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."
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).
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?
The Custom Mary
"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 :)
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.
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?
GE/S/P a- e++ y-- r-- s:++ d+ h! X+++ t++ C+ P+ L++ E W++ w M-- V? PS+ P+
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.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
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?
My other first post is car post.
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.
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.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Nah, probably not. They'd probably be too tied up in impeachment hearings.
Not that this makes me happy, but let's call it what it is.
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.
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!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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...
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.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
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.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
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.
Table-ized A.I.
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
What?