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.'"

Comments

Democrats vs. Republicans

[Seoulstriker]

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.

Re:Democrats vs. Republicans

[jhigh]

I agree that this is essentially a bi-partisan issue. However, I wonder if you would have posted this comment if the governor proposing the tax had been a Republican...

Re:Democrats vs. Republicans

[Skye16]

I don't mean this as a flame or anything, but it's becoming a LOT easier for Democrats to justify "Tax and Spend". Lately, just about every Republican in office is for "Don't Tax, But Spend Just As Much As If We Were". As a Republican, you should go kick your party in the goods for being so completely irresponsible. I can respect someone who wants a minimal government and minimal taxing; I don't agree, but I can definitely respect it. I have no respect for someone who wants an epic government and taxing that doesn't even support it. That's just ridiculous.

(Hopefully people can discuss this without getting their panties in a bunch :O)

Re:Democrats vs. Republicans

[wmspringer]

Your information is out of date. The 2005 budget proposed by Bush freezes all federal spending and eliminates or consolidates many departments.

All federal spending, of course, not including the Pentagon's budget (which is being increased to $419 billion, not counting the money for Iraq and Afganistan) You're right, though, they did manage to cut the programs that serve the poor.

Re:Great!

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost, but not quite!

5% of free is a whole lotta not-a-damn-thing.

They're taxing sales, not the Internet

[jfengel]

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.

No, you are NOT taxed enough! Please read:

[Loundry]

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!"