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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
That means I get a refund for uploads, right?
FLR
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.
While the while "voluntary" part of the bill seems to be quite silly, it is an insideous attempt to give an "internet tax" a legal foothold.
It is difficult to implement a mandatory tax from scratch. It is much easier to take an existing "voluntary" tax and make it mandatory.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
It's _also_ stupid because it's obvious double taxation:
1) You pay a company for broadband, and you pay the gov't taxes for that
2) You pay the gov't for the only use of broadband
'Creative' taxes are dumb. This coming from a state (MN) where the governor is all about 'creative' taxing.
Just confirming, from the article linked inside the ./ linked article:
s p
Gov. Jim Doyle wants you to pay Wisconsin's 5% sales tax whenever you pay to download a song, book, movie or piece of art
Link: http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/307622.a
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.
Yes, considering the proposal is for 5% of the purchase price. If the purchase price is $0, the tax is zero.
The article (not the Ars Technica writup) specifically states its for purchased downloads. For example, I recently purchased some software online that gave me a choice of either having a CD shipped to me (in which case the cost of shipping was added) or downloading the software for instant gratification. The proposed law would mean that if I chose the download method I would be subject to the same sales tax I would have paid had I chosen to have the CD shipped to me.
There is no proposal to tax all downloads.
Its a sales tax, meaning that some form of sale had to have occurred.
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.
I'm not familiar with Wisconsin tax law, but I would assume that these taxes should apply anyways, assuming that you are buying from a business with a physcial location in that state. At least that's how I believe it works here in Canada and provincial taxes.
I don't think downloads should be any different than any other product or service simply because its off the internet. If I buy a service contract, I have to pay tax on that, and its as intangible as a downloaded mp3 or ebook. However, if the company does not have a physical location in my province, I don't have to pay provincial tax, only federal tax. I live in Saskatchewan and frequently by hardware from a Canadian distributor in BC. I have to pay GST (federal) but not PST (provincial) on the hardware and the same on any labour I pay (I usually have them build the computer for me for $25 if I'm ordering a full system).
However, I can see this being very difficult to enforce. You can't base the choice on the originating IP, those can easily be proxied from another state. Since we're talking about non-physical goods, there's no shipping address, and even if there was, what says you aren't shipping it to a friend in another state. The only thing I could think of would be if you could validate the "home" address of the credit card and base it on that address, but there are ways around that as well.
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.
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.
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.
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
Parent post's (un)reasoning is simmplistic and uninformed. At $20k income, 17% taxes would leave $16,600 to live on. at $100k income, that same 17% leaves $83,000 to live on. (These are parent's numbers, not the actual ones.) The upper tax bracket has the means to lobby a straight tax line, but they willingly give up a greater share to Uncle Sam as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class. Don't worry, their tax lawyers are still dreaming up ways to deduct their gold plated 83" plasma TV's.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
You still have a Legislature that has to approve his budget for the year - you can't dump all the blame off on him.
A legislature which happens to be completely controlled by a republican party which, due to circumstances of the moment, follow and support every single decision of the bush administration without question.
How convenient.
Also, it's false that anyone who voted for Bush supports "don't tax and spend (and spend and spend and spend)" - people vote (or not vote) for candidates for any variety of reasons.
If unconditionally re-electing someone who demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility is not support for fiscal irresponsibility, then what is?
It doesn't matter if that was the individual voter's "swing issue". They voted for it.
I am continually perplexed by the extent to which people defending the Bush administration jump through bizarre hoops to prevent anyone taking any sort of blame or even responsibility for that administration's actions. If the president is not responsible for the budget when he has complete sway over congress, who is? If the people who voted that president into power knowing full well what he would do with it are not responsible for or "supporting" him, what do those words even mean?
There was one specific time at which the president's desk had on it a plaque saying "the buck stops here". The Bush Administration and its defenders, despite having no credible opposition or oversight for their actions either in congress or the media and a complete control of the agenda of the Republican party, seem to disclaim either that the buck at any point passed through their hands or even that they have a clear idea what, if they saw it, the buck would look like.
I'd agree George W. Bush himself is of course not personally responsible for any of this, since it seems to me most of the time frankly that almost none of the decisions in this administration are made or possibly even entirely understood by him, but the fact is it is his job to oversee and take responsibility for the members of his administration and the legislation he signs into being. He's the president of the united states of america. If he isn't doing this he isn't doing his job.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
This almost made me laugh hysterically. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the upper tax brackets "willingly give up a greater share" "as a way to ease the burden on the middle and lower class"?!
If so, I have some great beachfront property to sell you in South Dakota....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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.
Reminds me of Mullah Nasruddin!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.