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."
$1 a junk Email ... or a day in prison ...
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
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).
If they tax the internet the real geeks can go back to fido/bbs and we can let the useless languish in commercialised hell.
Beep beep.
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.
President ISES
(International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
"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 :)
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?"
good things Congress has done this week: 1
bad things Congress has done this week: a lot more
That's better than most weeks...
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+
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.
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
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.
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..
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
...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.
Nah, probably not. They'd probably be too tied up in impeachment hearings.
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.
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.
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
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!
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
Just as soon as I can get my modem to work over Skype...
-- My Weblog.
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
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.
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...