquid]

I'm tremendously hopeful that the moderates and liberals on the court can make it four more years, but I'm not optimistic.

We just need to find a way to cryogenically freeze them for four years...

Re:Well, Duh

[anaesthetica]

That's really a ludicrous position to take. Like Presidents have to whip out the veto now and then so they can feel like a man. The President only has to use the veto on legislation he's strongly against. If Bush hasn't vetoed something that may show poor judgment on his part, in your opinion, but it's not a reflection of his use of the office of the Presidency.

Ted Kennedy is just a good example

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Kennedy is just a good example of a filthy rich man who is basically using the government to get richer at the expense of poor and working people. There are many others like him, both Democrat and Republican. They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar many times: voting themselves raises.

Re:Ted Kennedy is just a good example

[ZB Mowrey]

This will probably hose my free site at ... but if anyone wants to take a look, I wrote a couple pdf docs as part of a petition (one's the actual petition and one's a persuasion-to-sign doc).

I want a Constitutional amendment that says Congress can't give itself pay raises. Instead, I think we the People should get to vote on that, as part of the election process. The framework is already there, ready to be used.

Feel free to grab copies and spread 'em around. Redistribution isn't just allowed, it's highly encouraged!

Re:Ted Kennedy is just a good example

[fenix down]

They already have that, dipshit, only instead of a retarded ballot initiative that costs about as much as fucking doubling the salaries of everybody in Congress, it's practical. 27th Amendment, No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. If you don't want them to get paid more then don't vote for them, fuck.

Re:Ted Kennedy is just a good example

[ZB Mowrey]

Hey asshole... the difference is that they can currently 'allow' themselves a raise... period. To say that they only get a raise every two years is disingenuous at best. There are rules in place that trigger automatic pay raises, EVERY YEAR.

Under my system, the voters get the chance to say no, directly, to the whole of Congress. Not some bullshit situation where whoever gets elected gets paid more, whether or not the people actually wanted to pay more for that job.

So fuck you, do your homework.

Re:Square Peg into a Round Hole

[mdogg]

No, there is nothing international about this. This is talking about banning tax on internet ACCESS. For Americans, this access is done in the US, so there's nothing stopping the US government from taxing it unless legislation like this passes.

Blame democrats there

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why? You wont have time to be on the internet when you are drafted for iraq"

Blame the democrats there. They are the only ones who have been pushing for a draft. Some of them anyway (Charlie Rangel).

No need to ban taxes on purchases

[Anonymous Coward]

If I purchase from Company A in state Z, and I live and purchase from state Y, as long as Company A has no physical presence in state Y, state Y can not compel Company A in state Z to collect state Y taxes.

In other words, California can't tax an Arizona business. Period. And the Arizona company isn't about to do it voluntarily.

Of course, most states also require you to pay taxes on those items yourself....

Good thing you're not a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I do agree with almost all of your post, you lost it when you claim that the US federal government has no right to regulate the internet.

The feds do have the right to regulate interstate commerce. Although what you would define as "interstate commerce" may vary, it's really hard to claim that the internet isn't used in interstate and even international commerce.

And according the the supremacy clause (feds trump states in legal conflicts), if the feds legally say the states can't do it, the states can't do it.

Internet Tax=Highway Tax=Better Infrastructure

[dokebi]

The bill is not on Sales tax on internet purchases but rather the access tax. I think if that revenue is used to increase broadband access all over the country, it would be a great idea. I mean, gas is taxed to pay for the roads. The same should work with internet.

Re:Internet Tax=Highway Tax=Better Infrastructure

[hitchhikerjim]

Yes, but in the case of roads, they're build and maintained by the government.

In the case of Internet backbones, they're all private. So the fees we pay to access them are what needs to pay for building them. We already pay that.

Re:Internet Tax=Highway Tax=Better Infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that the people who will pay the most access tax are the ones who use the Internet the most, so you'd be encouraged to use the Internet less. Casual users would quit using the Internet just because they don't want to pay a few extra bucks to look at pr0n, and there won't be a lot of new users.

Yes, there are a lot of people who don't use the Internet as much as we do. The Internet is not yet a necessity (like highways), so taxing it so early on will kill it or severely hinder its growth.

Re:Internet Tax=Highway Tax=Better Infrastructure

[bersl2]

I would pay a tax if that money went directly to subsidizing faster access. However, since just a tax does not guarantee this, I don't want to pay any such special tax.

Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Infonaut]

Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.

Hey, how'd you know about my little problem?

Regarding Amendment X: The power to regulate interstate commerce is given to the Federal government.

Regarding Amendment IX: The right to regulate the Internet has not been established as retained by the states or "the people." In fact, the Internet was created by the United States government, so from its birth it has been under Federal mandate.

As for politicians not checking the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s, there's far more to the equation than that, as I'm sure you're aware. Interpretation of the Constitution by politicians (and more importantly by the Supreme Court) is dependent in large part on the will of the people. People wanted a strong Federal government, and they got one. We may not want such a strong Federal government now, but that does not mean that its current size and scope are in violation of the Constitution.

... don't cry to me. Ok, I won't.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[maximilln]

The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot be enumerated to include the power to regulate internet access. Regardless of who created the internet, there is not right to regulate communication access as provided in the Constitution. As such it is reserved to the States or the People.

The "interpretation of the Constitution" is all bogus. As clearly outlined in Amendment 10 anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly when were you thinking the internet rose? Sometime in the late 1700's? No you say? Do you think maybe thats why its not any where in the Constitution? The ever changing world around us is the very reason that the constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly. A vast structure as large as the internet that expands beyond borders of states and beyond the control of a state, without censorship, is the very reason it falls into the hands of the Federal Government, the only layer of this fedralist nation that wields enough power to have any authority over the net.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[maximilln]

Exactly when were you thinking the internet rose?

This is a valid point but, unfortunately for you, there is no clause in the Constitution which gives the Feds the power to regulate access or communication.

he ever changing world around us is the very reason that the constitution is interpreted and reinterpreted constantly

Entirely wrong. The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public. Amendment 10 is very specific: anything not in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds. Think of your job description. There are some things you're responsible for and there are other things which are simply not your problem. Regulation of internet access, and any associated taxes and fees, is simply not the Feds' problem.

A vast structure as large as the internet that expands beyond borders of states and beyond the control of a state, without censorship

As it should be.

is the very reason it falls into the hands of the Federal Government,

s/falls into the hands/is not a responsibility/

the only layer of this fedralist nation that wields enough power to have any authority over the net.

s/fedralist/communist/

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunatly for you the power of interpretation of legislation and constitution falls into the hands of the Supreme Court. Part of the division and layering of power. Your linking federalism http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=federalis m with communism clearly outlines your ignorance of the US political system.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[maximilln]

Your linking federalism ... with communism clearly outlines your ignorance of the US political system

Don't be a dumbs__t. The US government currently serves to extract the resources of the entire population and funnel it to dedicated projects of the federal government's choosing. That is EXACTLY the communist model.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly dont disagree one bit on the evilness of the US Government. But your changing the subject now.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Coulson]

The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public.

Also because the Courts believe that the Constitution has a spirit as well as a letter.

However, amending the constitution is the proper way to update it to reflect the ever-changing world. If Congress wants the power to regulate communication, and the states ratify it, they're welcome to (pending re-election, of course).

As far as Communism goes -- I'm happy that the government in which I participate collects resources from all citizens in order to do things which no individual or corporation would have the resources to do alone.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[DLWormwood]

The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot be enumerated to include the power to regulate internet access.

You guys are all arguing in circles. Some of you #define kInterstateCommerce as == to kInternetAccess and the rest of you #define kInterstateCommerce as != to kInternetAccess. Until you agree which is which, this argument is going nowhere.

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[Infonaut]

Until you agree which is which...

There's that whole nasty "human interpretation" thing again. It's almost as if people actually aren't machines with binary thought processes. Weird, isn't it?

Re:Feeling a bit testy are we?

[DLWormwood]

There's that whole nasty "human interpretation" thing again. It's almost as if people actually aren't machines with binary thought processes.

Okay, let's say that some aspects of Internet access are interstate commerce and some aren't. Now, how would you go about defining it?

In trying to find a "compromise" for what should be a black-or-white issue of definition, you've just opened up Pandora's box of conflicting laws and uncertainity, which is the very thing that hurts an economy and culture. It's hard enough for the mere mortal citizen to maintain legal compliance with all the laws on the book, especially in American jurisprudice where ignorance of the law is rarely accepted as a valid defense. Laws are only worthwhile if they are simple enough for common citizens to understand, and reasonable enough where enforcement is actually possible. But, IANAL...

What is wrong with that?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Given the choice, I would prefer legislation that would prohibit the likes of Amazon setting up shop in foreign countries"

What is wrong with letting them set up shop whereever the best conditions and best workers are? Nothing at all.

Food for thought:

[Anonymous Coward]

Would this be happening right now under a Democratic Congress?

Re:Food for thought:

[MorboNixon]

Nah, probably not. They'd probably be too tied up in impeachment hearings.

Re:Food for thought:

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Why wouldn't it? It seems that it's an issue of states' rights, which is supposed to be the particular forte of the Republican party, after all. This ban, if anything, is limiting the rights of states to tax and/or regulate within their borders.

And, of course, it's worth pointing out that both the permanent moratorium in the House, and the temporary moratorium in the Senate, are bipartisan measures. Indeed, the article in question features a quote from a congressional Democrat support (wait for it...) the permanent ban. Those darned tax'n'spend Democrats, trying to permanently ban a form of taxation.... :-) Also as food for thought, Bill Clinton came out in support of various bans of internet taxation while he was in office.

To my knowledge, there's never been much of a party-line consensus on the subject: in general, representatives from tech-heavy districts support these sorts of bans, because they see it as damaging to their regional economies. Given that many of these tech havens are in major cities, which tend, generally, to swing blue, Democrats have been just as strongly supportive of these moratoriums as any Republican.

Re:there is no veto

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he's just not a dumbass like Clinton who cries when Congress disagrees with him and vetos everything..

In other news...

[bigattichouse]

thousands of websites move away from network solutions DNS service and american hosting to european-based servers/DNS. This will only serve to lower our competitiveness in the global market place.

Re:In other news...

[cpghost]

Do you really think that europeans don't collect taxes? Their VAT is around 17% to 20% or so, and I wouldn't bet that they won't introduce some Internet tax in the near future...

No such thing as forever.....

[/dev/trash]

Don't believe it.

Re:No such thing as forever.....

[MorboNixon]

Yeah, good point. This Congress might as well pass a bill declaring itself to be the Bestest Dang Congress Ever and Also The Handsomest For Forevern'ever! The long-term effect will probably be the same. There are only three things certain in life, death, taxes and trite, pithy sayings.

Hey congress,

[pair-a-noyd]

Hands off, you greedy bastards.
You're not going to tax me and use it to fund your wars and invasions and occupations that all your blood thirsty chicken hawks are hell bent on starting and waging.

This is nothing less than taxation without representation.

Just remember, the American Revolution was started over taxation without representation and they weren't anywhere near as burdened as we are now.

Hell, we would have been better off to let the Britts keep America because the current system is bleeding the people to death to fund the bleeding to death of OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!

Oh yeah, what about all the THEFT that goes on through the phone company? Eh??

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/charges.html

Re:Hey congress,

[g0hare]

All those elected officials don't equal representation? Well, now I can stop voting!

Re:Hey congress,

[pair-a-noyd]

Oh, so you elected all those people to tax the hell out of yourself and everyone else?

And what of all the APPOINTED people that no one ever elected?

And lastly, when did a congress-critter ever keep it's word once in office?

How about a little refresher course, "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES"......

Case closed...

Re:Hey congress,

[-kertrats-]

Do you have any clue what the term 'taxation without representation' means? Because if you do, you're certainly not showing it.

Re:Hey congress,

[pair-a-noyd]

I sure do.

And I say that the people that are CLAIMING to represent us DO NOT REPRESENT US and in fact are robbing us "under threat of pain".. (If you understand that.)

Re:Hey congress,

[Anonymous Coward]

you are a fucking idot

Re:Hey congress,

[Anonymous Coward]

ou're not going to tax me and use it to fund your wars and invasions and occupations that all your blood thirsty chicken hawks are hell bent on starting and waging. ...I hope you loose your balls...
good luck on the next sugery fuck face

Under a Democratic congress

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Democrats led Congress, we'd be all jawing about the stiff MP3 and Open Source taxes we'd all be paying. But hey, at least we'd be able to marry people of our own sex.

Did you even read the article?

[Cryptnotic]

They know that they are not allowed to levy taxes on internet service providers. It is the states, counties, and cities, however that want to tax consumers of internet services in the same way they currently tax telephone services. They are currently prohibited from doing so by the federal government, but that might change.

American flag

[LS]

I know this is somewhat offtopic, but using the American flag as a backdrop for politics.slashdot.org seems a bit nearsighted to me. This site has an international readership, and when they see this they will think "American Politics".

LS

Re:American flag

[LiquidCoooled]

The American flag is there because the entire Politics section was put in place to give us somewhere to talk about the recent Election.

I owuld rather have a politics section with an American flag than no politics section at all.

Re:American flag

[Anonymous Coward]

But like is true American fashion the rest of the world doesn't matter. But that sounds a little odd coming from the great liberal slashdot doesn't it? I would have thought that this being slashdot would have a picture of a alter to the UN as the backdrop. Just my 2 cents worth.

Re:American flag

[back_pages]

But, in the end, aren't all politics American politics?

Not that this makes me happy, but let's call it what it is.

Re:American flag

[Concerned Onlooker]

But that sounds a little odd coming from the great liberal slashdot doesn't it? I would have thought that this being slashdot would have a picture of a alter to the UN as the backdrop.

As opposed to what the Radcons would use as a picture for politics, which would be a dollar bill sign.

Re:American flag

[Nice Try Asshole]

Guess what, Slashdot is an American site! Why don't you go eat some spaghetti / snails / rice / curry / babies, depending on your country of origin? Nice try, asshole!

Re:American flag

[MorboNixon]

Err, no, you got confused. The word is "libertarian". Instead of a US Flag it should have a picture of a disheveled guy smoking pot, carrying a gun and giving us all the finger. Or at least "Don't Tread on Me"

Re:American flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself...
The US is the world!

Re:American flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit http://politics.slashdot.org/ and you'll notice not all the political stories get the flag icon. Look closely and you might notive what all the stories that get the "United States" icon have something in common.

Re:American flag

[TeknoHog]

But, in the end, aren't all politics American politics?

No.

Slashdot's politics section was launched to deal with the last US presidential election. So the Slashdot section is about American politics only.

Re:Thank You Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Draft! You really should look up who voted for the draft. Besides even if you were in Iraq they have the same Internet.

For all those not reading the article...

[Cryptnotic]

...this is about the federal government preventing the states from levying taxes on internet access. States currently tax telephone services, and some states would also like to tax internet services. The federal government currently forbids this, however they might stop forbidding it.

This does not mean that the federal government would tax internet services. That may or may not be within their power. That is a different constitutional argument though.

This does not mean that your state would charge taxes on internet services. It would still be up to your state legislature and governor to decide on such a tax, approve it, and implement it.

He's Held Up the Highway Bill

[Black-Man]

These new-wave republicans have the penchant for spending as their democratic predecessors. Highway Bill has gone nowhere and is now on a renewal at the old funding rate.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the summary? Did you even read the TITLE?

Access is "taxed" anyway

[supersat]

A part of my most recent DSL bill:

Federal Regulatory Fees Orderid: xxxxxxx 8.12
Service from 10/01/2004 to 12/25/2004

WA State Sales Tax Orderid: xxxxxxx 6.71
Service from 10/01/2004 to 12/25/2004

Tax Reimbursement: Utility Users Tax - City 6.16
Orderid: xxxxxxx
Service from 10/01/2004 to 12/25/2004

Tax Reimbursement: Sales Tax - City Orderid: 2.39
xxxxxxx
Service from 10/01/2004 to 12/25/2004

Regulatory Compliance Fee Orderid: xxxxxxx 5.91
Service from 10/01/2004 to 12/25/2004

That sure looks like a tax on access to me.

Re:Access is "taxed" anyway

[MaineCoon]

Not surprised, since they haven't passed the ban yet, you can still be taxed for access.

If you reread what I wrote, I said the article was about a possible ban on taxing access, while everyone keeps assuming it is a ban on taxing purchases.

Seems like not only did you not RTFA you didn't RTFP before you replied to it.

Re:Access is "taxed" anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Those taxes are related to the telephone call you're making when you use DSL.

Underpaid

[totallygeek]

think he was inplying that Ted Kennedy is a worthless sack and his salary is a waste of everyone's money.

I would be all for paying them ten times their current salaries if they would just do their job and then go home. These freaks living in D.C. dreaming up stupid ways to waste money irritates me. I think they should ban all air conditioners and heaters from the District.

Speaking of getting paid: How about a job with Google?

Re:Underpaid

[mrchaotica]

No, that means they're overpaid -- they should be paid nothing (or maybe just minimum wage) for politicking, so they're forced to go home (to the state they represent) and have real jobs also, just like everybody else.

Being an elected official should be considered community service, and a necessary evil, not a career (in other words, I agree with you)!

Re:Underpaid

[cbr2702]

they should be paid nothing (or maybe just minimum wage) for politicking, so they're forced to go home (to the state they represent) and have real jobs also, just like everybody else

That won't help. These people have to finance campaigns, and decreasing the salary would only increase the percentage of very wealthy people in office. Is that really a blow for the average guy?

Re:Underpaid

[zors]

But then, wouldn't only the independently wealthy be able to be full time congressman? Ancient Athenians learned this lesson, and decided to pay their elected officials.

Re:Underpaid

[lightknight]

Yes. You have two choices:

1.) No salary: only the rich will try for the position. If you get people wealthy enough into these positions, at least they will be above bribery (which isn't to say that Thereasa Kerry or Bill Gates wouldn't have their own agenda, but no one else is going to try to pull their strings: I mean, to bribe Gates, you need what, a couple billion?).

2.) Salary. Let the common folk in. Sounds more democratic, but you have a new problem. Any one person can be propped up and controlled by a single entity: the person occupying the office is a shell for a special interest. A second more serious problem manifests itself here: common folk have no experience managing vast amounts of money, which can breed corruption (all that power!) and/or stupidity (sure, let's fund a dozen studies on the lifecycle of the french fry).

Re:Underpaid

[mrchaotica]

But then, wouldn't only the independently wealthy be able to be full time congressman?

That was exactly my point: politics should be a part time job only!

Re:Underpaid

[mrchaotica]

Well, campaign finance reform is essential too -- but just about as likely to happen as Congress giving up their salaries.

Re:Underpaid

[cdrguru]

Campaigns aren't financed by personal income. I believe there are even laws that prevent most people from putting $1 of their own money into their campaign - if they want any support from the current federal election system.

So everyone getting elected has to go begging to rich people and large corporations for money so they can get their name out.

Re:Underpaid

[dman123]

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is for the presidential campaign only, not for the US Congress. In addition, the rule only applies to official candidates of specific parties, and does not include the capaigning prior to the nomination acceptance of the candidate to the party.

This came up during the 2004 Bush/Kerry ordeal when Kerry considered delaying the acceptance of the Democratic nomination so that these FEC rules would not come into effect so early.

There are obviously other rules regarding limitations to the $ given to the campaign, with soft money given to the national party being the loophole. The candidate would not be able to directly solicit the soft money. Likewise, the candidate could not theoretically interfere with (stop) the party raising these funds.

Re:Underpaid

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that you tend to attract the following types of people:

1. People who failed in business or never worked in the private sector.

2. Political powerseekers like Ted Kennedy. Usually these are lifetime politicians.

These are not mutually exclusive groups, either. If a successful businessman wants to close up shop and run for Congress it is most likely a pay cut.

We need more Congressmen who understand the free market and basic economics.

Re:Underpaid

[Mr Pippin]

Though I don't disagree with Campaign Finance Reform, none of the suggestions address the real issue.

Large money is involved in Campaigns and office holders specifically because of the power of the office.

If you wish to remove the abuse of power, then you logically must remove the power.

Step one is enforcing the constitutional limits of power.

I think step two is defining a suitable punishment for violation of those constitutional constraints.

Once the power is removed that can be abused, then those that wish to abuse or influence that power will naturally fade as well.

Why?

[Panther_Wyvern]

Are they stopping a tax on internet access all over or are they merely stopping local governments from doing so in order to keep the all the action available only on the federal level?

Frankly, I'm not sure how I feel about taxing internet access. Most poor people I know don't even have computers, let alone internet access. I hesitate to say it, but everyone I know that uses the internet with any regularity (not counting those who go to the public library to do so) can afford a reasonable tax. I'd like to stress reasonable... the article mentions some cities have been planning a 15%(!!) internet access tax. So, what is the thought behind not taxing it? (Other than the idea that taxes suck in general and who really wants a new one.) It's a luxury, really... most people do very well without it all the time... you pay for it, etc. So, why not? Is there some grand vision of the future where the internet is as commonplace as television? Or would internet access be comparable to something else designated as non-taxable? Or what? Anybody?

Re:Why?

[vondo]

I pay 8.75% on food and 9.75% on everything else, so 15% isn't that much higher. I agree with you completely about the poor. This isn't to help them at all.

Funny, when the federal government tells states to enforce environmental or "American's with Disabilities" laws, it's called an unfunded mandate. When they forbid states to collect revenue from some source, it's suddenly good.

try england

[Bad Ad]

you think you're over taxed in american?

try living in england.
once you're finished saying "what the fuck" after your first visit to a petrol statiom, let me know. :)

Re:try england

[Bad Ad]

or america even.... :P

Re:try england

[Headcase88]

Try Canada. tons of Income Tax, Sales Tax, Breathing Tax...

Re:try england

[ZB Mowrey]

Not to belittle the plight of our English brethren... but yes I think we're overtaxed here. To start, we've got a flat 7.5% Social Security/Medicare tax, (where I live) 8% state income tax, 18-33(?)% income tax rates federally, taxes on interest if we save money, taxes on goods if we spend money, taxes on gas and alcohol and cigarettes and all sorts of special tax targets, taxes on corporate income (who do you suppose ultimately pays those, maybe... the consumer?), property taxes, vehicle taxes, taxes on phone service, taxes on utilities, and we even pay taxes when we fucking die!

So yeah, I'd say we're overtaxed. We're drowning in little nibblets of taxation.

Re:try england

[Afrosheen]

Canada seems a little different in that they can see their money going to good causes. Causes like a public health program, extremely clean cities, environmental controls, etc. Again, the main beef most of us Americans have is that we see ourselves being taxed more all the time but there's no tangible result. Quality of life just isn't improving, Social Security is still getting raped, the highways are no better, etc. Show me where that extra penny sales tax is going, in concrete form, and I won't complain if I feel it's a worthy improvement.

Re:try england

[Anonymous Coward]

Good causes like $1 billion lost on the gun registry (that was supposed to break even its first year)? Good causes like the $1 billion LOST by the Human Resources Department? Good causes like $1 billion buying broken death trap subs from Britain? Millions blown on Quebec adverstising firms? The billions of dollars THROWN at a healthcare system that gets worse and worse with every extra penny it gets?

Trust me, there are no good causes to be funded by taxation... especially the 45-55% rates Canadians pay.

Re:try england

[SycoCowz]

The money's going to Iraqi concrete.

Re:try england

[Anonymous Coward]

At a very fundamental level, the United States' biggest political objective is to advance its military-industrial complex. Go look at the Orozco Murals at Dartmouth college's Baker Library. That goal goes back over 500 years, and represents a very poor reflection what it means to be a White Person. We need to remember that the white man eradicated the other civilizations resident in North America. An extremely poor reflection on our fundamental value system as a society.

Re:try england

[TopShelf]

You could make a decent argument that the tax code is overly complicated, but I'd be hard pressed to say that the overall level of US taxation is "too high". The skyrocketing budget deficit is the most obvious argument against that assertion. People also fail to consider what they get for their taxes: civil infrastructure, law & order, short-term unemployment insurance, national defense and a social safety net in the event of poverty/old age. Those things don't come cheap.

Re:try england

[shuffledemon]

Your view on tax dollars being contributed to worthwhile and visibly well performing institutions in Canada is dated. These days we have a gun registry that went billions over budget and doesn't do a damned thing, infrastructure nightmares with growth outpacing proper design of roads and communities, and 6+ hour wwaits in emergency rooms. Yes, we are taxed to death, and we are getting less and less to show for it.

Re:try england

[FinalCut]

That is a pretty typical problem with most of my fellow Americans who talk about Canada - they seem to think "the grass is greener" as far as what the government is doing for you.

They assume socialized medicine provides the exact same levels of care (and availability of care) as does privitized medicine. An example was the lack of MRI technology in Canada until the early 90s - ultrasound was (is?) often used in its place (1993 was the first pediatric hospital to offer MRI in Canada) where it had been available in the US since the early 1980s (the first commercial MRI was installed Helsinki Finland in 1982)

They assume that the pharmaceuticals in Canada went through the exact same regulatory process as it did in America but that it's just cheaper there because of Government Intervention (when it is more due to less government intervention). They also seem to think there will be an endless bounty of Drugs to import from Canada. WHen actually the US Is responsible for over 50% of the worlds consumption of pharmaceuticals whereas Canada is responsible for only 2% - if the US authorized the importation of drugs from Canada either Canada would prohibit the export OR they would run out of Drugs and then both Canadian and US drugs would cost alot (instead of just the in the US).

No country does everything right and in fact it seems few do much right when you boil it all down.

Now, I don't know about the proper roadways in Canada but I do know that the main Canadian road we took from Buffalo to Toronto was in suprisingly excellent shape (1999) considering what roads in upstate NY are often like due to the harsh winters.

Re:try england

[ZB Mowrey]

It is a logical fallacy to state that our national budget deficit's size is proof of our undertaxed nature. If your statement were correct, then a politician could ensure that the People are constantly undertaxed by simply spending more.

A rational debate would be much easier if you would state clearly what would constitute "too high" in your view. Is that number 30%? 50%? Where do we begin to believe that we are taxed too much?

I can assure you that through the complexity of our tax code... over 50% of the cost of any given item is tax money, in one form or another. This can be easily and objectively verified.

For an example, let's pretend that during the course of a year you purchase $1,000 worth of Gasoline. In order to have saved that $1,000... you would need almost exactly $1,500 in original income:

$1,500 x 8% = 120 (State Income), $1,500 x 18%= 270 (Minimum Federal rate), $1,500 x 7.5% = 112.50 (SS & Medicare, employee portion) ...the total of these three taxes? $502.50. This is because most taxes are "tax ignorant"... that is, they apply to total income (or total purchase price), and do not take into account any other taxes which might apply.

So far I've demonstrated using only three specific taxes a level that is close to 50%. Add the gasoline-specific tax, which in my state (combining state and federal tax) is 42.5 cents per gallon... your $1,000 will buy you roughly 500 gallons of gas in IL. That's another $236 in taxes you paid without realizing it.

Don't forget to assume another 15-20% of that cost of gasoline being profit taxes paid by the companies who pumped that gas, delivered it, and sold it to you. I could go on and on about how many different little factors add a penny here or there... and easily, with 10 minutes' effort, demonstrate an effective tax rate over 50%. So where exactly is the line between overtaxed and not overtaxed?

Re:there is no veto

[mrchaotica]

There are many problems with Bush, but that's not one of them. Presumably, if Congress passes a law it reflects the will of the People, so if the President vetos it he'd better have a damn good reason for doing so!

Besides, since not vetoing the law is good in this case, criticizing him for it is misplaced -- save it for when he actually screws up!

Re:there is no veto

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look up who supports NAMBLA. Or North America Man Boy Love Associations. If you notice they are supported by nearly every liberal and even the ACLU despite NAMBLA teaches men how to molest children. I guess children do not have any rights!

But how...

[Anonymous Coward]

But how will they pay their public debt that's now going towards 8 trillion dollars? Oh yeah. Inflation will just keep on taking your money's value from you. But it doesn't matter because taxes are down, so the government must be being responsible, right?

Re:there is no veto

[mrchaotica]

Well, you see, merely teaching somebody how to commit a crime is not a crime. Talking about how to commit a crime is not a crime. Nothing except actually committing the crime is a crime (QED)!

If it were otherwise, the Grand Theft Auto games would be illegal.

Anyway, the issue is not that "children to do not have any rights," it's that all people do, whether you agree with their morals or not! NAMBLA has rights, NAZIs have rights, Communists have rights, bigots have rights, heck, even Christian Fundamentalists have rights! They even have the right to advocate talking away the rights of the other groups -- they just don't have the right to try to actually accomplish it by force.

Collecting taxes for 2000+ tax agencies

[slam smith]

I hope they keep a ban on sales taxes. It would make it very difficult for a small shop to do business if they are collecting taxes for every tax agency in the US. They article wasn't totally clear if they are talking about that or not, but sure hope so.

Re:Collecting taxes for 2000+ tax agencies

[DigiShaman]

I've thought about this too. But in reality as a consumer myself, I still like the feeling of instant gratification. I may save 10% on a product online vs getting at BestBuy or Frys Electronics. But at least I can always return it to the store and purchase the same day I have a desire for the product. Also, you can't beat personal customer support. And if you have to dispute something, it's much easer to do so in person vs over the phone or e-mail.

There's a reason....

[fishmasta]

Taken from the Slashdot FAQ:

Q: Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

A: Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news,submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.

That's why.

No Blood for Oil!!!!11!!!!

[Shihar]

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!11!! THE USA IS WORSE THEN CHINA>> CHINA LIEKS TO HELP PEOLE WHILE USA RAPES WOMEN IN ABUGRAVE PRISON AND FALUGJA ON PURPOSE> BUSH JUST WANTS TO MAKE LOTS OF MONEY IN IRAQ B Y SHOOTING PEPLE> HALIBERTON.

Oh wait, wrong thread. Hrm, Bush cutting taxes on geeks... if I could just work in an Iraq/Imperialist US/Bush is 3vil angle I am sure I could make a pile of karma...

Bush is doing this to divert attention from Iraq where he is KILLING BABIES!

w00t, no troll karma for me. All +5 insightful.

Re:No Blood for Oil!!!!11!!!!

[DigiShaman]

Your angle is flawed on a false premise to begin with.

Re:No Blood for Oil!!!!11!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

dear god, i despise bush as much as the next person but please, go get a goddamn life.

if bush wanted to divert attention he could easily give a wink and a nod to those in the media who are in bed with him , and could quite concievably stop them showing ANY information about iraq, or infact portray it in an entirely positive note. fox news im sure would jump at the chance for example.
you can TRY to divert attention all you want but theres nothing stopping you reading information where bush has pretty much no control over, unless the US goes for a china-style firewall. However given that the majority ( of those in the bible belt particularly ) arent told all of the facts anyway, there doesnt seem to be much of a reason to do that.
Same situation remains - clueless americans vote in elections without being told all the facts, and act like lemmings jumping off a cliff, or sheep following each other to the slaughterhouse - the rest of the more educated america get saddled with an incompetant president and the rest of the morons they share the country with

Re:No Blood for Oil!!!!11!!!!

[Shihar]

This is proof positive that no matter how hard you try, you can't weed out all of the idiots. I don't know how I could possibly make something more of an obvious joke, and yet still some idiot thinks I am serious.

the rest of the more educated america get saddled with an incompetant president and the rest of the morons they share the country with

Psst... you are one of those idiots you complain so bitterly about if you can't see the flashing lights around the previous post that screamed JOKE. Do the world a favor and don't vote next election. I don't care if you voted for the same guy as me or not. Just spare the country of your dumb input into the system.

- Karma to burn baby.

Re:No Blood for Oil!!!!11!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

dear god, i despise bush as much as the next person but please, go get a goddamn life.
Wow, that's exactly how I feel after reading your post.

if bush wanted to divert attention he could easily give a wink and a nod to those in the media who are in bed with him , and could quite concievably stop them showing ANY information about iraq,
Are you serious? There's no media hotline that the president calls and says "Media, this Eye-Rack thingy is gettin' pretty rough, how 'bout y'all just stop showing it?" Even Fox wouldn't go that far.
Nor would it be effective. We would hear about these things via the internet, and if the only place to get news on Iraq was from Al-Jazeera, everyone's first impression of something like Fallujah would be "holy shit lots of people are dying, this sucks" instead of "our boys are killing terrorists, good!"

In an open society you can't close off sources of information. You just spin it. Our government and their corporate backers spend a lot of time and money on propaganda. And they're damn good at it.

All this aside from the fact that the parent poster was OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic.

When legislators make laws..

[StikyPad]

Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access,

Hmm.. let me get this straight.. now if lawmakers want to put taxes on internet access, they'll have to repeal the law.. and that would be troublesome why? If there were enough congressmen who wanted to tax the internet, how would this law help anything?

When legislators make laws, only legislators will be able to..

What this law really means is that Congress is telling states they can't profit from internet access Congress decides to create a national internet tax.

no food tax

[Changa_MC]

food is not taxed. Hot foods are taxed, but that's the labor, not the food you're being taxed on. Because it didn't heat itself, and you have an oven at home (hopefully). Apartments aren't taxes either, although condos are. Because one's a place to sleep, the other is an investment. email should not be taxed, because that's people talking. But borders.com should be, because that's people making money. In every category, there's basics that should not be taxed, and extras that should.

Re:no food tax

[TykeClone]

Apartments aren't taxes either, although condos are.

Apartment buildings are taxed - and that is built into your rent. You pay it, but you don't see it or get to claim it as a deduction.

Re:no food tax

[Peyna]

Apartments aren't taxes either, although condos are

Your landlord pays property taxes. Rest assured he passes the bill on to you.

Re:no food tax

[derkaas]

food is not taxed.

Funny. I live in Tennessee, and I sure as hell pay sales tax on my groceries. Let's also not forgot that the producers of the food were almost certainly taxed at some point.

Re:no food tax

[xstonedogx]

Does anyone get to claim property taxes as a deduction?

Re:no food tax

[TykeClone]

All farmers and businesses do for commercial and ag land - that is a cost of doing business and it is correct to deduct it.

Individuals who pay property taxes directly (home owners and condo owners (in this example)) also may deduct property taxes (and any state income taxes as well) if they itemize their deductions instead of taking the standard deduction.

In most states, vehicle registration is at least partly a form of "personal property taxes" and a portion of your annual registration fees may be deducted on your tax return as well. I'm not sure how other states do it, but the Iowa tax instruction books have the formula for determining how much of the registration fee is deductible.

As an interesting side note about property taxes on apartments, I think that Minnesota has a portion of their tax law that will allow renters to claim a refund on their property taxes when doing their state return. Not sure why they do it, but it seems to be a nice gesture on their part.

bankrupt

[Anonymous Coward]

So this is how they will pay for Iraq and the military?

Re:Gmail Invites from Michael O'Connor

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your mouse over the link and look where it's going to. A gmail invite goes to gmail.google.com. These links don't. They go to a google redirect page.

Noooo! They can't DO this!!!!

[snarkasaurus]

Damn fool Red state Nazi Republicans banning taxes on the Internet, how the hell are the Poor going to get their web access...!

oh, wait a second...

I will *so* do this!

[wirefarm]

Just as soon as I can get my modem to work over Skype...

Re:I will *so* do this!

[shutdown -p now]

I might be insane, but I actually asked this exact question on Skype forums: could I use Skype to dial BBSes? They said, no, this feature is not planned =(

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why ban an internet tax? The Internet is to blame for the loss of sales for larger retailers, like Wal-Mart and Best Buy. That means our governments are missing out on the sales tax. I think it would be ultra lucrative to tax sales on the Internet. Oh well, it WILL happen someday :-)

Communism and the US government

[Infonaut]

The US government currently serves to extract the resources of the entire population and funnel it to dedicated projects of the federal government's choosing. That is EXACTLY the communist model.

That statement is not "exactly" or even remotely correct. Your hostility to the federal government is coloring your interpretation of the facts.

Communism, which btw has never been truly achieved, is based on the concept of collective ownership. No matter how onerous the US federal government's "extraction of resources," private property (physical and intellectual) ownership is at the core of the American system of government.

You berate people for not *understanding* that the Constitution is not a matter open to interpretation, yet you take great liberties with the meaning of the term communism in your effort to paint the US government as a bogeyman.

Re:You can quit cheering tax-and-spend Democrats n

[Harinezumi]

The problem with the current crop of Republicans is that instead of tax-and-spend they're borrow-and-spend, which is tax-and-spend plus interest. The government should not try to cut taxes, it should try to cut spending. Given a real long-term surplus, the taxes will take care of themselves.

Re:there is no veto

[jim_v2000]

I don't know, it could have something to do with the fact that there's a Republican congress, and he's a Republican president.

The real problems...

[Antony-Kyre]

1. Wasteful government spending.

Some say spending over a half trillion per year on "defense" purposes would qualify. Some say spending hundreds of dollar on comfy chairs would qualify. This subject is very opinionated.

2. The dreaded April 15th, income tax day.

Making criminals out of those who may not be able to afford to pay, or simply mess up. And allowing the evil geniuses to reap the benefits either through loopholes or ways of not reporting it.

Note: Some say a consumption tax (sales tax) would hurt the poor. Consider a consumption tax with rebates to offset the poverty level. No one can 'really' avoid paying a sales tax, unless the business is crooked.

3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.

A more democratic system would be nice, where citizens could speak their mind. e-Governments, no salary elected officials for representation when needed, and instant direct voting.

Re:The real problems...

[Rollie Hawk]

3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.

Voting?

Re:The real problems...

[Antony-Kyre]

You mean voting someone in as a representative? Someone can do a lot of damage in two, four, or six years, during their given term. And even then, voters don't do the proper research when voting for them a second time.

You are misinterpreting it a bit

[Sycraft-fu]

These ammendments are just defining the scope of laws, that we are a legal by default country. Something is legal, until they pass a law making it illegal.

Ammendment 9 is saying that just because the constution has a list of rights here, doesn't mean that people don't have other ones. It's clarifing that this is just a list which can't be revoked through legslation, only ammendment. It's not an exhustive list. They still have the right to do anything else not made illegal.

Ammendment 10 says that in any matter that the constution or the federal government DOESN'T have a law either mandating or prohibiting something, the states can make a law to that effect. It clarifies how supercedence of government works. The states don't have to ask permission to make laws that are in additon to federal and constutional law, they can do it, so long as their laws don't conflict. They can't outlaw free speech, as it conflicts with the constution, but that doesn't mean they can't make any laws.

So, if the federal government has no laws about taxation of the Internet, it's not taxed by default. However the states would be free to implement their own laws placing a tax on it. If, however, the federal government bans taxing it, the states can't, since now there is a law about it, and they'd be contrary to it.

The 9th and 10th ammendments weren't intended to limit what the federal government could pass laws on, just to ensure that they couldn't sweepingly make things illegal, unless they passed a law to specificly make it legal (there are countries that work like that).

Tax your will to live

[DigiShaman]

There is already a death tax. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a "birth" tax you start paying at 18 untill the day you die. And this tax is just for you being alive regardless of WHAT you plan on NOT doing else.

Don't let the door hit ya...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear Yugo!!

Not sure what's going to happen to this nation once all the drug addicts and trial lawyers are gone.

Re:Internet Tax V Highway Tax=Better Infrastructur

[Mariukenas]

If your logic is not flawn, let's impose tax on health and long living. USA would become the healthiest and longest living nation in the world.

why protect the internet from taxation?

[philipgar]

While I am not a fan of taxation in most any form, I don't see why the internet should be protected when everything else is free game to be taxes. The interstate commerce clause of the constitution can kind of be applied to say the states couldn't tax the internet in the first place.

Regardless when it comes to a federal law on this I have to laugh. For some reason the internet is protected while every thing else is taxed. Seems like a waste of a massive revenue source to me. Not to say we need it. If I had my way the government would be scaled back to a quarter of its size and taxes cut accordingly. Of course with the big government republicans in charge (i guess it could be worse and we could have even bigger government democrats in charge) this isn't really an option.

So the protection of the internet is more of a popularity thing. I've always wondered what makes the internet so different the traditional telecoms. I mean if we were taxed on data the same we are on voice I'd hate to see what it would cost to send a gigabyte across the network. Consider every voice converation yields plenty in taxes, and takes far less bandwidth (even when you consider its duration). Of course if taxes were the same for voice and data the internet would cease to exist. I'm pretty sure taxes would be well over 100% if they were set to the same (dsl is ~$40/month and assuming ~10GB of traffic/month. . . and not sure the exact taxing). Eh, its kinda ridiculous.

But I guess the government will continue to do whats popular at the moment and then come crying when they lose all their revenue from the telecoms, or the telecoms simply continue to crumble or drop out of the voice market due to overregulation.

Phil

Re:why protect the internet from taxation?

[pvt. tucker]

Causes like a public health program Yeah, that's what we like to socialized medicine. Know that doctor you always went to as a child in the US? If you're in Canada, the government tells you what doctor to go to. JBrewer

americans need to pay those...

[HeDa]

weapons of mass destruction they have... so... they need more taxes... I understand... They also need to recruit more soldiers to send them to death... I understand... Hi Bush! grrrr

You are right! Democrats are SMARTER!

[FatSean]

I mean, they know with the billions being spent on a misguided war, that the money has to be repaid somehow. You call the Democrats 'Tax and Spend', it seems the Republicans are now 'Spend and Spend'. Now which makes more sense to you? Raising taxes to pay for this gargantuan military expenditure, or hoping, and *snicker* praying, that some economic miracle will occure to pull the national debt out of the shitter?

I'm a Libertarian and I fear I have been trolled.

Check it against the debt increase voted through

[SmallFurryCreature]

The republicans (the vote was split along party lines) just voted through a 800 billion dollar debt increase. Wich seems like a lot of money to me. And this on top of already record debts by the US of A.

Sure tax decreases seem nice but if the price for it is a gigantic debt then something is wrong.

Basically what the if the US was a person then this would be like saying, No I am not going to work extra hours, in fact in general I will be working less (Bushes 300 dollar tax cut) but I will be spending more (War on terror/drugs/filesharing) and just borrow money to make up the difference.

It sounds nice but the whole thing about borrowing is that at one time or another it got to be paid back.

Now the US is not a person and so it is a bit harder to send the baillifs around to reposses New York. However sooner or later there may be nobody left to borrow from. If america becomes incapable of paying interests on the debt then other countries will just not give out any new loans.

Other countries may not be able to force america to pay of its debts but neither can america force other countries to lend it money. No not even with its powerfull army. Wars cost money and america is out of money.

Once the debt has reached its limit you got a real problem.

The high spending republicans can't raise taxes. The high spending democrats won't get elected because they will have to raise taxes.

Sure a ban on internet tax sounds fun. It also sound amazingly short term to me. The current goverment of america spends to much money. Cutting taxes is exactly the wrong way to counter spending to much. Either spend less or increase the income.

It is basic home economics. Say my income is $800 and I spend $1000. Everyone would suggest I better start earning more or spend less. Republican answer solution? Earn less and spend more. Worrying about tomorrow is for suckers.

Non Issue

[motionb]

This would never even have to be an issue if the stinking federal government would simple stick to doing what it was created in the constitution to do which is Maintain the military and protect our borders, the federal government was NEVER meant to be what it is today. They are well on they're way to creating a welfare state. Stop all the needless spending on just about EVERYTHING and stay out of my business. Now thats what i would call a Government of, for, and by the PEOPLE.

Re:Non Issue

[Anonymous Coward]

if the stinking federal government would simple stick to doing what it was created in the constitution to do which is Maintain the military and protect our borders

Protect our borders? I'm sure we can agree that this is not being done at all. Until it actually starts doing this, the Department of Defense should revert to its original name, the Department of War (or, if I had my way, the Dept. of Offense. Though If I had my way we would not be engaged in offensive actions, ONLY border defense... but I digress).

They are well on they're way to creating a welfare state

If so, this is the most incompetent government in history. We don't have a welfare state, and we're not on our way. Try walking around the ghettoes, and ask people how their "welfare state" is taking care of them. I say this as someone who WANTS a welfare state.
FDR took steps towards a welfare state, but they've been largely abandoned. The only entities whose welfare our modern political parties are concerned with are corporations.

Re:Check it against the debt increase voted throug

[ViolentGreen]

As I read the article, I understood that it was banning state taxes on the internet, not federal taxes. This would have no effect on the national debt.

I pay too much in taxes already.

[DrJonesAC2]

I am personally for this. Any new taxes, in my view, are bad taxes. 25% of my wages already disappear in taxes/Social Security. I haven't taken the time to figure out how much I am paying out in sales tax and other taxes. If I took the time I would probably just shoot myself in the face and call it a day. I wouldn't care if they were trying to create a new tax to fund The fact of the matter is the Government already takes too much of my money as it is. They don't need any more. They need to spend what they have responsibly.

Re:I pay too much in taxes already.

[lew3004]

It really is mind boggling, isn't it? I mean think about...there's barely a minute during the day where you are NOT being taxed. You wake up in the morning to the sound of an alarm clock? Electricity tax. Take a shower in the morning? Natural gas tax. Drive to work? Gasoline tax. Actually working? Federal, social security. Medicare and perhaps state income tax. Do a little grocery shopping on the way home? Sales tax. Make a few cell phone calls on your way home in the car? Phone tax. Etcetera, etcetera. What a shitbag system and top of that the legislators implementing these taxes are not only overpaid civil servants but they get to vote themselves a raise every now and again. Crap, shooting myself in the face seems rather tame by comparison.

Whats really needed...

[stinkpad]

Is a ban on the TAXERS, not the TAXES. isn't CONgress is the opposite of PROgress?

Freedom Now

[Doc Ruby]

When they're through, they'll ban taxes on material goods and income too. A great day! The government wil starve, and we'll finally be all alone to play with the multinational corporations. No more annoying "consumer protection" or "justice". No more school! Except for rich kids. Our trusty insurance companies, without taxes, can finally afford to be as generous as they've promised in their TV commercials. And that lazy old Earth will have to get her act together, once we've weaned her from the welfare system with the EPA as its queen. Happy days are here again!

Re:Freedom Now

[Asterisk]

I can't wait! I've been wanting to replace "consumer protection" and "justice" with consumer protection and justice, respectively, for a long time now! And you can't do that as long as unaccountable politicians are in control of things.

Although I have to disagree with you about the school issue. Children will finally be able to attend school once the "schools" are closed.

Re:Freedom Now

[Doc Ruby]

Sounds like a great idea. Now, where will that consumer protection and justice come from? And these schools? Where will the poor people's angry mobs get their services? Whence this new accountability that politicians are blocking?

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

[Anonymous Coward]

America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it's the dream that we all share; it's the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah)

Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Popeye, FUCK YEAH!
Demarcates, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books

Dude

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time you read /. on a public machine be sure to log out.

Yeah

[paranode]

When the real thief is the person that created the deficit in the first place.

Yes, thank FDR and the Democratic party for that. Damn socialists.

Re:Easing taxes -Finally !

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, thank god, there actually _is_ intelligent life on Slashdot ! I'm so sick of hearing this BS about "tax cuts for the wealthy", when not one piece of valid evidence nor one accurate statistic has ever been quoted, or not without being immediately invalidated. It is simply untrue. Let's put this outright lie to rest forever. It's a mangled twist of the truth desgined to "victimize" the lower classes and garner more votes for the left wing. Period.

Tax ban = subsidy + unfunded mandate

[jbennetto]

It's past time for the dot-coms to grow up. This isn't an issue of lowering overall taxes, it's an issue of Congress favoring one industry over another. People may claim that buying over the internet is so much more efficient. Maybe it is; if that's the case, dot-coms shouldn't need special tax breaks to succeed. We all like to think our industry is special and is changing the world. I'm sure people working at agribusinesses, Haliburton, baseball teams, and importers of Chinese ceiling fans will tell you the same thing.

Worse, it's an unfunded mandate sent down by Washington. Congress makes the rules, and the state governments lose revenue.

As a disclaimer, I should note I live next door to one of the best independent bookstores in the country (Elliot Bay Books, Seattle). I can browse the shelves, open up books, talk to real people, get suggestions from the staff, go to author readings and bookclubs. And when I buy a book, I can start reading it as I walk out the store.

If you live in northern Alaska, yes, Amazon is huge improvement. But not all of the rest of us want to see real stores driven out of business because the goverment thinks it should subsidize people for avoiding human interaction.

Dumb Laws and Riders

[SeanDuggan]

Supposedly, this similar to how a lot of "dumb laws" get signed in. Someone wants to derail a piece of legislation, so they attach something ridiculous like requiring two trains approaching each other on the same track to both stop and wait for the other to pass. Texas law IIRC.

Re:there is no veto

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he's just not a dumbass like Clinton who cries when Congress disagrees with him and vetos everything.

Maybe that's because right after 9-11, to show their "unitity" everyone backed all Bush's proposals, and in 2002 congress turned Republican. So nothing gets to him that he would disagree with seriously enough to veto.

It's easy to be tough when you're never challenged.

Re:Check it against the debt increase voted throug

[h4rm0ny]

It sounds nice but the whole thing about borrowing is that at one time or another it got to be paid back.

Nobody wants to call the debt home. To do so would be a disaster on a grand international scale because the US can't pay and if it could, to do so would be to invite worldwide economic chaos.

Since the gold standard was abandoned, the US money system has been severed from reality. The US may have large amounts of wealth - i.e. infrastructure, property, Iraq, etc. - but the numbers on the computer screens say that it is hugely in debt.

There is no way that the "lenders" can write off a debt of that size, nor would want to. The idea is that the debt should be preserved as long as possible and the borrower be milked for all it's worth. Likewise, the US will not be allowed to pay off the debt because as long as the debt is preserved wealth created in the US will continue to be transferred in ownership (via the medium of owing money to the creditor) to the lenders.

Basically, money is fiction, an agreement on the global scale, but is not wealth. If the debt were payed off then what would really be be happening would be the transfer of power of the US's wealth from the lenders to the US itself. Currency valuation would change and the lenders would be worse off quite rapidly. Consider that the dollar bills in your pocket, the pounds or the euros, etc., are really notes of debt to the central bank that must be paid back with interest to the central bank, i.e. more money must be given back than was borrowed, with the only source of that money being borrowing at an agreed interest rate from the central bank.

Drop some acid and really think about what debt of debt means in terms of wealth and ownership.

Basically, the debt will not be called home, the idea is to maintain that debt for eternity and control the US. God alone knows what measures would be taken if the US came close to paying it off. The only time historically that this almost happened, you had a civil war. ;)

The difference between left and right wing trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

are the constant sexual and phallic references on the part of right wing trolls. Such as:

I hope you loose your balls...

Perhaps an attempt to feel masculine on the part of an effeminate or castrated (not litteraly, but in the Freudian sense) man (who may or may not live in their mother's basement)?

Property Tax

[Thunderstruck]

The states & local governments still retain the power to enact a personal property tax. They're going to get the money they need to operate somehow, would you prefer they tax the access, or tax ownership of a modem?

only internet tax I would support

[exodist-Admin-Ra]

I was thinking, if they tax the internet and put that tax money back intot he net as a whole, say to pay for more broadband framework, or to pay for a city wide fiberoptic or wireless internet than yeah the taxes would be worth it, the internet would improve over time and become cheeper then the taxes will have ina sence paid for themselves. As long as it doesn't go into the same wholes all the other taxes go into. maybe also devote some of it specifically to school computer/internet systems, etc. but since our government will not do it this way I say hell yeah ban the taxes. better to not pay at all then to pay for something bad. Occupation: Programmer Location: California Age:21 Vote: Bush

Re:Square Peg into a Round Hole

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, its to stop taxes on internet access. Guess someone else has problems reading before fingering the reply button.

Re:there is no veto

[chitownIrish]

Sometimes, talking about committing a crime is the crime.

If you don't believe me, make a tape of yourself saying you're going to kill the president and send it to the FBI.

Re:there is no veto

[mrchaotica]

No, that's planning a crime. Saying "If I were going to kill the president, here's how I'd do it..." would be legal (AFAIK; IANAL).

Re:there is no veto

[meringuoid]

Well, you see, merely teaching somebody how to commit a crime is not a crime. Talking about how to commit a crime is not a crime.

Really? Here are some instructions to your Perl interpreter. They teach it how to commit the terrible crime of decoding encrypted DVD video.

s''$/=\2048;while(){G=29;R=142;if((@a=unqT="C*", _)[20]&48){D=89;_=unqb24,qT,@ b=map{ord qB8,unqb8,qT,_^$a[--D]}@INC;s/...$/1$&/;Q=unqV,qb2 5,_;H=73;O=$b[4]>8^(P=(E=255)&(Q>>12^Q>>4^Q/8^Q))> 8^(E&(F=(S=O>>14&7^O) ^S*8^S>=8 )+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO- U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eval

Was that a crime?

Re:there is no veto

[mrchaotica]

Touché.

BUT! why have it in machine-readable form unless you intend to use it? It must be planning a crime, like I said in my other post. Or at least that's presumably the theory behind why your Perl code would be illegal, but this stuff isn't.