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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Parent post's (un)reasoning is simmplistic and uninformed. At $20k income, 17% taxes would leave $16,600 to live on. at $100k income, that same 17% leaves $83,000 to live on. (These are parent's numbers, not the actual ones.) The upper tax bracket has the means to lobby a straight tax line, but they willingly give up a greater share to Uncle Sam as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class. Don't worry, their tax lawyers are still dreaming up ways to deduct their gold plated 83" plasma TV's.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
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
This almost made me laugh hysterically. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the upper tax brackets "willingly give up a greater share" "as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class"?!
If so, I have some great beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Reminds me of Mullah Nasruddin!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."