Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin Governor Proposing Tax On Downloads
Christopher Reimer writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the Wisconsin's governor is proposing a tax for downloads. From the article: 'Wisconsin's Democratic governor thinks it's not fair that tangible items get taxed while downloads, like music, ebooks, software, etc., go completely untaxed. So, he proposes to rectify the situation by having Wisconsin's 5% state sales tax apply to Internet downloads.'"
I think we should try to avoid the democrat vs. republican debate and just accept that the government is thinking about taxing the internet.
Discuss.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Yes, paying taxes is voluntary. So is gainful employment, property ownership, owning and driving a car, and all the other nice priviledges granted to you by the government in exchange for your taxes. The only legal way to not pay taxes is to not earn any money and not own anything, IE be a bum.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Keep in mind that there is a difference between "voluntary" and "unenforceable." They can't directly collect the sales tax (from downloads or from, say, book sales) but you are still technically breaking the law if you don't "voluntarily" pay the tax.
Of course I am still of the opinion that this violates the commerce clause.
Almost, but not quite!
5% of free is a whole lotta not-a-damn-thing.
While the while "voluntary" part of the bill seems to be quite silly, it is an insideous attempt to give an "internet tax" a legal foothold.
It is difficult to implement a mandatory tax from scratch. It is much easier to take an existing "voluntary" tax and make it mandatory.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
You're finally getting it, sonny.
It's _also_ stupid because it's obvious double taxation:
1) You pay a company for broadband, and you pay the gov't taxes for that
2) You pay the gov't for the only use of broadband
'Creative' taxes are dumb. This coming from a state (MN) where the governor is all about 'creative' taxing.
He has every right to be upset. Its not like you're going to be hurt by this... only the poor people of that state. So while you're sitting there comfortable in your office speculating on how this will or will not influence someone's life, it is entirely valid for a person on the receiving end of this legislation to vent their frustrations.
Governments raise money to spend on roads, schools, and police with taxes. The money comes from somewhere; if you want those things you've got to pay for them. You may well be spending too much for what you're getting, but that's a separate issue.
The question here is, what do you tax? It's easiest to raise money by taking a piece of the money every time it moves. Tax the money when it gets paid to you. Tax them money when you pay for something.
You can also tax the stuff that doesn't move, like the property taxes on your house. Or you can "tax" for use: toll roads, for exampe. But nobody wants to pay for police on an as-needed basis, and we like the idea that everybody is guaranteed an education, even if they can't afford to pay for it.
The article is suggesting that there are sales happening that aren't being taxes. Most states already try to collect taxes on physical objects, even if they're sold over the Internet, though the rules vary from state to state. They're trying to both increase revenue and be fair. The states really hate it when people buy stuff over the Internet, because that means that the money is being sent to another state; not only do they lose tax revenue but it means in-state businesses suffer.
If you believe that they can tax stuff when it's sold, why not tax nontangible items? They already tax services; in most states you pay tax when the guy fixes your refrigerator.
It doesn't sound like an "internet" tax to me. They're just trying to make sure that the Internet isn't any different a place to make sales than local stores are.
If it were a Republican, it would have been "Evil Republican Wants to Tax Internet Downloads", but since it's a Democrat that is proposing this moronic bit of legislation,Slashdotters now say, "well the party doesn't really matter, let's just think of it as the Government wanting to tax downloads".
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
It's not fair that taxes are applied to a CD, but not applied to an iTunes download. Solution:
Repeal the tax on the CD and cut government spending.
A similar technique will solve all other cases of taxation that aren't fair.
Note that as a trigger for audits, that would be a trigger if you enter something, rather than if you don't. Because if you're the type of person who worries sufficiently about your taxes to enter something there, chances are your tax situation is sufficiently interesting to warrant audit to make sure you're paying enough.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
They're called GST and CRTC. I don't know in the USA, but for all telecommunications, be it cell phone, phoneline, cable, dish, CB, smoke signals, except for dial-up internet, we pay 6$ on the bill for the right to use electronic communications.
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself
+5 Interesting?! Slashdot, thy mods are complete retards.
Geez....why can't the legislatures see we're freaking taxed ENOUGH.
You're a wage earner. You will never be taxed enough. Each dollar that the government seizes is one that it can spend on buying votes rather than you spending it on your "selfish whims" (you know, like feeding your family). Votes are for sale, and the means to buy them are government programs. Votes are the key to power. If you're a politician, then why don't you take someone's money and buy some? If the victim isn't going to vote for you anyway, then you've got nothing to lose!
Both Democrats and Republicans play this hideous game. The ultimate long-term goal is to move 100% of the tax burden to a minority of citizens. That way, every tax increase will be immune from voter resistance. One side will be able to say to 51% of the electorate, "Vote for the other guy and he'll make you pay taxes!"
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Both Democrats and Republicans play this hideous game. The ultimate long-term goal is to move 100% of the tax burden to a minority of citizens. That way, every tax increase will be immune from voter resistance. One side will be able to say to 51% of the electorate, "Vote for the other guy and he'll make you pay taxes!"
1% of the population already pays 33% of federal income taxes. Any across-the-board tax cut is met with cries of "33% of the tax cut goes to the richest 1%! Evil tax cuts for the wealthy!". What a system.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Make people write a check so they can see how much they are actually taxed. Everything will then fall into place.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I wonder if this governor realized that when you browse the internet you download the pictures, text and whatever advertisement (or virii for that matter) you happen to stumble onto. Did this governor understand how the internet works? If that passes, that will have to be submitted to the dumb laws websites, but of course Wisconsin viewers will have to pay taxes to see that.
[!] No, I can't see my comments. They are not worthy of +3 moderation.
I should mention that the richest 1% in 2001 made 17% of all income. So their "fair share" would be 17%, not 33%.
A system in which the majority says "we'll tax that minority more but not impose the same tax on ourselves" is quite simply immoral.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
You still have a Legislature that has to approve his budget for the year - you can't dump all the blame off on him.
A legislature which happens to be completely controlled by a republican party which, due to circumstances of the moment, follow and support every single decision of the bush administration without question.
How convenient.
Also, it's false that anyone who voted for Bush supports "don't tax and spend (and spend and spend and spend)" - people vote (or not vote) for candidates for any variety of reasons.
If unconditionally re-electing someone who demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility is not support for fiscal irresponsibility, then what is?
It doesn't matter if that was the individual voter's "swing issue". They voted for it.
I am continually perplexed by the extent to which people defending the Bush administration jump through bizarre hoops to prevent anyone taking any sort of blame or even responsibility for that administration's actions. If the president is not responsible for the budget when he has complete sway over congress, who is? If the people who voted that president into power knowing full well what he would do with it are not responsible for or "supporting" him, what do those words even mean?
There was one specific time at which the president's desk had on it a plaque saying "the buck stops here". The Bush Administration and its defenders, despite having no credible opposition or oversight for their actions either in congress or the media and a complete control of the agenda of the Republican party, seem to disclaim either that the buck at any point passed through their hands or even that they have a clear idea what, if they saw it, the buck would look like.
I'd agree George W. Bush himself is of course not personally responsible for any of this, since it seems to me most of the time frankly that almost none of the decisions in this administration are made or possibly even entirely understood by him, but the fact is it is his job to oversee and take responsibility for the members of his administration and the legislation he signs into being. He's the president of the united states of america. If he isn't doing this he isn't doing his job.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Oh and liberals and democrats are NOT the same thing .
Oh wait, one more thing. This administration (which is extremely right wing) has spent more money than any other in the history of this country. In fact we have BILLIONS unaccounted for in Iraq alone. Now who is throwing money at a problem? Please think before you spew outdated cliches.
Time makes more converts than reason
Reminds me of Mullah Nasruddin!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Whoa there cowboy. I never said you couldn't be angry at republicans - I just wanted to make sure that George W. didn't get ALL of your anger wasted on him. There are plenty of assholes to focus on at the moment.
:]
Also, you're making the assumption that it was an unconditional vote for him. The fact is, people are NOT going to be able to vote for ANYONE who believes in and will do everything they want them to do but themselves. So they have to pick someone. For a lot of people, the feeling of "safety" or "morality" is more important than the current economic situation. Personally, I find it a VERY bad choice, but there is a huge difference between "I guess I'll sacrifice the fiscal wellbeing of our country for the illusion of safety" and "GOOD! Cutting taxes and increasing spending is a WONDERFUL idea!" That's the point I was trying to make.
Ohio's govenor rises to second least favorite state politician...
- AMW
Liberal translator alert: "spew" = "say something that cannot be easily ignored with convenient namecalling"
"extremely right-wing"? WTF? One sure hallmark of a left-wing president is if he increases domestic spending: GWB has increased domestic spending faster than any president since JFK. He's enacted the largest entitlement program (prescription drugs) since Johnson. He's *never* vetoed a bill, and has shown a marked predilection for increasing the size of the federal government at every possible opportunity.
Please provide me with data to back up your assertion that GWB is "extremely right-wing".
...thanks for that bit of news which made me glad I don't live in such a backward-a$$ state as WI, that wants to completely screw up the internet. Yeah, go ahead an try it! Who would participate? How would it be implemented? Who would bother doing business with anyone or anything in WI anymore? Just plain stupid.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
And... no one would care.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Which, of course, it just another example of how having either party fully in control of the government is a Bad Thing.
Twenties Retirement
The electoral system of the US isn't capable of supporting a third party for long. It will either die soon after being popularized or it wil take the place of one of the other two established parties. Any other result is so remote as to be practically impossible.
The US party system will not change without changing the way elections are run, and the US party system controls the process for changing the electoral system. Also, it would take a Constitutional amendment for starters. Not likely to happen.
The US government will more than likely have to collapse before such a change in US politics is likely to happen.
That's why you should have a flat tax with absolutely no deductions at all. Start with 25% and work your way from there.
A 25 percent flat tax rate would break the backs of poorer people. Here is the percentage of adjusted gross income that people pay in federal income taxes (source, IRS, 2003 figures:
AGI TAX/AGI TI/AGI
(dollars) (percent)(precent)
0 to 15000 2.8 19.2
15000 to 30000 4.3 40.6
30000 to 50000 7.3 58.9
50000 to 100000 10 68.2
100000 to 200000 14.7 75
200000 and up 24.2 87.7
AGI = Adjusted gross income
TI = Taxable income
TAX = federal income tax paid This does not include social security, state tax, sales tax, and property tax. It does not reflect loopholes that allow the reduction of adjusted gross income. These are not marginal tax rates; these numbers are calculated by dividing the total amount of income reported or tax paid in those tax brackets by the number of returns in the same bracket and so they reflect the average incomes and federal income taxes paid by those in those brackets.
Currently, the biggest chunk of money comes from those making over 200K per year. A 25 percent flat rate would move the burden down onto lower income groups with those making 50K to 100K contributing the most absolute dollars and with the poverty level group (
These figures do not include social security which is 7.5% employee contribution or 15% self employed on the first 90K or so of income. The rich pay very little in social security as a percentage but those making less than 50K pay more social security than income tax. If you include social security at 15% (because the employer also pays half and this reduces wages) the federal income tax actualy comes much closer to a flat rate tax with the poor paying about 16 percent and the rich paying about 25 percent of AGI.
The idea of eliminating all deductions and credits has some serious problems. Many deductions exist for a reason. Small businesses that don't file separate returns must be able to credit cost of goods sold and other expenses; otherwise, it would be the equivalent of taxing an employee on their share of their employers gross income rather than on their salaries. Catastrophic health costs need to be deductable. Uncollectable bad debts on which you have already paid taxes need to be deductable; otherwise you are paying taxes on money you never made. Eliminating charitable deductions would have serious repurcussions. Individual income tax deductions actually favor those making less money.
Deductions and tax credits and taxes levied on particular items can actually be a good way of implementing social policy. In many cases it makes much more sense to tax something rather than ban it outright. Asbestos causes cancer but eliminating it entirely can be a real problem in applications that have no viable substitutes; so instead of banning it, you could tax the hell out of it and let the market work to eliminate it where it can be eliminated. Providing deductions for those who donate to non-profits that provide useful social services costs less than the government providing those services. Deductions and tax credits for alternative energy encourage essential spending in those areas and are offset by reduced need to spend money on environmentmental cleanup, health care, and the military.
So the rich appear to pay more taxes than many believe. I think they should pay even more. The rich are able to bully others out of their fair share of income. A progressive tax is a way of partially correcting inequities in our economic system. Should everyone make the same amount? No. But do those who make over 200K per year (this tax bracket averages 1.3 million per year) actually contribute that much more to society than those making less? No. Most of them contribute far less.
One random example of bullying: when you apply for a job, your employer will bully you into r
It's what we have in Australia.
The Ruling Elite here were 'shocked' when the first returns started coming in for it. Millions more than they expected.
Due to youth or general cluelessness, I have yet to find such a method. Could you enlighten me, or at least give me some ideas/places to look?
-Yndrd1984