Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Re:it was always unlikely by John+Seminal · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

  2. Re:Square Peg into a Round Hole by Kenja · · Score: 2, Informative
    "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?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  3. Is this your job? by maximilln · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  4. For all those not reading the article... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...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.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  5. Re:Excellent idea by ViolentGreen · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  6. Re:Easing taxes by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Informative
    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...

    --