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).
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 :)
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...
"Piter, too, is dead."
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+
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
...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.
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.
Just as soon as I can get my modem to work over Skype...
-- My Weblog.
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.
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
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?