Slashdot Mirror
States Seeking Levies on Digital Downloads
evdubs writes "15 states and the District of Columbia currently tax online media, with others eager to begin their own taxes. The RIAA estimates that domestic sales totaled $503 million last year, but that figure doesn't include movies, e-books, online video games and other forms of digital media. Perhaps the most interesting point in this article is the way states, looking to start taxing online media, are trying to use the interpretation of previous law and apply it to digital media. In Washington, politicians are using their definition of software (already taxable), 'a set of coded instructions designed to cause a computer...to perform a task,' to justify taxation of online media because 'they cause some action by a piece of hardware to play them.'"
I'm not entirely opposed to the idea here, but exactly what value are the taxing entities (states, districts, etc.) providing in exchange for the taxes collected? I could see the Feds providing structure and market enforcement via the FCC and FTC, which could possibly justify a federal levy, but where does an individual state get involved? That part I'm having trouble seeing.
Of course, there's the other perspective which has state governments looking for any means to plug massive budget holes, so to that extent they're probably just following the old John Dillinger line as to why he robbed banks - because that's where the money was.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
A large percentage of the price of a pack of smokes is taxes already. It would be lovely to see the weight/class restrictions on SUVs and large trucks (like those F450 Duallys I keep seeing people driving around as their daily driver, they only want one car and they pull a fifth wheel) so that people had to have a commercial license to drive them. Hummer, Escalade, Excursion, etc would have this requirement, at least in most states. You wouldn't even be allowed to drive them on some residential streets, such as in San Francisco. One side benefit of this would be that people with commercial licenses get hit harder when they get a ticket...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What a load of crap. I see two issues here which don't appear to be addressed by the authorities levying the taxes.
1) No justification for the taxation is provided. There should be some underlying benefit to "We the people" for any taxation. i.e. I pay a hefty tax every month on my communication bill for various services provided to society, two of which are funding for communication access for the disabled and funding for communication access to rural areas. Levying a tax on downloaded media just because they can is not justification and depending on what they are considering a download it could be construed as double taxation since I already pay several taxes on the communication itself.
2) One of the concepts which jump started the United States of America was the concept of "No taxation without representation". Now I realize we have representatives in government who were voted into their positions by the people, however, if these representatives are not representing the interests of the people who voted them in and instead are representing the interests of the government or corporations then they are no longer representatives of the people. Before the American Revolutionary War the British argued that Americans did have "virtual" representation in parliament and therefore there was no need for American representatives to participate in the British government. We all know how that one turned out and virtual representation is no excuse today either.
I actually don't mind paying taxes, I think I enjoy many benefits from taxation here in the States, but I'd like to have some justification for new taxes beyond creative interpretation of existing laws.
burnin
"music downloads fit the definition of personal property", according to a Kentucky government spokesperson.
Does that mean that when you pay for a download and it disappears after a month or you can't move it to a different device, that the Kentucky government will prosecute the company responsible for violating your property rights?
Conversely, if the software makers can argue "this-software-is-licensed-not-sold", how could there be a sales tax?
How the hell did we get to this point?
There are no victims, only volunteers.
"Back in the day", when Americans were not satisfied with the tax on goods, they threw the goods into the harbor. Reaction, more laws from the lawmakers. Next reaction, revolt.
I was speaking with a guy in his 60s the other day, and he was quiet and just worked for a living. He bluntly said to me, "I don't understand why young people put up with the shit that the government is doing today."
So, aside from PETA trying to keep poor frogs from being dissected* and the NRA wanting armor piercing bullets available for children, and the EFF, who stands up for their rights?
I speak with lawmakers, individuals, post stuff like this on slashdot and have it moderated down.
* I have a love/hate relationship with extremists. I guess they need to be extreme so that a decent middleground is reached, but frogs? I love frogs. I've had 1 tree frog as a pet, and 2 firebelly toads. Very interesting animals. But in the wild, frogs have about a 0.03% chance of becoming old enough to be dissected. Frogs/toads are pretty happy in captivity. A little water, a little girl frog for the boy frog to hug onto, some food, they sing at night. Cool stuff. But, we still need extremists, even though their rational is irrational, hopefully a decent middlegound can be reached.