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.'"
Now p2p users can be charged with tax evasion!
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
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.
That should be real easy to enforce.
Is this really an important and pressing matter for the governor to concern himself with? Shouldn't he be more focused on.....I don't know, making more cheese? >_>
Hero of Allacrost, a FOSS RPG for *NIX/*BSD/OS X/Win
haha good luck getting that one passed.
IANAL, but I thought this might violate the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 (which was renewed in 2003)......
However, this comes straight from the federal law -
SEC. 1101. MORATORIUM.
(b) Preservation of State and Local Taxing Authority.-- Except as provided in this section, nothing in this title shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede, or authorize the modification, impairment, or superseding of, any State or local law pertaining to taxation that is otherwise permissible by or under the Constitution of the United States or other Federal law and in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
The funny thing is, the whole law is VOLUNTARY! Although I don't think it'll matter if they really want to get the money....If it comes to pass, they'll probably make a provision to make it mandatory
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
Users will have to pay tax each time they visit a webpage on a subscription based website? Visiting a page does involve downloading, of course.
Article summary is wrong and intended to cause a flamewar.
Wouldn't it be hare to figure out what state the downloaded files were comming from? I was under the impression that states could only tax items purchased which originated in their state, is this true?
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
I wonder how he intends to enforce such a tax, considering any time your computer recieves data, it could be considered a 'download'.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
if he wants to have tax on bying items such as music. Not fair if he wants to tax bandwidth.
Freedom or George Bush
Tax none of it. That would be fair.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
Having lived here all but 1.5 years of my life, I can say this certainly doesn't surprise me. We know we're one of the most taxed populations in the union. We know our state government is corrupt and unethical. In a state that is almost entirely M$ dominated, it shouldn't be surprising the population is ignorant about the nature of the Internet. I'd be surprised if people put up a fight here about it.
Let the State Tax what it wants. It isn't a national law and the people of the state elected these official into office. The people of the state, therefore, think it is a good idea so let that state's people voluntarily pay extra tax to the local government. Taxing downloads will further whittle down the power of the federal government that regulates interstate commerce. If the federal government steps in and says the tax isn't part of the ratification the state accepted then the state could impose a (stupid) use tax. The could also implement a law like the ebay license that eff.org is all over forcing internet users to obtain license to download.
I bet the long run, the result in any of the situations isn't what you would like them to be.
Aside from the fact that any tangible item purchased on the internet is subject to sales tax of some sort, this new proposed law doesn't make alot of sense.
From the article: "That's right: it's voluntary. In a country that can trace its origins in part to a dispute about taxes, does this man really think that people are going to voluntarily pay a tax? And what makes it even funnier is that he thinks people in Wisconsin are going to voluntarily pay."
This new tax on downloaded items would be completely voluntary. How many slashdotters are going to lineup to pay more taxes for items that they already receive for free. Next!
Much to the chagrin of the RIAA and MPAA I can't remember the last time I payed to download something
And, Governor, that sucking noise you hear, are Internet jobs running out of the state!
Linux O Muerte!
What this country needs is a tax on taxes. You should be compelled to pay a 5% tax on your total tax bill.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...I can truthfully say, I'm slightly scared by this, but at the same time, I have no idea how they'll enforce this. I caught this little gem in the article:
There would be no Internet sales tax police, however, because compliance would be on the honor system
Right.
Take off every sig. For great justice.
That would be great ...
...
Spammers beware!
The linch mobs are comming!
One question
5% of what?
You don't pay anything to dl your eMail?
Do you?
--The Dude
If I give something away for FREE in Wisconsin does it get taxed? And for what reason should something be taxed on this basis? What does the Wisconsin state government do to support the e-commerce system?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I want that guy thrown off!
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
Why should internet sales be exempt from sales tax?
Just because there's no purely physical end product, that's no reason for it to be exempt of sales tax.
All power to him, I say.
"Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend." - Emil Michel Cioran
Can you take interstate commerce? They have a case for all those Wisconsin based web businesses... Are there any Wisconsin based download services?
Aston Games
This is a great idea. Governments have been losing out for centuries on knowledge. Taxing downloads is the first step towards the inevitable future of taxing people for each independent thought that enters their mind.
[insert lame joke here]
You know....why do we even try? Tangible, or not...it doesn't matter. Taxing downloads is like taxing air. This is pretty ludicrous. Leave it to politicians though....they'll try to tax underpants next. I'm sure Gnome Lobbyists wll object.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
Okay, so this is obviously dumb, but I'll go one better. It's also probably unjustifiable and unconstitutional.
The general justification put forth for sales tax is that it's a tax on doing business in the state and using the existing infrastructure of that state so to do. The internet doesn't really do that.
Also, there's a good argument to be made that the Negative Commerce Clause prohibits this kind of action by a state or local government. In essence, Congress gets to regulate interstate commerce, not Wisconsin.
adam b.
The Wisconsin government could theoretically shut down the local computer store, but it does not have the power to shut down out-of-state websites.
If I lived in Wisconson, I would only be even willing to discuss the matter if it only applied to online stores located in Wisconson, not online customers. If someone drives over to where I live, they pay my local and state sales taxes when they buy stuff at a shop located in my community.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I'm wondering what their defintion of downloading will be, in some senses EVERYTHING coming through your internet connection is downlaoded, should probably RTFA but then where would the ignorant sensationalism come from?
deAngelo
I'm so sick of hearing about the democrat vs. republican debate. This has to do with over-taxing governments, not politics. Mod parent insightful!
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
That means I get a refund for uploads, right?
FLR
Great, now who is going to support the democrats if they alienate the slashdot crowd? Judging by the politics coverage, we seem to be about the only hotbed of support left (no pun intended).
Is it just me, or does it seem like the party cuts its own throat almost every three months?
Not to mention the govenor is a dumb ass, does he actually think this will go through and help Wisconsin how? I have a feeling that the tax revenue would be lost by tech companies fleeing to Minnesoata, Michigan, or Illinois (whichever is closer).
I don't know for you but the download of my mail cost me 0$ for each mail and 5% of it is also 0$.
I pay my ISP to have an Internet connexion but there is already a tax on it.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
And I propose that in WI they make the tax for downloading an article in /. to be at least 8%, so that the money collected can go to preventing duplicate headlines, saving BSD, and building a functional beowulf cluster of tax grubbing moron politicians.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
There would be no Internet sales tax police, however, because compliance would be on the honor system.
In what way would the honor system work? Stores allow customers to pay the tax or not based on their personal preference? Or stores decide whether or not to collect the tax??
I can see it now... "SALE! DON'T PAY THE TAX!"
And we ain't got no money left, aren't we just communists?
Vote Quimby!
So, um, what's 5% of $0?
Cause I dunno about you, but that's what I spend on *my* downloads.
(In all seriousness, this idea is just a tax grab and is incredibly stupid for numerous reasons.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
What does he consider downloading? When I 'surf the web' aren't I downloading hundreds of images and text files? Will we all have to have little meters attached to our computers? Or will we have to report back how much we downloaded to the DRS(Download Revenue Service)? Is this guy trying to kill the internet?
I could see something like, if pull off any file that is over 100k the you pay. How long before large files are getting broken up into 99k gzip'ed files?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Another great idea from the state who thinks is a good idea to shoot cats.
Tax on downloads just doesn't seem that realistic -_-
there is expected to be a sharp upturn in the number of mail drop customers in Northern Illinois.
if it isn't tangible, why not just route through a proxy in another state. You can't be taxed then, and no one could tell the difference.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
In the UK, we pay VAT on downloaded "goods" (I'm to taxpert, but I guess they'd be classed as taxable luxury services or something --- at least, Woolworths are running an offer where they pay the VAT on downloads). The tax is paid by the retailer and normally passed on to the consumer.
According to TFA, this is a tax on purchases, not downloads. So if it's free, keep on clicking.
This would only apply to things you pay for...
It won't include free websites, e-mail, free software downloads, etc... just the software you download and pay for.
Plus, this will only affect you if you live in Wisconsin, since states cannot tax interstate commerce.
as a massive effort is undertaken to circumvent the new taxation system.
The summary seems to suggest that all downloads would be subject to tax, like on a per MB basis but it's not that at all.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/307622.as p
Also, I wonder what costs are accrued to the states involved in internet transactions of this kind that warrant a tax on the transaction. Let's say that sales tax is charged to account for the costs to society of mechanisms of commerce in general. It seems like a download of an e-book incurs fewer such costs, if any.
I guess it's redundant to say that Wisconsin just wants in on that sweet iTunes action.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
A little-noticed provision of the Democratic governor's proposed state budget would extend the sales tax to those Internet transactions, officials said Monday. There would be no Internet sales tax police, however, because compliance would be on the honor system.
Voluntary tax sounds similar to a voluntary catheter insertion.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Proxy services labeled as tax evasion tools, branded unconstitutional, and shutdown. Serverless proxies like Tor and I2P take off, become new targets from the government alongside of BitTorrent, Kazaa, etc.
Thank you for loading this page to view the comments. Please send $1.00 to the Wisconsin Tax office for your GET request, which now applies under the new downloading law.
Thank You.
-The Wisconsin "We make the laws, you pay for them" Government
In a way, it makes sense. Downloadable items are goods if they're purchased, and so it makes logical sense to charge sales tax regardless of whether something is actual or virtual.
I'd love to witness the mental gymnastics required to tax something purchased within Everquest though.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
This reminds me of the great cheese-tax proposal of 1892. If the people didn't go for that then, they sure won't go for Internet tax now. Dairy Farmers United!
In all seriousness though, is this not just another use-tax case? How do they expect enforce that when states already have a hard time taxing physical goods bought over the Internet?
How do you place a tax on something that is free (oo.org anyone)??? Point being that it would be really hard to determine what is being downloaded (especially if you use encryption) in order to tax it.
Not gonna be feasable without breaking a few laws to do it (intercepting communications that have a reasonable assumption of privacy without a warrent ???? maybe) Circumventing encryption (dcma i think) or I could just be full of shite
Stop signs are only Suggestions
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 a voluntary tax. Yeah, this is a brilliant idea.
ahh, wisconsin. where men are men, and sheep are scared
I'm wondering how they'll keep track of this. I just read how New Jersey residents were sent back tax bills for online cigarette purchases. So I could see, if this passed, downloaders getting back tax bills for ignoring the new sales tax.
What happens when a Wisconsin resident has an out of state friend purchase mp3's, software, etc. and then just emails them (or mail them on a CD)? How could you possibly keep track of all of the shareware authors? Does this governor think he'll be attracting IT jobs? I'm guessing he's one of the folks that still thinks the US government is going to add a charge for emails to save the USPS.
I hope this line of thinking doesn't spread to other states. This seems like a creative way to ruin legal mp3 downloads in that state.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
the guv'nor must be thinking 'hmmm, these people *voluntarily* pay a tax to Microsoft, and get very little in return--i'd like to get in on that racket!
Great idea FOR ME TO POOP ON!
I am a DC resident and I sell my software online, both through an ESD and more directly. I asked the DC finance people about whether I need to charge sales tax to DC residents for the downloads, and they said "Yes." Since I was under the impression the sales tax didn't apply to intangible goods, I asked them for the legal basis for that claim, and, strangely, never heard back from them.
Anyway, just to be safe, I just don't sell directly to DC residents. If I find that a DC resident tried to buy my software directly (strangely, it hasn't happened yet), I will just refund him his money and tell him he's got the software for free. This way, I don't need to navigate the DC beaurocracy, and the losses will be minimal.
I actually am a republican, and I would have said the same thing had it been a republican. Everyone knows that democrats are tax and spenders, I just didn't want it to be a part of the important discussion of how serious this internet tax is.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
For those of you who think otherwise, most states already require you pay sales tax for items purchased over the internet. This is actually called a "use tax" because you pay it directly to the state. However, I've never heard of one individual actually paying a use tax. Wisconsin's governor is simply proposing that this use tax also extend to downloads. Now, personally I think it's a dumb idea and will never work, because what do you define as a download then? /. tax?
Why not tax talking?
What about taxing downloading between two computers on a LAN?
What is considered "downloading"? Technically one router on the internet is downloading data from another router, all the time. Is that going to be taxed?
I thought you were taxed for online purchases from in-state businesses already, regardless of what it is.
sup
Alright, I'm going to charge you 500% tax on 0$. So how much have I charged you?
Taxes on physical goods pay for state cost of services to provide those goods (roads, cleaning pollution from manufacture, law enforcement so those goods are not stolen, etc, etc) .
So, what state infrastructure does a internet download tax cover? It's an honest question I'm trying to think through. Maybe phone lines, but then what if you have a satellite download?
Help anyone? As I understand it, the government is not in it to make a profit, but to pay for the costs of services that can not be tied to any one individual...
Let's see, automated downloads of Mozilla nightly build, $0. jEdit application download, $0. jEdit plugin installation, 12 time $0 equals $0. Download Skype client for evaluation purposes, $0.
Subtotal, $0. Tax, 5% of $0 equals $0.
Amount contributed to state coffers, $0.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
--
Evan "Maybe I missed a new editor popping up, darn 'reading by RSS' habit"
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Wow buddy, you need to calm down. Its not like you're actually going to have to pay this tax. I can the idea that they would ask you to voluntarily pay this tax would be infuriating, but at the end of the day its just a proposal and one that doesn't actually have to affect you.
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.
From the article:
A little-noticed provision of the Democratic governor's proposed state budget would extend the sales tax to those Internet transactions, officials said Monday.
Wouldn't it mean that they intend to tax commercial transactions? i.e., downloads related to products sold, not p2p? To know, we would have to check the exact wording used in the government's document...
If it is this, it may not be enforceable, but it may not be absurd either... I believe another issue here could be dual taxing...
I'm not so sure the person who wrote the linked article really got the point...
tsia
Display some adaptability.
Interesting that Wisconsin's neighbor, Minnesota, is the home state of Digital River, one of the largest eTailers of digital download software, which also owns Regnow and Regsoft
what does it cost the state for me download software from say europe and if I live in wisconsin - nothing
I pay for the access and computers - there is no cost to the state - why charge taxes?
Stores charge taxes because they actually take up
land. There is no capital investment by the state that they have to make up for by charging taxes.
So I really don't understand why any local city or state should do this. It will just create more dollars for lawyers in sueing people and procsecution for tax evation. Oh - now I get it - nevermind.
seems to me you can only apply the tax to something with a monnetery value
depends what you download I guess itunes you can hit that with sales tax but the big legal and free linux distro they can tax 5% of nothing.
guess when election time comes he will be out of a job
political suicide i think its called
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
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.
there are a couple of problems. One of them stems from the idea legistater in the US has that it can control the global Internet. The second is the idea that a state's residents need to be taxdc on every kind of purchase no matter where it comes from. Next thing you know you'll have to assess taxes paid on things you bought on vacation in (insert a place you don't live here). States (and federal for that matter) need to work on streamlining their expenses rather that finding more revenue.
Power to the Penguin!
I doubt this will ever get passed because the reality is one governor doesn't make the laws. It requires their state legislator which hopefully has a bit more brains. Then again if it is passed at least its not in a state that I live in. Also its worth mentioning that the reason this stuff isn't taxed most likely has something to do with the products being routines on a computer system and not actual physical objects... Maybe they need to think up some rules and procedures to decide what constitutes a taxable item.
This is the way you get taxation on the net though. "It's just a voluntary tax so it affects very few and you really could skip it." Pretty soon, they pass a law saying it is now not-voluntary. (No problem, how would they ever know...) Then a law comes which says if you do business in the state of WI you must collect sales tax on any sales. Then another law comes which requires any merchant doing business in WI over the net to submit records of those who purchased products/downloads,etc. This is what is happening in a few state with regard to taxation on the sale of cigarettes. What was happening is that citizens were not paying the local state tax on cigarettes and now are facing large bills in the thousands on PAST purchases.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
What's he venting over?? At the end of the day, if this is passed, he still doesn't have to pay.
Is he concerned that his political representation is focusing on the wrong things? That's a valid arguement, but not one that he put forward. So go eat a dick while I eat my lunch in my comfortable office.
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.
5% state sales tax apply to Internet downloads.
So 5% of free is what again?So he wants to tax downloadables? Fine, then shift the cost to untaxed fees. For iTunes, make it 1 cent for the song, plus 99 cents for an (untaxable) delivery fee.
Try again, gov.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
None of the examples you give are priveleges granted by the government. People have certain unalienable rights which Government ostensibly exists in order to preserve and protect, and if necessary extend to those less fortunate.
Not to reply to my own submission, but why the hell are you guys arguing in my post when all I did was point out from the article that this tax is voluntary?
That's just cheesy.
Make love, not reality television.
Its a sales tax, meaning that some form of sale had to have occurred.
There is another sort of sale which is also generally exempt. Catalog sales are unusally untaxable unless the vendor has a physical branch in the state. Why should internet downloads be treated diffently.
Of couse one can argue that they are actually being treated the same, many states also expect their citizens to volunatrly report and pay sales tax on catalog items as well. It doesn't work so well since there is really no way to enforce the tax.
That is really my problem with all such proposals. On one hand I think an internet tax could be somewhat good for the community, there is no better way to get govement support then to give them a piece of the action. I supect DCMA and the like would have come out diffently if the govemental pocketbook had been weighted the same way the public interst was.
On the other hand passing an unenforcable law is simply foolish. Every law that can be ignored with impunity throws all others in to suspicion. One also wonders how we could possibly need a law to govern something that cannot even be tracked.
Prehaps insted of downloaded sales they should simply consider a small tax on datastreams in general. It would at least be trackable, and might result in WI encouraging file swapping to get those taxes up (kidding!)
"This year's $170 million package includes proposals to levy sales taxes on software that is purchased on the Internet instead of bought on a computer disk"
a rt icles/2005/03/02/romney_rethinking_new_powers_for_ tax_aide?pg=2
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/
Step 1: Read latest slashdot article - $.50.
Step 2: Post comments about how lame article is - $.50.
Step 3: Refresh to see comment posted - $.50.
Step 4: Post another comment flaming whoever modded you down - $.50.
Step 5: Refresh to see flame posted - $.50.
Step 6: Realize that you just spent $2.50 to make your opinion heard - $0.
Step 7: Whine aloud about free speech implications. - $0.
Step 8: Move to another state. Priceless.
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
and in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
I read this clause as protecting any state or local law pertaining to taxation that is
A) Otherwise permissible by or under the Constitution or other Federal Law
AND
B) In effect on the date of enactment of [the ITFA].
Ergo, new state and local laws taxing the internet are not necessarily protected.
But, IANAL either (surprise surprise).
...text messages too. You know, text messages from cell phones that costs 25 cents.
By the way, I think it's a bad idea. Communication/information, since it's intangible, shouldn't be taxed.
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
The problem with these moronic politicians is they have no real concept of how the internet works. They can't tax a freaking download, it isn't their bandwidth, it's not their equipment, etc. It makes sense to pay taxes to live here. It doesn't make sense to pay a toll on something they have no real control over.
Hrmm!
One, two, (one, two, three, four!)
Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
(if you drive a car, car;) - I'll tax the street;
(if you try to sit, sit;) - I'll tax your seat;
(if you get too cold, cold;) - I'll tax the heat;
(if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet.
Taxman!
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Don't ask me what I want it for, (ah-ah, mister Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more. (ah-ah, mister heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
And you're working for no one but me.
Taxman!
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Tax on free Linux distro: Zero dollars.
Tax on books from Project Gutenberg: Zero dollars.
Tax on freeware programs: Zero dollars.
Tax on files downloaded from p2p networks: Zero dollars.
Telling the governor of Wisconsin to kiss my ass: Priceless.
Insert witty sig here.
I buy a CD on iTunes. I live in Wisconsin. Therefore, I am depriving the state of tax revenue. It's fair that the state ask for the same sales tax it would otherwise...I really don't get these moratoria, all the do is deprive states of tax revenue they could use for good...
Maryland has a "use" tax supposedly imposed on anyone who avoids the state sales tax by buying out of state. They even claim lots of folks actually pay it. Yeah, riiiiiight!
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
How in the world can you track that? It doesn't take much to "off-shore" one's identity to a neighboring state or other silly e-tax evading tactics. If they want revenue, they should tax stupidity. I suppose their state government is a tax shelter for that.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
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.
Heh, I wonder how the state's going to keep track of how many downloads were done, what site, etc.?
I hope people like that Wisconsin governor won't ever propose something even remotely similar to that stupid proposal...
Hey, Indiana's in debt, but we haven't and won't propose a tax on internet downloads...
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
I'm from Wisconsin, and this issue makes me angry! Governor Doyle is the classic tax-and-spend liberal, and he claims to be fiscally responsible (he has a tax "freeze" proposal that he's currently hawking), but yet he turns right around and proposes new taxes on things!
:)
He is desperately searching for others sources of revenue, since the legislation in our state (controlled by the Republicans, but not enough to override a veto) is forcing him to address ways of lowering the taxpayer's burden. Unless, of course, Doyle doesn't want to get re-elected.
Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
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
Only Democrats.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
If a majority of downloads originate from outside Wisconsin, then wouldn't this tax would be unconstitutional?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Translation: "Slashdot is perfectly okay with bashing Republicans at every possible opportunity and modding down conservative posts. But in this case, it's a Democrat being stupid, so let's suddenly be non-political and not bash Democrats."
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.
How can a grown man, let alone one with the wherewithal to get elected to the highest post in the state, be childish enough to worry about what is "fair?" Anyone old enough to wipe their own behind should know that life isn't fair. Anyone who doesn't understand this fact by the time they're grown shouldn't be put in charge of anything, let alone a state's executive branch.
Is the democratic party in Wisconsin that pathetic, or is it just that this guy is a total nimrod?
The purpose of taxation is to support the government and to allow it to provide the services that it either must provide, or is better at providing than the private sector would be.
Taxation is not and should never be an experiment in "social justice," which is exactly what arguments about fairness make this proposal look like. Taxation hurts the economy because it devalues people's money. So while taxation is a necessary evil, it should be kept to a minimum. The best way to do this it to limit what the government does so as to limit the resources it requires. Arbitrarily seeking out new sources of tax revenue for the sake of taxation itself if foolish and destructive.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
That the only time politicians are worried about fairness in taxation is when somebody isn't getting taxed? I could just as easily say, "it's not fair that people get taxed on tangible goods but not on intangible goods. Therefore I propose we get rid of the unfair tax on tangible goods." That is just as fair, right?
He doesn't give a damn about "fair". He just wants the state government to get another slice of pie.
On the other hand, I suppose the states have to pretty weary of unfunded mandates (e.g. No Child Gets Ahead) from Los Federales, so I can (almost) understand.
Lets see 5% of $0.00 is .....
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Under the Kyoto Accord, he's going to charge everyone 5 cents every time they fart.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If you live in the state that's the same as the store you're buying from don't you pay already? In Washington I believe I pay tax when I buy from amazon.com.
Also, if it does end up being that you pay the tax for the state the store is in, do people from OR (or other states w/o sales tax) get that tax refunded??
I've already posted about this on a posting at my site.
Essentially, this is nothing more than publicly stating what is already the law in most states
Host somewhere else...
Unfortunately, most of the centrists and non-extremists now occupy the Republican party. The Iraq war polarized the political field and turned a lot of people in the Democratic party into reactionary extremists. So we get comments like "Taliban wing" or "I hate Republicans" (that one's care of Dean).
I'm shocked they're trying to run Hillary in '08. Bill is seen as centrist, but Hillary is very polarizing and seen as hard-left, no matter how much she tries to change that image.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I see anti-Republican and anti-Bush posts modded up ALL THE TIME. Someone criticizes Democrats, and instant -1.
Behold Step 2!
Step 1: Hack gov's boxen, set to auto download pr0n
Step 2: Debit gov's accounts $5 each time!
Step 3: PROFIT!!!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
OK, say I download a 1MB file. 5% of 1MB is 51.2KB. So I have to pay about 52KB in tax. Now, how do I pay it? Do I upload 52KB of data somewhere, or do I have to download an extra 52KB of data, presumably to increase my bandwidth cost? I'm assuming this 52KB has to be pure random bits, otherwise it wouldn't really be a full 52KB "worth" of data, and you don't want to cheat the IRS.
I'll have this figured out eventually...
Imagine trying to track every download, of every person, for a whole state. As it is, the Recording Industry Ass. of America can't really get a handle on what they consider to be illegal downloading, and they have a lot more power than that state. Really, this is a hopeless cause, if you ask me.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
As a matter of fact, it can apply to more than you would think. About 3 years ago, it became legal to surcharge ATM transactions in Iowa. At that time, the Iowa Department of Revenue decided that use tax is due from any citizen of Iowa, banking with an Iowa bank, that gets tagged with a surcharge when the transaction comes out of a checking account. And they thought it would be a good idea for the bank's that hold the account (not the owners of the ATMs) to collect that use tax.
That didn't stand, but they're always looking for something!
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Stacie Rosenzweig's take on The Vast Dairy State Conspiracy
Journal-Sentinal
This guy, too.
-- haaz.
I hope the parent is moderated up as far as possible, but I am depressed to think that someone thinks of it as funny.
You are conveniently omitting the costs of the Greater Middle East Initiatives (i.e. wars), as is the budget proposed by Bush. Federal spending is not frozen; "defense" spending is skyrocketing.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I think alot of the world's problems would be solved if everyone was taxed 100% on everything.
If the purchase price is $0, the tax is zero
Wrong, oh optimistic one! The state government could easily follow the RIAA's lead and assess 5% of full market value for sharing music files. The only exempt downloads would be ones that are offered for free.
Like any digital compensation piggyback (taxes, filters, hosting responsibilities), this is ignorance in print.
When the simplified view of "two computers talking" is the picture of someone's internet, it seems easy and this shite arises. But proxies, caches, distributed content are the mainstay. AOL, Earthlink both cache content. Most commercial pages are a built in some part of linked content. Vendors that sell have HQ , hosting, order processing and customer services all in different locations, and often in different countries. Who's going to regulate that? If you squeeze it, it goes to puppet offices in tax haven zones, like online casinos.
Adding to this that digitial information is impossible to fully categorize. For public-at-large transactions, we have standards, but as the FBI found out, to sniff out packets that are encrypted in several layers (or watermarked) is a big endeavor, and has no guarantees.
Digital information can be tracked, sure. So if the medium is public and needs sort sort of "market share" for effectiveness, you can trace participants. Hence the [MP|RI]AA nonsense. But for simply swapping music online through clubs or private protocols, the door is wide open. Host your music in unshown,encrypted TIFF layers, for a starting concept. The game is still afoot, to me.
Remember folks, the information wants to be free. So like water, the longer it exists in that format, the more it's going to leak/spill out to places it wasn't originally intended. So the credit information streaming out to eastern europe each week later is more a matter of time than security, IMO. Of course, we know that's what security is measured in anyway.
But you are the choir. How do we get WI politicos to read this thread?
I will happily give the state 5% of the price of my next apt-get dist-upgrade. Shoot, I'll be generous and make it 10% or even 20%.
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.
It is not a tax on downloads. It is a tax on purchases that are downloaded. It is no different than the states trying to collect a sales tax for online purchases.
so you want to pay by the mb? afaik that is how the internet works, the ISP's pay by the GB and pass the cost on to us with fixed monthly fees on a limited bandwidth
i may be wrong though.
If Wisconsin is proposing to tax online downloads, then the state is recognizing all downloads as legitimate activities, right? The government doesn't go around taxing drug dealers for the drugs they sell, does it?
GA used to ahve an intangible tax. Its principal target was stock portfolios. You were taxed on the value of your savings.
I never, ever, paid a penny of it. Damned if I was going to pay on my savings as well as on interest and doubly-taxed dividends.
Eventually he tax was repealed. So many people refused to pay, the state government simply gave up on trying to collect it.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
Wisconsin is the armpit of the technology world, I know... I live here! Why would we be the first ones to pick this up? I think it's time to write my representative... I'll send it via cow-mail so he actually reads it.
-----
Make Love not [Browser] War!
Oh, yes, I can see how it's a fairness issue. It has nothing to do with a state budget issue. It's completely about fairness.
Say, we should find the highest sales tax in the country and raise the rest of the country's sales tax to that level too. It's only fair.
I agree with this. However, when Bush proposes any small cuts those effected by the cuts squeal like a stuck pig, no matter how modest the cut.
The problem is all of us, collectively. We don't want our pet program cut. We want all the others cut. So when we all get together, it's "don't cut mine if I don't cut yours."
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.
Besides, taxing interstate transactions is illegal under the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution (3) so it'll most likely be placed in within the State "use tax" category which has been very difficult in the past to enforce.
Putting aside the fairness issue taxing ultra low dollar electronic purchases IMO just isn't worth it.
(While many states currently do require a State issued drug tax stamp, because of marijuana's current status as illegal under prohibition few people actually purchase them. The "drug tax stamp" law is most commonly used to add the extra charge of tax evasion to a drug dealer and squeeze him for a little extra money and jail time.)
1. Marijuana prohibition facts
2. Thinking about Drug Legalization
3. Interstate Taxation and the Commerce Clause
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
start bogus wars that kills tens of thousands of innocent people and bomb the fuck out of everything in the name of oil, tax the poor out of existence, give more wealth to the rich and squander the future When did that happen? Did I miss the news report on CNN?
And my FREE software downloads would cost: 0 x 0.05 = 0 and purchases of MICROSOFT downloads: $$$ x 0.05 = $$$
Paying sales tax on every icon, for example. And as each story and reply is arguably a seperate copyrighted "book"...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
always Democrats pulling this stuff? I mean really what are they gonna do out a box on your connection that monitors everything so some NEW goverment department can decide whats a taxable download and whats not?
Are theyu going after out of state mail order companies as well? What if I get some of my ISP services from out of state?
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
can i tax them for: viewing my website can i tax them for: looking at my popups? can i tax them for: downloading my email from their server? can i tax them for: sending me an email? can i tax them for: reading my words on slashdot? can i tax them for: receiving my bits of bytes of information directly at their server? can i tax them for: their voip traffic going across my network? shit, i'd be rich if i could! look out bill here i come!
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
That you do not live in the EU. They would see your taxes and wonder what you are complaining about.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Were one of the most highly taxed states already. It's definately time to move. South Carolina is nice this time of year.
All those nice little "fees" and taxes on your phone and utility bills can and do add a nice chunk to the total amount you pay every month.
Just imagine a Packers fan with a block of foam shaped like a wedge of Cheese on his head, freezing his ass off drinking a Lienenkugle and prattling on and on about how bad people from Chicago drive.
Now add this to his whining:
"Damn FIBs, they prolly started the Intranet down there, didn't they? Well, we shouldn't encourage more FIB bullshit from coming into our state. Let's tax the shit out of it and get back to watching football!"
That was probably how their governor got his bright idea. Pay it no mind.
for the Iraq war!
Free Firefox news reader.
Ok this has to be the most dumbest law to ever come out of the cheese state. For one thing that I see the problem would be who would pay the tax that ISP or the user? The second this that I see its not seen as a fair use item in any fee on the net. I also see that the law is too broad and has too much of broad topic with possibilities of violating fair business practice causing a drop in the economy. All I can say is Dumbass.
If this is such a hot news item, why does Apple already collect tax from me for every song I download (well, excluding the free pepsi ones at least)? They charged me for the audiobook I got as well. Maybe this is, lets make a law, that says we can officially do what we already do, just to be safe?
Votes are the key to power. If you're a politician, then why don't you take someone's money and buy some?
Congradulations, you've discovered the reason democracies over history eventually fail; the proletariat discover they can vote themselves "free" benefits from the public coffers and get into a greedy spiral until the system explodes.
Colorado's legislature is not permitted to spend more than it earns - except in times of emergency. It still doesn't keep them from running a deficit, but when the bad times hit after the dot com bubble - they were more fortunate than states like Kalifornia.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
The way most downloads you have to pay for work, you technically haven't bought a product. You've bought a service. Downloaded songs? You don't own your copy - you own the right to play the copy that you have stored but don't own. Software? You don't own the software, you just bought the right to use the copy of it you downloaded but don't own.
You should never, ever pay a "sales tax" on a DRMed download becuase you haven't actually really bought a product - you've bought a service, and those don't get taxed as sales tax.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Then its a service fee to access their servers, not a "payment for goods".
No sig for you!!
It's technically just a bunch of 1's and 0's. It's not really a book or a song. :-)
he can have 5% of 0 anytime he wants. whoever heard of paying for WAR3Z?
'Nuff Said
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Sounds like how Internet cigarette purchase taxes were handled in New York. It was supposed to be on the honor system, and then one day the state and city got a hold of the sales records.
This lays the groundwork for that state's citizens to get royally screwed in the future! The frog is in the cold water and someone has just lit the match.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I love that thinking: it is unfair that tangible items get taxed, ergo we should tax intangible items FOR FAIRNESS. Why not abandon tangible goods taxes? Isn't that equally fair?
To be honest, I'm in favour of consumption taxes and I think they can be higher than they are and ought be universal but only on condition that income tax be eliminated for all time! Think of the benefits: no more confusing income tax laws, no more tax evasion (you consume, you pay).
True, prices will rise to compensate and there will be trade effects but all of those can be corrected for through various measures. For example, savings will be larger. Its easier, its fairer and more efficient. It is also easier to implement general fairness. Essentialls can be taxed at a lower rate than luxuries. Instead of discriminating based on income, you diferentiate based on purchase preferences and needs. Income tax was supposedly a temporary (wartime) measure. Its long term implications were never properly evaluated and it is the wrong way for governments to go about collecting revenue.
I'm not really sure about Wisconsin, but I don't think it's anywhere near being an important part of the growing Internet culture/business/what-have-you. Doesn't this seem like exactly what the state doesn't need? Discouraging citizens from purchasing online products with a tax on the downloads and encouraging them to find ways to not pay for the Internet and its many bounties? What's worse is that the Governor is telling them that it's logical to tax "intangible" items the same way tangible items. Should there be a tax on ideas and principles when they are exchanged? What about words? If I sit on the corner of the street, playing my beat-up old guitar for passers-by, who kindly toss me a few quarters, should they be taxed for listening to my music? No, wait... I've got it! Air is tangible, isn't it? Hmm....
wow, I must move away fast then...
Not that I noticed any of that, prob DEA info...
New York State and New York City are both attempting to collect so-called "usage" taxes on cigarettes.
They are not sales taxes per se because they may be charged on items (in this case cigarettes) purchased abroad, out of state and out of the city. Their law is written to cover a tax on the ownership and use of the cigarettes in city or State jurisdiction and they are suing on that basis in order to collect "unpaid usage fees."
The idea behind "no tax on the Internet" within the US Congress was to try to encourage growth and business as well as to try to attract Internet companies to build in the US, hiring American workers and basing the "brick and mortar" and "employee" part of the Internet at home.
Obviously this State system of taxation -- even on the "honor system" -- threatens this premise. It would, therefore, be just for Internet companies to leave that State (which may require that they collect revenues for the State) and, perhaps, cease from doing any business within that State (as cigarette sales websites are considering for New York State and City). I can imagine the public outcry were that to happen.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Sales taxes I believe are actually called sales and use taxes. So if you live in Maryland, buy a car in Delaware because they don't have sales taxes, you are supposed to pay taxes on that car in Maryland because that is where it will be used. I must admit I don't truly understand the whole thing, but there are a whole variety of rules. For instance, I don't think you have to pay taxes in your home state if you paid more taxes in the state you bought it in. However, if you paid less taxes in the state you bought it in than you would have paid in your home state, I think you are supposed to make up the difference to your home state. I never realized how complicated the whole matter was until a coworker and I got into a discussion about Sales and Use taxes a couple of years ago.
Please do. I'd say the same but as a non-American I'd be grilled alive for suggesting it. UK isn't a lot better tho...
-- "...I'm a bad guy because I, well, I sing some rock-and-roll songs." M. Manson
Considering we download everything, text, images, messages, hell i cant post here without downloading atleast 2 things nor is it possible for me to even view this article without downloading something. Dumbest thing I ever heard.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How would you calulate the tax for 5% of say a Slackware download? It's free so 0*.05=0. I guess you could calculate it from what it would have been if you had purchased it, but if that's the case I would just buy the boxed set.
I know what the Internet is, what the hell is this Interweb business?!
the Electoral College serves a purpose... so that popular vote isn't the be-all and end-all. It's a safety net to protect against the passing political passions of the people.
Popularity voting can be a dangerous thing.
Not to say the EC can't use some revamping, but it's a bit hasty to say it shouldn't be there altogether.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
They brought down Al Capone and other criminals on tax evasion. If they assign a value to illegally downloaded tv shows and mp3's you could suddenly find yourself with a multi-thousand dollar tax bill due for those "free" downloads.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I believe sales tax is really a "Sales and Use" tax. Meaning that you are supposed to pay taxes in the state you use the item you are purchasing. For instance, I believe if you are a Maryland resident and purchase a car in Delaware because they have no sales tax, you are required to play taxes on the car in Maryland because that is where you USE it. Now I believe there are other stipulations too, like if you paid more sales tax in the state you bought it in then you would have paid in your home state, you don't have to pay taxes to your home state.
Reading through most of the posts, it's clear to me that most of you didn't read the article:
FTA: "That's right: it's voluntary. In a country that can trace its origins in part to a dispute about taxes, does this man really think that people are going to voluntarily pay a tax?"
C'mon, this is pure FUD marketing from a politician looking to get some cheap publicity. With the exception of lottery tickets, no one in their right mind pays a voluntary tax. And I guess it worked too...a lot of lemmings read the summary (which is deceiving), posted a comment, and others moderated their comments up.
Move along people. Nothing to see here.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
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..."
Please tell me, dear Americans, where do you get these guys from?
Jebus - 9/11 was like 4 years ago, and over 100,000 people have died since then on American freeways, yet you are worried about some random group of guys who killed 3k?
When are you finally going to take down the duct tape and plastic sheets and start living again? Or are you still on Code Orange/Yellow/Puce?
Yeah, right.
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.
my god...
is it me, or are politicians addicted to taxation?
I thought my internet addiciton was bad; this is freaking ridiculous...
There are three truths: my truth, your truth, and the truth. - Chinese proverb
Total tax is closer to 60% when you include things such as fuel, food, clothes.. etc..
Its really sick what is being done to us, and not enough people care to stop it. And if you speak to your 'representatives', they dont listen, and just increase the rates.. or shuffle it around so its harder to notice.
This is sort of garbage is why this country was created in the first place.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Geez....why can't the legislatures see we're freaking taxed ENOUGH. My paycheck is near 30%+ taxed with Fed, State, Medicare and fucking SS that I'll never get back fully.
Well, a 400 billion budget deficit says otherwise. Rein in spending before reducing taxes.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Oh, sure. I was being sarcastic for fun mostly. I know that a lot of these types of services vary from place to place. But to continue the spirit of debate...
For one thing, everyone who has trash pick-up pays the same, unlike property tax where people with more expensive houses pay more.
One could argue that those with more trash ought to pay more. A flat rate is not always the most just. Here, we have a mix. Basic pickup is included in city services. But if you have large or hazardous items, you have to either pay the city or take it to a private place yourself.
In some areas, trash pickup is not done by the local government at all. When I lived in Knoxville, TN, we had a choice of two private companies to pick up our trash, or we could choose none and take it to the dump ourselves.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but even though you're paying a private company, do you think all those private payments really cover the cost of dealing with trash? I would hazard a guess that such companies are paid subsidies, contracted, or given serious tax breaks by local governments to handle this kind of stuff. In that case, you're still paying for part of the basics of "dealing with trash" through your taxes, just indirectly. The city/county/etc. does eliminate the volatility of having to deal with the business part of it, though.
But, I'll be happy to defer to someone who knows more...
This guy is living proof that the DNC's symbol truly is a JACKASS...
Cheany in '08!!!
LOL... OK... Even I can't say THAT with a straight face!
The number 1 problem of working in a cubicle - 23 power cords, 1 outlet...
1% of the population already pays 33% of federal income taxes.
But social security taxes, which fall solely on the first ~$90K of income, are used in large part for general government expenditures. So not including FICA at all in your statistics is lying with them.
Moreover, don't tell me the rich don't get better service, government contracts, favorable rules (DMCA, Sonny Bono, farm subsidies, giveaway mining right rates, Price-Anderson, ad infinitum), etc.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Wisconsin passes "purchased download tax"... Other states follow example... Federal government decides to get a cut... IRS installs tracking software on all computers to ensure voluntary taxes are paid... Internet privacy and freedom become a thing of the past...
People, in general, are too stupid to realize that voting for X or Y is going to save or cost them money in taxes. Look at all the poor people voting republican despite the fact that their tax burden is going up because of it.
Now, what politicians actually do is give money to their campaign (and pro-them PACs and 572s) contributors, who then give them the money they need to stay in office.
It's an inherent flaw in democracy. Unless you can think of a better solution, suck it up and pay your taxes, whiner.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I hope that both Democratic and Republican Slashdotters are against this.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Utah already has a similar tax in effect. On their tax forms they ask you for the dollar amount you spent out of state to use in Utah so they can tax you on it. This includes items bought over the Internet.
No wonder voter turnout is so low. Folks have figured out that we're screwed no matter which party is in power. Gonna be a difficult time ahead until we develop a viable third party, if at all...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The things that are really despicable are the taxes people don't see. When anything is taxed, people feel it, but they are only aware that it's a tax they're feeling when they can see that they're paying the tax.
One thing this country gets right is they show you the sales tax at the cash register. In Europe, many people seem unaware that they are paying the VAT, because it is already added into they prices they pay.
But sales tax in this country is paid in large part by property owners who rent out their property. So the taxes cause higher rent, but people renting don't realize that a good portion of their rent goes to pay for government programs.
Another really bad thing the government does is taxing corporate profits. Making companies less profitable costs us all money, but when it happens we can't see it. They definitely shouldn't tax corporations at all. They should just tax the dividends that cooperations pay to investors. They used to tax it in both places, I can't for the life of me figure out why the cut the dividend tax rather than the corporate profit tax. I guess that taxes on corporate profits are state taxes, so that'd require a constitutional amendment.
Anyway, sales taxes are also bad because they're so regressive (paid mainly by people with less money). I don't know why people are more willing to pay property taxes and sales taxes than income taxes. If any tax was truly fair, it would be an income tax.
How the sales of software or other digital products that can be simply downloaded are different from the sales of tangible goods that get shipped by snail mail? I think he probably has a good point.
Governments (state and local) use the tax base to provide/subsidise/regulate infrastructure that everyone uses (y'know - roads, street lighting, the police...) and (partly because of that infrastructure being in place) the US economy grows faster than places where it isnt (y'know - Zaire, Moldova, Elbonia). That economic growth spurs new forms of entrepreneurial activity (like selling stuff over the web). To keep the virtous cycle going, you've got to tax those new forms of economic activity.
ceci n'est pas un sig
"the poor are eligible for a "refund" larger than any taxes they might have paid"
Just how poor do you think someone has to be before they count as poor? The only ones who might get back more than they paid in are unwed mothers, everyone else gets a refund back that is LESS than they paid in. For example, I have a dependant and made $27,000ish gross last year. Let me be the first to tell you that I did NOT get a refund back for anywhere NEAR the 30% of that I paid in taxes.
...clean elections. Now, if only I could get my Republican neighbors to understand that a pile of cash != speech.
Tough day? How about a free Mac mini?
huh, only on slashdot...
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
...what if you instructed the serving computer to download to another computer out-of-state (an X-Drive for instance), then, simply log-in to it's service and save the file to your desktop? Technically, the transaction in question would have happened outside the state. I'm not sure exactly what the fine print is on this proposed "law" (term used lightly), but I'm sure it's completely assinine and they'd probably jail me for "data-laundering".
Data-Laundering - v. The act of channeling data through an intermediary as to disguise the source of the data. See also: Money-Laundering
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Maybe down in Dane County folks are into the internet... but I just moved to Marathon County in the center of the state from Northern Ontario and it's like going back in time ten years... Everyone has dial up as opposed to NWO where every little backwater seems to have had broadband for at least 5 years if not 8.
Here in Marathon County, we're the only family in my kid's highscool to have broadband.
I am the only person in the IT department (where we work with the IBM AS/400 db2, yadda yadda) who has broadband.
My home connection is faster than my work connection because I share DSL with NO ONE.
A tax on the internet is only going to keep people from adopting technology they should have adopted nearly a decade ago. Even intelligent people who pay 5 cents a minute to talk to their neighbors on the phone hesitate at the cost of broadband even when I explain to them the savings of VoIP.
As far as taxes go, Wisconsin is cheap compared to Ontario -- there it's 15% sales tax. It's also cheaper than Minnesota and Chicago if you were to look across the borders.
"Use tax is the counterpart of sales tax. It must be paid on all taxable items purchased from retailers who do not collect Wisconsin sales tax and all taxable items brought into Wisconsin. It applies to purchases made in foreign countries as well as other states. Use tax only applies when Wisconsin sales tax is not charged."
What's great is you get double taxed for things you buy out-of-state but bring home to use. For example, I drive down to Gurnee Mills just north of Chicago and buy a CD. I pay the 6%+ IL sales tax, then drive home. According to WI law, when I file my taxes, I must pay the 5% use tax on that CD. This proposal by Gov. Doyle is just an extension of the current use tax.
that we don't have a system in which Congress, rather than the president, authorizes spending . . .
.
.
oh, wait . .
well, Damn that Clinton and his Contract With America, anyway . .
hawk
for those outside the US: the Republican Reagan had a Democratic Congress (except for a couple of years in the Senate), while the Democrat Clinton had a Republican Congress (except for his first two years which led to it).
Our budget balanced not because of one party or the other, but because, after the Republican landslide, Clinton switched from calling the plan to balance the budget quickly irresponsible to a plan which it did a year faster. And after the one-upmanship between the two parties knocked another year or so off, falling interest rates knocked yet another year off.
But *shh*. Don't bother these guys (on either side) with the facts. All of the prudent cuts came from their own party, as did the idea of fiscal responsibility, while all the bad cuts and debts came from the other one . . .
Ah, but you see the US has already figured out a solution to this problem. Instead of the power resting in the hands of the people, where they can foolishly vote themselves a larger and larger slice of the pie, instead it now rests with corporations and special interests. They provide the money which increasingly allows the elected officials to buy the votes of the population through misleading advertising and other means. This means they no longer actually having to provide beneficial (or otherwise) programs to the public to buy votes, they just trick people into voting for them.
The genius of this plan is that we now only have to trust the corporations to do what is best for the long term benefit of society, and the people can no longer mess it up.
Sorry, I might be a little cynical.
Wisconsin also has use tax:
From http://www.dor.state.wi.us/faqs/ise/usetax.html
1. What is the Wisconsin use tax?
Use tax is the counterpart of sales tax. It must be paid on all taxable items purchased from retailers who do not collect Wisconsin sales tax and all taxable items brought into Wisconsin. It applies to purchases made in foreign countries as well as other states. Use tax only applies when Wisconsin sales tax is not charged.
2. What is taxable?
All goods, services, and merchandise that are taxable under Wisconsin's sales tax law are also subject to the use tax. Use tax applies to, but is not limited to, mail-order catalog and television shopping or auctions, toll-free "800" purchases, Internet auctions, and purchases made over the Internet.
Examples of taxable items include automobiles, appliances, clothing, furniture, jewelry, cameras, VCRs, computers, and computer software. Some taxable services include repair services to your television, motor vehicle, or computer; landscaping services for your home; and reupholstering services for your household furniture.
It seems pretty cut-and-dry to me just from point 1 - if you make a purchase from anyone outside of Wisconsin and don't pay tax on it, you owe tax to the state. I know you probably could argue that you're not getting a tangible object, but if you argue that, you fail to acknowledge that "services" are also non-tangible in many cases - you still paid someone to do something for you and didn't pay tax on it.
What I'm afraid of is proposing a tax on downloads including free stuff - say on a per megabyte scale. Yikes - and I downloaded almost 2 gigs today (all legal - a bunch of large game demos).
I can't say there is anything at all unreasonable about the viewpoints you are expressing here. But I do want to note the alternate viewpoint can, in fact, have a "semblance of rationality", or at least half a page of what appears on the surface to be rational justification :)
:]
:(
Whoa there cowboy
First time I've ever been correctly identified as a Texan on the internet before except via hostmask. Congratulations.
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.
You are right in the sense that there is a difference, at least in America today; but alas I do not really think there should be a difference
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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".
Excellently said. Just let me note that 1789 Revolution in France was sparked out by taxes on crop.
However, you seem to be a little discouraged by reality you currently experience. The time of despair is not coming yet. Did you tried to make some influence on the situation... with Art?
There you are, staring at me again.
Maybe down in Dane County folks are into the internet
:-)
:-)
Northern edge of Sauk County here. We've got DSL and Cable. That's not to say that most people don't still use dial-up (hard to convince them of the advantages of broadband), but they do "get" the whole Internet thing and do use it regularly. Not to mention that most public libraries provide free computer access to a T1 line.
A few years ago I overheard a dad telling his teenage kid to look up a car's VIN on the Internet before he purchased it. (He wanted to make sure the vehicle hadn't been in any accidents.) Considering that was before I had broadband at home, I realized that the world was-a-changing.
I'm surprised that you're the only one in town with broadband. Still, broadband *is* available and people do use the Internet. It's a little weird the way that people integrate it into their lives yet remain technological savants, but you get used to it.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The United States is the first modern Democracy in the history of the world, so what "history" exactly are you talking about?
...to purchase your products. Sorry for the inconvenience, please contact your state legislature and bitch to your govenor. If you violate this, we are not liable.
To paraphrase from a hundred years ago about electricity:
Senator: Internet? What use is the Internet?
Inventor: Senator, in 20 years, you'll be taxing it.
Looks like it's only taking about 10. Keep up the pressure on the feds to prevent taxation of Internet, friends!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"Soft marijuana laws have created crack and heroin junkies everywhere,"
I would argue that crack and heroin is he drug that caused that.
"large amounts of prostitution,"
are everywhere. There isn't a place in the US that you can't have sex for money.
" the spread of HIV "
The US had a much higher rate of HIV infection among prostitutes then anywhere in Europe.
"an epidemic of robberies."
Legalising Marijuana would drive it's cost down, and thus cause less crime.
Evidence seems to support that people addicted to drugs, espcially harder drugs, casue that problem. The addiction rate for Marijuana is lower then alcohol.
Um, you facts aren't exactly from an unbiased source. I would trust those fact anymore then I would trust the fact out of High Times.
Many people die every year becasue of the war on drugs. Not just people commeting the acts, but innocenyt bystranders. You make Marijuana Legal, and preople no longer make enough money to kill over it.
Finally, I would rather someone build my car with a marijuana hangover then an alcohol hangover. Because there is on such thing as a Marijuana hangover.
FOr the record, I have never tried it, and it always seem disgusting to me.
"And it causes thousands of cases of lung cancer every year worldwide. "
I'd like to see some hard facts, as well as a comparison between lung cancer and tobacco use.
I have my doubts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Just when people DIDN'T need another reason to illegally download things.
"Repeal the tax on the CD and cut government spending."
on what? hmmm? I hear this all the time, guess what? we have run out of places to cut.
Jesus Christ people, shit cost money. teachers cost money, supplies cost money, safe food cost money, safe air flight costs money, roads cost money.
For Fuck sake, try to understand that basic economics applies to keeping things going and it doesn't come from fucking pixies.
HEres a clue, pork barrelt projects will NEVER BE CUT UNTIL THERE IS NOTHING LEFT, AND THEN THEY PROBABLY STILL WONT BE CUT.
yes I'm screaming at you because your not close enough to hit with the clue train.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Social security is just messed up beyond recognition.
Moreover, don't tell me the rich don't get better service, government contracts, favorable rules (DMCA, Sonny Bono, farm subsidies, giveaway mining right rates, Price-Anderson, ad infinitum), etc.
Sure they do - there's never been a governmental system in mankind's history where the rich didn't get better service from the government, and I expect there never will be. But that's not the point under discussion - the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" in taxation, and end up creating a taxed class and an untaxed class.
Fortunately, I think our system is proof against that, for it's always the demand to "tax the rich" (confusing the rich with high income earners, two groups which overlap less than you'd think), and the "rich" have enough power to keep that from getting out of hand. A system where we, for example, taxed people based on skin color alone would be deadly for the country, but such ideas are thankfully non-starters today.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sounds like a five year old child...
$27,000 is alot more more then the $20,000 or so i made when i was 20. It is also alot more then the $11,000 a typical minimum wage earner make a year. Actualy is is about 2.5 times as much.
$27,000/year comes out to around $13 per hour. This is actually quite a good amount of money for some families. Granted your not going island hoping in the bahamas but you should be able to live verry comfortable if you do not go and buy everythign brand new (car, etc.) or wiast your money on gambling and alcolhol or drugs. I know people that have several dependents and have to work 2jobs for the husban and one job for the wife and still not make over $25,000/year. I would conclude that you are not poor or at least on the verry top of the scale.
Now the near 30% you paid is probably as big of a mistake as making 27,000 and thinking you poor. glancing quickly at the federal tax charts, you should be taxed around 15% on your federal and whatever your state charges. It might be interesting if you are including social security tax and any of the other (non refundable) taxes you are required to pay?
"..since states cannot tax interstate commerce."
directly. You are still liable to report those purchase to your state frnchise board. and pay taxes on them.
Historically, it's been to difficult to implement a meothod to automatically handle the purchase tax. But if a company can find out what state a purchase has been made from, they coulr report that purchase to your state franchise board;which would in turn send you a bill.
Remember, this bill would be for the same taxes you are liable for today with interstate taxes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
wouldn't be taxed. But once other states see how much Wisconsin is getting, they may be inclined to implement one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...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.
Go Brewers! :P
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Has everyone completely ignored the whole "double taxation" thing our country's Founders were against? We're getting taxes on INCOME that is being spent and taxed AGAIN. That is double taxation.
Its time for a political uprising.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
"So, he proposes to rectify the situation by having Wisconsin's 5% state sales tax apply to Internet downloads."
:D
Hey, no problem here!
$0 per download x 5% = $0...
Actually I work in Wausau in marathon county and I would say you are entirely full of shit. If you want broadband it is more than available even in the little outlying little towns and the country via wireless as well. Nearly the entire county is serviced by two wireless providers. Hell I live in a little town 35 miles away population 900 and got a 3MB cable connection. Sorry to hear about the AS400 and db2 junk we got state of the art everything and running nearly 400 linux machines.
Got Code?
People, in general, are too stupid to realize that voting for X or Y is going to save or cost them money in taxes. Look at all the poor people voting republican despite the fact that their tax burden is going up because of it.
I'll agree with "people, in general, are too stupid." It causes all sorts of problems.
The poor people voting Republican are actually lowering their taxes since Bush's tax cuts were across the board. Bush's immense spending programs will actually affect our descendents. Democrats are "tax and spend," while Republicans are "borrow and spend."
Now, what politicians actually do is give money to their campaign (and pro-them PACs and 572s) contributors, who then give them the money they need to stay in office.
Politicians give money to their voters and campaign contributors in all sorts of ways. It's called "pork." For example: check out the Pig Book to see some of governments most egregious examples of using taxpayer-plundered money to buy votes.
It's an inherent flaw in democracy. Unless you can think of a better solution, suck it up and pay your taxes, whiner.
Perhaps you'll be surprised to know that our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy as many politicians like to lie. And thinking up a better solution is not hard at all: eliminate 90% of the federal government. It's the implementation of that solution that is the hard part. After all, how do you convince someone that receiving plundered money is a bad thing when they're already quite comfortable with their moocher lifestyle? The only way to do that is to win constutents to your point-of-view, and the only way to do that is to, as you put it, "whine." It also helps me to refine my argument to sharpen my steel on posts like yours.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
no. You were probably modded flamebait for not recognizing that a large part of the democrat's base consist of the elderly on fixed income, the retired, and the younger college age students who are not currently in their prime earning years - that is to say they are not "poor" just because their current wages are low (they are not necissarily the low income suburbanites that the article you linked to states they are- in a very insulting manner, I might add):
/ A35290-2004Nov8_2.html
the youth vote was the only age group the Democratic candidate won -- John Kerry got 54 percent, compared with Bush's 44 percent. (In 2000, Al Gore got 48 percent, Bush 46 percent.)
ref:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles
you probably got modded flamebait (as I would have modded you, had I had any points) for linking to a website that had a shameful hack type of "analysis" (can't really call it that though) and actually believing it without doing any due diligance on your part.
you can't believe everything you read on the internet, you know.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
Um, THIRTY percent? Are you counting all your taxes, federal income, FICA, state, sales, use, property, and so forth?
Our federal income tax burden is around FIVE percent of gross for 2004. Married couple, one child. That's not including FICA on the wage portion of income. Also, I owe money... I hate refunds, otherwise known as interest free government loans. Quarterly estimated taxes baby.
Larry
"Did I miss the news report on CNN?"
I guess you did. And you should try reading slashdot so you can see what is happening in the world around you.
Sarcasm aside, the post you are referring to seems to be fully accurate. I am not sure what world you live in.
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
- P. J. O'Rourke
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4080
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America, and to the "Republic" for which it stands....
http://www.mackinac.org/print.asp?ID=3400
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=165
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/repdem.pdf
THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA was NEVER a Democracy. it was never intended to be by the founding fathers.
Haha, so if one group does it, it's alright for the other? BTW, I'm not taking sides as both parties in my opinion are completely ridiculous. The US really needs some governmental reform. Freedom just isn't free these days.
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
I've been accused of and/or arrested for and/or gotten away with most of those things. I, for one, am glad the federal government so accurately represents the people!
Heh. And I'll bet many of the rich would give up those 'benefits' if they weren't taxed so much.
I am John Hurt.
You've supported a government that's run up the national debt without a care in the world. At least Clinton stopped the bleeding.
You've been living high off of national credit card debt. We can't even make the monthly minimums anymore. We have to borrow money to pay for money we already borrowed.
That high-tech world's largest army that's bigger and better than most of the world combined? It costs a lot of money. The war in Iraq? Rebuilding Afghanistan? It all costs money.
Don't try to claim the current regime doesn't have support. Bush got re-elected and Americans have sent more and more Republicans to Congress. Obviously they like their free-spending ways.
We've got 5-6 trillion dollars of debt because baby-boomers never learned to how to stick with a budget. Guess what? It's time to either pay the piper or prepare for a financial meltdown. We can't borrow money forever.
What's the drastic solution?
1. Repeal Bush's tax cuts. (income, inheritance, etc)
2. Eliminate corporate subsidies and loopholes.
3. Remove the income cap on SSI taxes.
4. Jack up taxes in the upper bracket.
5. Get out of Iraq.
That should at least stop us from hemmoraging money and maybe get us somewhere near starting to pay off the debt.
Don't do anything and the dollar will continue to free fall, the Euro will become the new reserve currency and countries will stop lending us money. Life's going to be great when the government defaults on its loans.
I'm sure you're an advocate of "personal responsibility". Time to take some.
If you buy something from California mail order, and are not a California resident, you don't owe California sales tax. You owe the sales tax where you made the purchase (if applicable).
Of course, just because you owe the tax, doesn't mean that many people pay it. Tracking who mail-order recepts is problematic, especially in States like Oregon, which doesn't have any sales tax.
Oh, and by the way, the "no new tax" is a fairly absurd pledge in the face of massive tax cutting that have gone on in the past few years. The dollar wouldn't be in nearly as much trouble if we simply restored taxes to what they were under the Clinton administration.
5% x 0 = 0
The only answer is really to fix the tax system so businesses pay their fair share.
Businesses would only shift the cost increase due to taxation to retail customers in the form of price hikes. There's no free lunch.
Explain how, again, taxing the people who desire to make MORE MORE MORE money will keep them from trying to get it? Sorry, no. And trickle-down, as you clearly allude to, doesn't work. After a certain point you have enough money to keep your head above water, and enough money to invest to overcome the risks of making even more big money. Meanwhile, you have families that, due to health problems, family issues, language barriers, or otherwise struggle (i.e. like mine). Taxing "equally" is far from "equal".
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
He couldn't have been further from the truth (well, except that the city is ~90 square miles now). A monopoly on cable services (up yours Charter!), protests at least once a week, and now a capitol building wanting to impose a download tax? Tell me again why I chose to stay in Madison?
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
Now everyone knows how it felt when the U.S. government instituted the income tax for the first time...
Check your history books kids, lifes a bitch.
They never stop taxing.
Excuse me? Please qualify when you say "you". I said I had a dependant, not a child. And I PAID income tax.
No doubt about it. You have some real idiots in the USA :)
Minimum wage is not a livable wage. I am not sure how old you are but in the past 5-10yrs costs of living have inflated drastically over paper inflation.
"I know people that have several dependents and have to work 2jobs for the husban and one job for the wife and still not make over $25,000/year."
Me too, they are POOR. While I would agree that $30,000-$40000 is the top end of the lower income class (for ONE person) it is most definately still the lower income class. Anywhere from $40,000-$70,000 could probably be considered middle class.
Simply because the number of poor relative to the number of wealthy grows by design in a capitalist economy hardly means that whatever is average is not poor.
"Now the near 30% you paid is probably as big of a mistake as making 27,000 and thinking you poor."
I wouldn't count state toward federal and paid no city tax. But I certainly count Social Security, just because the tax is earmarked does not mean it is any less of a tax.
"Married couple, one child."
;) For the rest I am only counting federal and the portion of federal they earmark for the Social
My dependent is not a child. It is my wife.
Security Program.
"Also, I owe money... I hate refunds, otherwise known as interest free government loans."
Earned income tax is a loan. Refunds are simply getting back part of what you paid in. I always got a refund because when starting employment I mark a big fat 0 on estimated deductions. Although It could be doing better in an interest bearing account of my own, reality is that ends barely meet and the money would not be there come the end of the year.
Where should i dumb 5% of my downloads ? if they really whant tons of binary junk ...
Badly worded. I meant, I hate GIVING interest free loans to the government, therefore I hate getting some of my money refunded. I only want to pay precisely what I owe. On my W-4, I mark down more than my actual exemptions, so I underpay my taxes. I then make it up with quarterly estimated tax payments, and a bit on April 15th. As for ends barely meeting, my system ensures that I have more money year-round, not just some big windfall in April every year. Plus I earn the interest, not Uncle Sam, however little it may be.
Larry
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.
You can definatly be in the lower income class and still "not be poor". Mostly the income class levels are just barganing ployt for people to gauge other statistics from. Living in New York city making 30,000 compared to living in Surgergrove Ohio or Midland Nebraska will definatly have a different comfort levels. It is no were near a realistic poverty level and if you compare it to other countries, it can support a standard of living that is reserved for thie wealthy.
Counting social security tax and medicade towards the 30% and then complaining about not getting near that amoutn back is also a little pointless. For one, you are not counting the forseable future. While you won't get everythign you paid in back, you should get some of it back in social security payment and medicade funding of medical treatments. If you live a long, life, between you and your dependent (wife as it was pointed out), you should recieve quite a bit of it back. If you count it, then you need to consider the repayments later in life.
I would agree with you on wanting to make more. Maybe even on you class splits. Earning only 27,000 -30,000 a year isn'tn poor though. not even with a dependent. It definatly isn't rich but it does fall comfortably in between.
"you should get some of it back in social security payment and medicade funding of medical treatments."
According to who? You obviously haven't paid attention to SS issues lately. Besides, what is not forseeably going to be there in the future still does not even add up to the interest I would have made on these funds.
"It definately isn't rich but it does fall comfortably in between."
Yeah, it falls at that level where your basic utilities + food + housing + gas + medical expenses + 2 smokers + Internet add up to more than you make in rural Illinois. I have lived in Miami and Small town midwest, the rent is slightly more for something smaller and in a poorer neighborhood in the city. In the midwest the price is only slightly less so the dollar amount does not change much, but it is bigger and in a nicer neighborhood. Since there are no smaller options or bad neighborhoods in a small town, the bottom line is not all that much different. We call this level where you can not maintain a reasonable standard of living in your society POOR.
"if you compare it to other countries, it can support a standard of living that is reserved for thie wealthy"
Lets be realistic. If a nation is not along roughly the same longitude range as US/Europe/Russia it really doesn't count in this case. That is where the abudance of natural resources are and that is where the wealthy nations are. There is a difference between poor by the civilized world's standard and that of people who willfully choose to live in a portion of the world which is itself poor. If you live in a 3rd world country and do not wish to starve, it is simply a matter of walking North (or south as the case may be).
If we are to compare apples to apples we must compare the poor of one 3rd world country to another and first world countries to another.
"Why does communism always fail? Greed"
Exactly, greed is the communism killer. Much as Generousity is the captitalism killer. Lets not forget that the communist system is the ideal and not the capitalist. The communist system is just a little too ideal to actually work.
"In a communist economy, such as ours,"
This is ridiculous, we are not even comparable with socialist society such as Europe, let alone communism. And Europe with a booming economy, large middle class, top technical and medical science in the world, and widespread education is doing a better job of it than we are.
"In a truly capitalist economy the government wouldn't be subsidizing the wealthy in their venture to exploit the poor."
Wrong, that is how a truely capitalist economy STARTS. Then corporations are invented by the wealthy, paper machines that exist only for the purpose of profit. These machines are granted rights as if they were people but not the liability that goes with them.
The machines do what they are designed to do, profit. Eventually the machines and their majority stockholders (the top 10% who clear the cream off the top of those pooling profits) take the next step, they buy policy and politicians because their goal is profit not ethics. This inevitably leads to our present circumstance.
You see the wealth continues to float to the top because profiting means simply spending less than you make. That means corporations NEVER put back as much as they take out. Ultimately corporations put these gains into the pockets of their top 10% stockholders, who also operate at a profit. This assures that when you buy a hot dog at the baseball stadium that money will ultimately end up in the hands of the top 10% and NEVER go back to a joe schmoe again. You get your paycheck, you buy corporate or the guy you buy from does and that money is lost forever to the lower and middle class.
This ultimately creates a larger gap and smaller middle class. It is inherient in the design.
Capitalism is the polar opposite of communism. Communism depends on generosity to work and man is not up to it. Capitalism depends on greed to work but is self destructive because the ultimate level of greed means destroying the free market.
Actually there have been democracies for thousands of years, but don't let that stop you from thinking that the world started two-hundred years ago.
Blame that one on the media and the politicians who wish to obfuscate their crimes against the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Specifically, the United States was to be a Republic (as defined in the Constitution) with democratically elected representatives. It's anyone's guess as to why the entire nation thinks we're a democracy as if democracy were a form of government (it's not). Democracy is a method of making a decision. Nothing more, nothing less.
The roots are probably from the 50s and 60s when the media may have wanted to mark a clear delineation between the USA and the Soviet Socialist Republics, or the People's Republic of China. Most major governments are a republic. Just what form of republic and what powers the government purports to hold are defined in their individual charters (or constitutions).
Back to my original point. The United States has a charter. It's called the Constitution. Without the Constitution our democratically elected government is little more than a bully cartel (mafia). Once again I'd like to reiterate that our federal politicians and federal judges violate the 9th and 10th Amendments on nearly a daily basis. In violation of the Constitution, they should no longer legally be entitled to the powers given to them by the Constitution. Of course, rules never stopped anyone--especially not power hungry politicians or corporate executives consumed by greed.
It's interesting that you bring up the Pledge of Allegiance. I said that every day growing up while facing the flag, and I still proudly say it today. It's not my fault that the true Republic for which the flag stands is long since dead.
Honestly... I don't recognize the legitimacy of our current Federal Government except to note that, in real life, might does make right and they have bigger lawyers, bigger guns, and more police than the proper Republic for which the flag stands.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
In addendum...
We hate giving our money to asshats and screw ups.
To execs and CEOs.
We hate funding Joe Moron's lifestyle and his family's lifestyle
Alan Greenspan and his extended corporate family
perpetuating his bullshit ways and dilution of the gene pool.
Absentee landlordism, rent-seeking... and definitely dilution of the gene pool. Have you seen the people on Wall Street lately?
Sound hostile and extreme? You're damn right. I'm sick of these people
Agreed.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Ok let's stand up and fight!
It is time for a Green Bay bit party!
We will descend on the bay and dump all the bits in to it, billions upon billions and we shall turn the bay "?????" what color is a bit?
Maxwell L. Barrett Comp-WE-Mentor Software Trainer
The intelligent rich realize that paying current tax rates is a small price to pay for living in a stable democracy that gave them the opportunity to be rich in the first place. (Whereas if you tax the poor at high rates, they have a big incentive to switch to the underground economy so you don't get the taxes anyway, and promote less reputable enterprises.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
yeah, the broadband is there, and I stated that in my post if you had read it, my point is that it's just that it seems people don't seem to feel the need for it.
It doesn't matter that *you* can get 3mb in town if no one else is taking advantage of that great of service. The fact that my kid is seen as some alien because she's the only one of her peers to have broadband access is cause for alarm.
And I don't need your condescension regarding the db2... it's cool, especially when hooked up with the db2e and J2ME. I will however accept the condescension regarding the Linux. For now we only have one Linux box, for the DB2E sync server... but slowly we will get out of the quagmire of Windows... this however seems to be the norm in the states where most people can get a Masters in CS without even touching Linux or UNIX.
Anyways, glad to here your out there somewhere in Marathon County, look forward to running into you some time.
This nutjob Dem wants to tax TP!?!?!??! -
d a/sfl-0310toiletpaper,0,2301086.story?coll=sfla-ho me-headlines
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflori
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I really feel your Mac pain. I love my Mac. Most people around here think it is just for artists who are too stupid to code. The OS is exactly the opposite, but you know, these people are like donkeys; stubborn as hell, and nothing like donkeys, in that they are very judgmental. Of course, here I am, casting judgment, so you know; hipocracy :-)
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
um, well if u would have bothered to read the page for, oh, three or four seconds (4 if ur a slow reader), u would have saw the link to their source, a CNN exit poll.
but it's really not ur fault, no one on /. bothers to RFTA, which is a shame that they give non-reading idiots like you mod points.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
"Communism is an economic system enforced by the government. Socialism is a governmental system...I can see that our public education system is doing a fine fine job keeping our public completely clueless."
Apparently. You need to look up the definitions. Communism is not dependant on government control. Communism is a system in which everyone works and contributes to ensure the needs of everyone are met. It does not work because people are both greedy and lazy.
"The only thing destroying capitalism is the meddling of the government which skews the natural feedback of consumers to producers and employers."
The only meddling of government which occurs is the result of politicians being bribed by private industry to protect their interests.
"you've firmly closed your eyes and shoved your fingers in your ears while mumbling to yourself that the US is a capitalist Republic"
Capitalist yes, republic no. The US is a democratic republic but it is not the PEOPLE who select representatives, it is top 10% and their corporations who do so.
Really, majority rules is a bad idea anyway, it is the same thing as mob rules. But wealth should not be the requirement for a voice, intellect should.
um, well... I never called in to question the integrety of the data, (and I strain to find where you came under that impression). That simple fact really invalidates your entire "rebuttal" if you could call it that...
What I did criticise was the website's author's reduction and interpretation of the numbers presented.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
Acording to me, the US congress and the system that social security is made of. First, SS is a pay as you go system and is expected to be bringing in more money then it pays out for at least another 25 years, after that it is expected to have enough availible funds for at least another 15-30 years. I don't need to vite anythign for this, all you need to do is pay attention to the current social security debate that is going on.
Next, It isn't a very fare comparison to include interest you might have colected compared to the amoutn of interest you might get by the current social security system. As you are already trying to cinvince people that earning $27,000 a year is being poor, you are in my opinion likley to spend the money without even saving it or saving it for any length of time. You would likley end up not having any interest at all. You have stated that you have dificulty making ends meet with the funds you have availible so i am pretty cnfident in making this statment.
However, if you were to actualy be able to save that money and invest it into different areas, you are exactly corect in that you would make more in interest. That is one of the chief arguments of the current Bush administration plans for social security. You would also be able to will any "leftover funds" to survivors in the event you pass on. I'm pretty sure they are trying to include some of the same rule that apply for IRAs too wich means you should be able to withdraw a portion of the funds for certain uses (like first time buying a home or furthering you education.) but this is all a moot point because you still have to shelter the money in some type of retirment acount and getting it refunded wouldn't do that.
Just because you broke doesn't make you poor. You can definatly afford the basic essential and even more. The problem is that you arent living within your means or that you are attempting to go as close to going over them as possible. You already admited that getting a cheaper home isn't an option for you.
Smoking is also a source of income drain. Drugs and alcohol can take a big chunk without you realizing it too. I know a guy who, after showing him how much he was spending on booze and cigerettes a month was able to save over $200/month by buying cheaper cigs and beer and cutting his drinking down a little. He eventualy sold his brand new car that had a $400 payment and full coverage insurance and got a used 4 or 5 year old model that came with a $190/month payment and his full coverage insurance payment droped a little too. Now he always has extra money and even took his first vacation away from home last summer. The point of me sharing this isn't to say that you waist money but to show that people spend money they don't realize. If you set down and took a look at your finances, drew up several alternatives to the variable thigns like certian brands or elective payment, then decided what you were willing to change, you would find you have alot more then you think. I don't live too far away from Rural illonious. The cost of living here is rufly the same as there. $25-30,000 a year is a comfortable living for 2 or 3 people if the money is spent right.
I would think this is apples to apples. You can adjust the dollar amoutns so they match and compensate for the wealth of the nation in general. What i'm talking about is the quality of life when c
"You already admited that getting a cheaper home isn't an option for you."
lol, you make it sound as if getting a cheaper home is POSSIBLE.
"Smoking is also a source of income drain."
This point I will give you. If we had not been spending money on cigerettes we might have been able to budget. You make it sound like we choose to live beyond our means, this is not the case. If we added up fixed monthly expenses they added up to more than I made.
We had one several year old car, no radios or stereos, two televisions but they were gifts. We had no furniture because we lacked extra money to pay for it. No woodworking or power tools. I do have two self-built computers, but I am a Network/System administrator. Computers are not a luxery item, they are a job requirement. Actually I would argue that in a civilized world computers are just as essential as a first vehicle.
"What i'm talking about is the quality of life when comparing the two."
And I am saying that because the quality of life is low in a third world country you would have to be a fool to stay in one. All the resources are found in the 1st world nations and when comparing quality of life it must be with other 1st world nations.
"The amount of luxoury items "poor people" have is amazing when they cannot afford to feed themselves."
You also need to remember, assets are accumulated over a lifetime. Selling off your stuff is not a solution to an income which is insufficient to pay your bills. This is because the funds gained will quickly deplete and you will be in the same situation except without the assets. Just because I was in a position to accumulate assets yesterday, say working while living with mom or dad, or in the military. Does not mean I could do so now.
"I know a guy who laughed at me when i suggested he plant a garden to help out on the food bill"
Actually I think it is a good idea, the problem is that most broke people do not own any land.
Sure that is a setback. But you really don't need to own land to have a food producing garden. The point was that it was too much of an inconvienence for him to flirt with. When i lived in an apartment i have tomato plants, cucumbers, carrots and head lettuce (ice burg lettuce)growing in a small pot i made from scrap palletes. i line these plots along the little fence that seperateded my patio from the neibors. IT can be done rather easily and cheap if you put your mind to it.
On another note, i see what your saying about acumulating assets over time. This is some of what happens but there are alot of people that would run out and buy somethign they don't need and then be stuck in a situation were they cannot make the rent or something. When a budget is already tight, mistakes like this real makes it hard to get above water again.
It is always possible to do somethign of this sort. You mentioned that were the homes/apartments are cheaper the crime rate is high and there are all kinds of undesireables there. (at least that how i read what youy posted) I actualy know of a guy who buys homes for sal in these areas at an unbelievabley low cost. He just told me that iun the cleavland ohio area he just picked up 3 or 4 houses in the section 8 area (government assisted living) for an average of 32,000 each. He claims that he will probably put at least that much into each one of them but then has a "guarentied on time rent payment" because the hud and other programs will pay him directly for the rent. This doesn't have too much to do with you other then if you look, you too might be able to find a house you can purchase for less then your paying in rent currently and end up renting it out after you were able to save enough money to move back away from the bad neibor hoods.
I would bet that most of you cost of living is volentaryily over valued because of qualities you are not willing to give up. I don't blame you either. I wouldn't want to live in crack town with nightly gunfights in the streets just to save $50/month in rent either. There are probably other areas though. My main point i was trying to make of the last post was that we overlook some of the most minor things that we waist money on and never realize we can save with them.
Unless some in the family has a cronic illness, changing the type of health insurance to somethign with a bigger deduction might save some money. IF your car is paid for, changing form full coverage to a minimum coverage varient with an under insured motorist addon might be a source of savings. You know your budget better then i can guess (and thats all i'm doing is throwing suggestion out based on guesses)so you can decide were the pinching is going to make the best improvment. If you look at your budget hard enough you will likley find somethign when we are taslking about that much money.
Again, i'm not trying to imply that you are foolishly spending money without thinking about it. I'm suggesting that what seems to be and absolute might be a chioce and you have an opertun ity to change somethign about it. $27-30,000 Is alot more then the $22-25,000 a year that most people i know are living from. Our worlds arent too far apart in the cost of living either. i could drive to your home in less then 5 hours if that gives you an idea of how close we are. Somethign i did when i was living in springfield missouri was go to a finacial planner and see what i could afford for my retirment. HE actually looked at all i was talking about and mad some sugestions and we placed the extras into the IRA we set up. Since then i have moved and changed jobs, even drop the amoutn i am contributing. I still look at some of the suggestions that we looked at and make decisions today based on our conversations. You would be surprised
Provide some examples of these failed democracies, please.
I suppose you could file this all under "The Arrogance of Power."
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
In the case of tax collecting agencies, they believe that they deserve a cut of every dollar that changes hands. In my example, if they thought that they could get away with a use tax on the entire ATM withdrawal, I'm sure that they would have suggested it.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Get a job you god damn dirty hippie.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
This is one of the most stupid ideas that I have EVER heard of.
The government is really making doing the legal thing tough lately.
Tax on downloads = more people will download illegally and less legitimately.
Napster (itunes to a lesser extent) with DRM that cant be easily transfered and is in low quality format for $15 for the rest of our lives = More people seek illegal downloads to avoid not only heavy costs but crippled music files
Long waiting, no border security and lack of legal immigration = more people cross illegally and live illegally in the USA
the government with their stupid illogical policies and politics is shifting tax burdens all over the litter guy forcing more us to break the law to do the smart thing for ourselves.
BTW one of the founding principals of an open economy is that each person does what is right for them (and to a lesser extend those around them)-- these government policies anticipate us to not to what is best for ourselves with what we do, this is a fundamental problem i would say. Until it is advantageous, or at least break even to do the right thing, society wont accept it.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...