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."
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.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
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.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
RW
Or he's just not a dumbass like Clinton who cries when Congress disagrees with him and vetos everything..
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It is perfectly possible for the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. That is precisely what I am asserting.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
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.
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?
The Custom Mary
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.
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.