Senator Warns of Email Tax This Fall

cnet-declan writes "State and local governments in Washington this week began an all-out lobbying push for the power to tax the Internet, according to our article at News.com. A new Senate bill would usher in Internet sales taxes, and the Federation of Tax Administrators (representing state tax collectors) advised senators at a hearing on Wednesday not to renew a temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes that expires in November. One irked Republican senator warned that unless the moratorium is renewed, we could start seeing email taxes by the end of the year. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey blames it on the Democrats taking over, as do Yahoo and eBay lobbyists. Is this a non-hoax version of bill 602P?"

Comments

Fine: Define email

[panxerox]

They still don't get it, the Internet is not this easily defined thing that you can wrap thier minds around, its not about formats or drm or even email its about information. Anything thats describable as 1's and 0's can be transmitted over the internet, its like saying everytime you call a cab over a landline phone you have to pay a tax, uh no. How many ways can you now transmit info over the net now (?) its nearly infinite.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sneezinglion]

I thought you DID pay a tax when you used a land line phone? For each and every call you make a small portion goes to state and federal tax coffers.

Re:Fine: Define email

[AKAImBatman]

Fine: Define email

They don't have to. TFAs are actually about taxing sales made over the internet, plus possible taxes on internet connections themselves. The whole email thing appears to be either a submitter or an editor invention.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA:

"One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail."

Thank you for reading...

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

The non-technical faction who is only interested in generating revenue will charge ahead on whatever "Pointy Haired" course of action they see fit. They will ignore information from the industry, and deride is as biased.

These guys say things like "Check our our home page at senator@government.org" and no one laughs them off the stage. Recently in a hearing, 3 different members of a panel had "sites" established for the public, all with similar information and contradictory views, 2 additionally had email boxes setup.

These people can't work together to do anything with the technology and they think they can tax it?

At some point the open source world of unregulated Internet traffic will find another transport protocol to carry the same information over the same wires, and away from whatever inane monitoring measures the IRS has the NSA put in place to figure all this out.

There are a lot of smart people in Washington, someone has to keep the Internet going to the politicians.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Rob the Bold]

I thought you DID pay a tax when you used a land line phone? For each and every call you make a small portion goes to state and federal tax coffers.

In the US -- and the article is about US taxes -- most landlines are billed a flat monthly fee for local service. Taxes are charged on this service, but in proportion to the total bill, not the number or duration of local calls made. Taxes on your local service would be the same if you made 0 or several thousand minutes of local calls. If you called a cab long distance, you would pay per minute for the call and be taxed on its cost, but that's not likely.

Re:Fine: Define email

[AKAImBatman]

I stand corrected. Still, a single throwaway line about email taxes doesn't seem like it should be eclipsing the real taxation issues. Those issues are the possibly taxation of goods sold across state lines as well as the taxation of internet connections themselves. Internet access is expensive enough already without the government trying to skim off the top, and shipping fees already wipe out any savings realized by a lack of taxes and "brick & mortar" overhead on goods.

I can't see how allowing internet taxes would do any good other than to have states fight over who should collect the taxes on an item shipped over state lines.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

Exactly, he is just trying to create FUD, and people all over slashdot are spreading the message "the government/Democrats want to tax my email" when it is nothing of the sort.

Re:Fine: Define email

[jkauzlar]

I didn't rtfa, but if things ever come to the point where they're taxing email, you can be sure people are going to re-invent email using http or some "non-email" protocol, and probably solving the spam problem, among other problems, at the same time. I know a lot of people have been thinking about new email protocols for a long time, and this could have an incentive for people to upgrade...

...if you want to look on the bright side of bad policy :)

Re:Fine: Define email

[Maximum Prophet]

From a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing. I can see many states setting up tax systems that are so complicated and expensive it effectively shuts down direct marketers. (internet and catalog)

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Re:Fine: Define email

[mcmonkey]

its like saying everytime you call a cab over a landline phone you have to pay a tax, uh no

I don't follow your logic. Everytime you call a cab over a landline phone you have to pay a tax. Uh, yes! Telephone service is taxed. Doesn't matter you're calling a cab.

I think a better analogy is to say, everytime you make a purchase over the phone you owe the same taxes as if you has made that purchase in person (plus whatever phone taxes). (If the seller is in a different state, perhaps they aren't automatically collecting state sales tax the way it is done for in-person sales, but you still owe those taxes.) (Yes, even if the buyer and seller are in different states.)

What they're trying to do is make sure any taxes that would have been collected as part of an in-person transaction are also collected for the same transaction done via internet.

Any talk of an "email tax" (at least for now) is FUD.

Re:Fine: Define email

[AKAImBatman]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Because Congress (both state and federal) likes to keep the Supreme Court on its toes? It certainly seems like it sometimes. :-/

Re:Fine: Define email

[hpavc]

Agreed the subby messed up, we need a independent investigation of such misrepresentation.

Re:Fine: Define email

[orclevegam]

I don't follow your logic. Everytime you call a cab over a landline phone you have to pay a tax. Uh, yes! Telephone service is taxed. Doesn't matter you're calling a cab.

I think the logic and comparison he was trying to make was that specifying something like calling a cab over a phone is roughly equivalent to specifying sending e-mail over the internet. The actual connection may be taxed, but the content is to diverse to accurately asses a tax for. On a related note, various people have mentioned that the e-mail tax portion is supposed to be in reference to previous debates, and that the bills being considered now would be taxes on the connections rather than on specific content.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

a republican lying, that's a new one.

You don't think democrats lie too? You're cute. How old are you, 14?

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

I don't know if it is still the case, but in some states that do tax out-of-state orders, they have to tax you if you order by phone or snail-mail, but not if you use the internet. I think it these states that see the internet as a "loop hole" they want to close. Personally, I would not order from a state that charged me out-of-state sales' taxes.

Re:Fine: Define email

[N3WBI3]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Because if there is one thing our government will work hard to to its lighten your wallet.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Grishnakh]

You talk like the Constitution is able to limit government's power somehow. I guess you haven't been paying attention, because that hasn't been true for some time now.

Re:Fine: Define email

[_KiTA_]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Because a combination of poor public schooling, glorification of ignorance, and greed-worship in the past few decades has led to a group of semi-elected leaders who barely understand their own responsibilities, but know if they just ignore them for a Liiiiiiiitle bit longer, they can buy that solid gold Yacht they always wanted, and THEN all the cool kids will like them.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Kadin2048]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

You are correct -- the states can't charge tax on goods shipped across their borders. I.e., they can't have a "California import tariff," as if they were a separate nation from the rest of the country, or something.

However, the Court has allowed states to charge tax on goods used or consumed in their state. This is how sales tax works: they don't charge the tax when the widgets cross the border from the neighboring state -- that would be illegal due to the Constitution -- but they charge the tax on the sale when it occurs in the state, or on the use of the item if you bought it elsewhere and are using it in the state. (Most people don't realize this, but if you buy something via mail order and use it in a state that charges sales tax, you're legally obligated to pay the same tax rate on it, only as a "use tax" instead of a "sales tax." All states that have sales taxes also have use taxes.)

That's how they get around the unconstitutionality. If it seems like hair-splitting, I'd probably agree with you, and there's a chance that if states really started getting obnoxious with their tax structures, to the point where it was interfering with commerce between states, then the USSC could step in and basically say that they have de facto violated the Constitution by creating barriers to trade ... but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Re:Fine: Define email

[hobo sapiens]

"...ever come to the point where they're taxing email..."

they're not. rtfa.

but good points all the same, and my thoughts exactly until I rtfa.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

No. If the business has a physical presence in your state, then it is taxed at your state's rate.

If the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state, then it isn't taxed. At least in practical terms, that is.

In theory, the states typically think they are due tax, and it is supposed to be voluntarily paid by the consumer on the consumer's state tax return. But without a physical business presence in said state, there is no good way to enforce that.

Re:Fine: Define email

[russ1337]

>>> I thought you DID pay a tax when you used a land line phone? For each and every call you make a small portion goes to state and federal tax coffers.

And I already pay a variety of local and state taxes on my internet monthly bill.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Techman83]

LOL is all I can say!

I mean it is technically infeasible to impose. Specially when you can run a mail server hanging off a home DSL account.

Re:Fine: Define email

[operagost]

They still don't get it, the Internet is not this easily defined thing that you can wrap thier minds around

It's definitely not a truck you can just dump stuff on, either.

Re:Fine: Define email

[aichpvee]

I'll trade higher taxes (maybe in line with my cell phone service, which is about 25%, yikes!) if they'd fucking put price controls on the monopoly cable service! Internet doesn't need to cost so much but it can because the cable companies have an unregulated monopoly and the other providers (DSL, dialup, whatever) price accordingly.

Re:Fine: Define email

[idontgno]

You really didn't read TFA, did you? Understandable, really, /. being what it is.

The last two paragraphs were, quite specifically, about taxing e-mail.

The upshot? Federal tax agencies express no interest in an e-mail tax, but if the internet service tax moratorium expires you can count on at least a few lesser jurisdictions (states, municipalities, etc.) to attempt to impose come crack-brained e-mail tax (or something similar). I'd expect in that case they'd just levy a flat or proportionate fee and call it a message communication tax or something. (Rather than try to define e-mail in some measurable and definite sense and then monitor your traffic to count the number of times you do measured and defined thing X.)

Re:Fine: Define email

[jimstapleton]

Simple solution...

Oh, those aren't emails, those are FTP uploads over port 25...

Re:Fine: Define email

[russ1337]

>>> From TFA:
>>>"One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail."
>>>Thank you for reading.

I wonder if this persons idea is is for the sender or the recipient to pays the tax? I'd sure like to see this senator's reaction to his/her huge tax bill from all the 'off-shore' e-mail they'll be getting...

Likewise, they may find they've got a tax bill for mail which the tax department believes is coming from his address, selling 'v1@gra' etc...

E-mail exchange is not secure or traceable or robust enough to charge money for, without spammers taking advantage of it or some heinous DDOS on an individuals tax bill where they'll end up in jail for 'sending' a few million e-mails that were actually spoofed.

If someone is dumb enough to pass this bill without thinking through the issues, then they deserve everything they get.

Re:Fine: Define email

[aichpvee]

In general they lie a whole lot less. Though maybe some of the republican "lying" is just their extreme ignorance. And maybe it's just because I'm such a nice guy, but I usually give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're not fucking morons and that they know better and are just liars.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

You may as well hold your breath about the whole Use Tax thing. I've tried explaining it to people here several times, even going so far as to link the appropriate state tax laws and tax forms for them (when they mention what state they're from). Despite having it spelled out for them in plain English, they still want to sit there saying "Nuh uh, that doesn't apply to me since I bought it out of state." It seems there are some people here who will believe what they want to believe despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Red Flayer]

shipping fees already wipe out any savings realized by a lack of taxes and "brick & mortar" overhead on goods.

That has nothing to do with the real costs of shipping. That is entirely because of how the market operates. B&M stores and online stores (both with intelligent pricing mechanisms) will price their goods in order to be relatively equal to their competitors. Neither set of retailers will allow the other to undercut them by a large amount, so if the B&M overhead and tax costs drive up the price of goods, then online stores will make sure their S&H charges almost make up the difference.

From a consumer standpoint, sure, the savings are wiped out. From the retailer standpoint, however, the lack of taxes on online sales translates directly to higher profits. Taxing internet sales is not likely to drive prices up, since they are established by the consumer market; instead, it will reduce the profitability of online stores, increasing the ability of B&M stores to compete.

Re:Fine: Define email

[DragonWriter]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines.

The Constitution does nothing to limit the ability of states to tax goods sold from their state irrespective of whether or not they cross state lines, or tax goods bought from their state irrespective of whether or not they cross state lines. It does not permit import or export duties, but that is not the issue, here. The issue is sales taxes, not special taxes specific to imports.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that's what he said? You're cute. How old are you, 12?

Re:Fine: Define email

[AKAImBatman]

Q: How do you know if a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

And that is about as close to bi-partisan cooperation as Congress will ever get.

Re:Fine: Define email

[tppublic]

The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Not true. Read ARMCO INC. v. HARDESTY, 467 U.S. 638 (1984); specifically: "Under the Commerce Clause, a State may not tax a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State." (emphasis added).

Thus, use taxes CAN be charged on items shipped across state lines. For a specific example, feel free to download Vermont's state tax booklet and read the instructions for line 27 (on page 7 of the PDF).

To save Vermont some bandwidth, let me quote the relevant section: "Use Tax applies to purchases on which sales tax has not been charged, but are subject to sales tax. This includes purchases from a mail-order house or catalog, over the Internet, from an out-of-state retailer, or from any retailer who did not charge sales tax."

This is perfectly legal, even under the existing laws, because the Vermont use tax is grandfathered - it existed long before the US government prevented sales tax on Internet purchases.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Lockejaw]

Does the "use tax" apply to things you buy but never use?

Re:Fine: Define email

[cob666]

you're legally obligated to pay the same tax rate on it, only as a "use tax" instead of a "sales tax." All states that have sales taxes also have use taxes

This is most obvious when purchasing a car. You don't pay sales tax to the dealer, you pay the sales tax when you register (or use) the car. If you purchase a car in NH (no sales tax) and register it in MA (5% sales tax) you are required to pay the 5% sales tax when you register the car.
 
I've worked retail in the past and have a few friends that worked retail and you currently don't have to pay sales tax on merchandise that is being shipped across state lines. From what I understand, it works this way to businesses only have to focus on they LOCAL sales tax rules and regulations. Merchandise shipped to Jane Doe out of state is responsible for paying the use tax for her state (just like the car). I can't imagine running a small internet business and having to keep track of the sales tax regulations for every state. Especially a state like NJ that has different sales tax amounts depending on which city you are in. They also have special days during the year where you don't have to pay any sales tax.
 
I guess the states want to intervene and require all businesses to pay the sales tax for the state the consumer lives in instead of relying on the consumer to pay the use tax.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Lockejaw]

Well, when was the last time you sent data by truck? You're supposed to use a bus.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly where does the Constitution say this? I must have an oudated copy, I can't find this anywhere...

Re:Fine: Define email

[Maximum Prophet]

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress

An "impost" is a tax. So if I order something from another state or country, it's an import, and the constitution specifically forbids the states from putting any tax on it. They can charge me to inspect it, except that any profit (net) goes to the Feds.

The states can petition congress to allow an import tax, but any money collected over what it costs to collect the taxes has to be sent to the Federal Government. That would go over well with the taxpayers/voters.

*Note to the pedantic. The word "controul" is a misspelling that's in the original document. Yes, the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land, has misspellings.

Re:Fine: Define email

[friedmud]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

You're right... Dems definitely lie less....

I wish people would just realize for once... that just because it says (R) or (D) next to your name that doesn't imbue you with any special properties. At this point I'm inclined to believe that _every single one of them lies_ regardless of their affiliation.

Back on topic... what I want to know is... why do they _want_ to tax internet connections? What is the government even going to claim to be doing with that money? When you tax gasoline the stated purpose is to support the road infrastructure... what is the government going to do for the internet with all this new money? Is the government going to start laying pipes? Are they going to create a new regulatory group to try to wrangle in ISPs? What?

Friedmud

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

Close.

Congress actually likes the idea of having more money to spend on projects REQUIRED to keep this nation running, while still having miscellaneous funds to keep its pork projects intact.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that if they can't account for at least 99.9999% of the Fiscal spending, there SHOULD NOT be ANY new taxes. If they can account for at least that much, fine. They can look at taxing something.

I don't BUY the line that we don't have the ability to track where the money goes. We've been doing this for 200+ years. WE SHOULD HAVE IT DOWN BY NOW!!!!!!!!!

Re:Fine: Define email

[ReidMaynard]

I'll tell you what isn't email ... my soon to be brought-back-from-the-dead-flock-of-carrier-pigeon s

haha! .. I laugh at your taxes.

Re:Fine: Define email

[*weasel]

hey, keep it down.
if you actually get them to understand how absurd that idea is, they'll just propose a straight-up bandwidth tax.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Shakrai]

The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines

Sure about that? New York State imposes a self-reported "Sales & Use" tax on our income tax returns. We are supposed to report any purchases of taxable items made out of state or over the internet where NYS Sales Tax wasn't paid.

Granted, I just put "$0" down each year, but still.... it's there.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Maximum Prophet]

I'm familiar with that, Virginia also has a use tax. Most people don't pay it, and the state doesn't strong arm people into paying it, because they know they'd lose the battle it they ever took it all the way. If not at the Supreme court, then with the voters who would throw the bums out.

The constitution is pretty clear on this, and it doesn't meantion taxing one thing more heavily than another. It says:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

When I buy something from out of state, it's an import. (an impost is a tax) Even if the states are allowed to tax it, the profit from the tax is supposed to go to the Federal Treasury, not to the state to imposed the tax.

The Supreme court makes mistakes. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes Congress rewrites the law to make it more clear, and sometimes it takes a constitutional amendment to fix the problem.

Re:Fine: Define email

[ShieldW0lf]

I can't imagine running a small internet business and having to keep track of the sales tax regulations for every state.

Which makes it so only large corporations can participate and see a profit. Which leaves lots of room for shady backroom deals and centralized monitoring and control. Which is consistent with the values of every politician in the USA.

This bill will pass.

Re:Fine: Define email

[morgan_greywolf]

If you called a cab long distance, you would pay per minute for the call and be taxed on its cost, but that's not likely.

I can tell you've never lived in an area controlled by the Ameritech/SBC/The NEW AT&T/or whatever they're calling themselves these days. In one place I lived in in Michigan, it was long distance to call across the street. No, I'm not kidding.

Re:Fine: Define email

[harlows_monkeys]

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

We're having this discussion because the Constitution doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

Re:Fine: Define email

[jguthrie]

How much a politician lies depends strongly on whether or not the one doing the measuring agrees with the politician. In a similar fashion how much "extreme ignorance" a politician has depends strongly on whether or not the one doing the measuring agrees with the politician. In other words, lies (and "extreme ignorance") are largely in the eye of the beholder. This lack of objectivity is a large part of why the politicial process is (and, as near as I can tell, always has been) screwed up the way that it is.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Touvan]

It's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).

Re:Fine: Define email

[Watts Martin]

"They" don't want to tax internet connections, speaking generally. "They" is pretty general; there are probably specific proposals out there to tax everything, if you look hard enough, but the germane issue is whether anyone in power is actually listening to the talk.

What's being discussed here, contra the "email tax" headline, really isn't an email tax or any other kind of tax on the net: it's about collecting sales tax on out-of-state sales. As other people have mentioned, this is a "use tax" and all states actually have had it for many years. (The prohibition on states collecting import/export duties on intrastate commerce doesn't apply, as you're not paying for importing/exporting, you're paying for "use." This is pretty arbitrary, although I suppose it's worth noting that trade tariffs and duties--i.e., fees specifically on exporting and importing--were the primary taxes paid by the colonies to the British government, and so were a Very Big Deal at the time the Constitution was written.)

As for why this keeps coming up, well, many states generate a lot of their revenue through sales tax. Even though you were supposed to be paying "use tax" on mail order, the percentage of lost sales tax was fairly small. With the advent of internet commerce, though, a lot of barriers have fallen. It's very easy to order online and very easy to set up businesses online, some of the biggest online-only retailers are edging out big-name "brick and mortar" retailers in terms of sales volume (think Amazon and the iTunes Store, for starters), and this trend is only likely to continue.

And this makes states that depend on sales tax for a big chunk of their revenue really, really nervous. Consumers are never going to consistently pay a "use tax"; this means that the pushback to keep state tax revenues from falling is going to hit the sellers. Traditionally it's been assumed that it's too difficult for sellers to keep track of all those different state tax regulations, as other people have noted--but I have a fairly strong suspicion that we're going to that assumption questioned on the grounds that, well, if it's on the internet, the order's being processed by computer, and the computer can be programmed to know all those rates. (This has the added "advantage" that it'll create a new market for software that knows this, and you can bet there will be lobbyists for accounting software companies supporting these moves rather than fighting them.)

Despite the attempts to make it look like it's just those old tax-and-spend liberal Democrats behind it, this ain't a partisan issue, either. As much pork as there may be in every state budget, an awful lot of programs that I may think are pointless may be ones you think are worthwhile, and vice versa. Government budgets are a lot like Microsoft Office, I suspect: it's easy to get people to agree that only 25% of what's in there is really necessary, but impossible to get them to agree on which 25% that is.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

So right now if you use the internet to make a purchase you are exempt from these sales taxes? What's the internet angle to this?

Re:Fine: Define email

[The_Wilschon]

More of an archaism than a misspelling... You know, sometimes the spelling of various words can change over the course of a few hundred years. "Control" used to be spelled "Comptrol" and "Controul" as well as "Control". Hence the office of "comptroller". See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/controul for my source.

Re:Fine: Define email

[j79zlr]

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey

Who was the unnamed republican, Vagina Coast Guard?

Re:Fine: Define email

[DocWat232]

Probably because going across the street crossed a LATA line, a line that was defined after the AT&T breakup. Anything that crosses a LATA line is defined as long distance, even if it is in the same area code.

Re:Fine: Define email

[baldass_newbie]

Taxes are charged on this service, but in proportion to the total bill, not the number or duration of local calls made. Taxes on your local service would be the same if you made 0 or several thousand minutes of local calls. If you called a cab long distance, you would pay per minute for the call and be taxed on its cost, but that's not likely.


Horseshit. The FCC charges every phone in the US a tax - a flat tax - for access (as well as Cable connections.) Google Al Gore phone tax for more information. Or just take a look at the $2.33 FCC 'connection fee'.
There are other use-based taxes, but there is a flat Federal tax on all connected devices.

Re:Fine: Define email

[shaitand]

Yes, and your phone company pays taxes per minute on any call that crosses a LATA line. Hence the original poster was correct in saying that taxes are charged per minute.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Opportunist]

Email is ... uh ... when I click on my Outlook thingie to send mail.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt - wrong. Try ordering from a mail order place. They charge you sales tax even if they ship you the item across state lines.

Here's the point: Sales tax is due at the point of sale, which is where delivery was taken on the item. Your sale wasn't across state lines, as the item was sold to you at home and you took delivery of it at home. Period. If the company doesn't do business in your state, it isn't responsible to collect the tax for the state, but then you owe the tax and are supposed to pay it yourself.

Today there is a special *exemption* for some internet purchases.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Attila Dimedici]

The article is about two separate but related things. One is the bill to force all businesses to collect sales tax on goods being shipped to a state that has sales tax. The other is the moratorium on taxes on the Internet that is due to expire shortly. When the moratorium was passed, several localities(state, city, county, etc) were considering taxing email messages. Other localities were considering how they were going to tax internet use. That is why the mention of email tax, it was being considered before. Possibly that is not the tax that would be implemented, but you can bet that if the moratorium is allowed to expire there will be all kinds of taxes on Internet services.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Wookietim]

I wonder how much my tax would be if I was a US citizen, using a internet cafe in France, connecting to my ISP which is incorporated in Canada and maintains it's servers in Amsterdam to send Email to someone in Brazil?

Re:Fine: Define email

[hurfy]

And the reason WA state is so keen on this.

We don't have an income tax, thus we don't even send out a form to put the "0" on ! How many people do you suppose will track down the right form to pay, hehe. Also means we are more dependent on the sales taxes :(

I would go along with them if they can figure out how to implement some kind of simplified tax structure. WA is also one of those with a diferent tax code/rate for every damn city, county and bus district. Over 330 codes at last count :O And you should know whether an address is within city limits or in the transit district to figure the correct tax. Luckily from within WA you use the ship point so we only have 2.

Makes a real mess from an IT standpoint. We do both ID and WA and diferent items are taxable in each state. WA depends on ship point while ID goes by destination. Some non-taxable items are taxable if going to a Veterinarian instead of patient or doctor. Computers don't seem to like the 'sometimes' and 'maybe' answers to TAXABLE (Y/N)?

Re:Fine: Define email

[Creepy]

The problem is states define their own Use (excise) tax laws, how you must pay them, how often you must pay them, threshold amount, etc. and to keep up with the laws and collect the money for all 50 states would be prohibitively expensive for smaller catalog and online merchants to keep up with. The compromise was to push the onus onto the buyers, but buyers have pretty much uniformly not paid the tax. The states have the rights to the sales records of any catalog company or online merchant, so they could (and have) looked up people for tax reasons, but that also is expensive.

An example of the problems with the current Use tax laws:
I buy a pocketknife for $25 in Florida from an online vendor in Georgia. within 6 months, I need to pay tax on that $25.
I buy that same pocketknife in Minnesota. Because I have not exceeded the threshold of $770, I pay no taxes. Now I buy a $1000 computer online. I suddenly owe taxes on BOTH the pocketknife and the computer, due at tax time OR if the amount is over some threshold ($500k or something like that) every 6 months.
I get fed up and move to Oregon (or Alaska, Delaware, Montana, or New Hampshire) and buy a houseboat online from Seattle and have it shipped. I owe no taxes on it because Oregon does not collect Use tax.

Basically, what this bill is trying to do is have states set uniform use tax laws and in return, the catalog and online companies must collect and pay the taxes for the states. It is not quite like setting a federal sales tax (paid to the states) because it has verbage where states can opt-out of the collection.

While I don't think the purpose of this bill is to "tax email" or "tax internet usage" I agree with you that paying an internet tax is silly - I pay for service and therefore already pay taxes on that service. Taxing e-mail will never work, either - imagine if I put a spambot on 1000 computers to spam 100k e-mails a day for 10 days. I pay exactly $0 because I didn't send the e-mail. Even at .01 cents per e-mail, my 1000 zombie machines cost their users $10 million dollars. I could also find a site in a foreign country that allows webmail and send mail from there toll free.

Re:Fine: Define email

[mibalzonya]

What if you live in a state without an income tax?

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with taxes on phone calls unless of course you're still on dial-up. This is more like saying I'm going to impose a tax every time you use the word "email." Like the post above this alluded too, the internet data is 1s and 0s. If I PGP encrypt my email and change the port my emails servers communicate on, then how are you going to know what is email and what is not email. You can't tax something that is not tangible in nature.

This flawed on so many levels. You have politicians talking about technology who have no clue and you have wanna-be techys who think they know a thing or two about how the Internet works confusing the whole issue by comparing it to a tax on on a phone call.

Dummy up folks!

Re:Fine: Define email

[letxa2000]

This isn't specifically directed at you (since I don't know your political position), but I find it amusing that the same Slashdot crowd that is basically made up of blind left-wing "progressives" that are all in favor of taxing the rich until they become poor are, at the same time, for some reason opposed to taxing Internet-based stuff. Why is that?

Re:Fine: Define email

[Cramer]

If it were, in fact, a "tax" then that $2.33 would be handed over to the FCC. It isn't. The fact is, 99% of what you pay for your phone goes right in the telco's pockets. The state and federal taxes are the only thing they hand over. (ala sales tax) All those "fees" are bullshit padding of your bill. In every case I've ever checked it was a way to get around tariffs -- they cannot legally change the service price, but they can add "cost recovery" fees and other crap to increase the total monthly bill.

Re:Fine: Define email

[black6host]

"...I would not order from a state that charged me out-of-state sales' taxes."

I'm not sure about your state but here in Florida you are supposed to calculate all purchases for which you did not pay sales tax and remit the amount owed based on Florida's tax code (assuming you're a Florida resident..) I don't think many individuals do this, but if you're a business and you're buying a lot of stuff online the auditors will check for proper sales and use tax payments.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Cajun Hell]

if you actually get them to understand how absurd that idea is, they'll just propose a straight-up bandwidth tax.

That would be undesirable, but a lot more desirable and fair than every other proposal I've heard (except one: not having a tax at all).

Re:Fine: Define email

[FLEB]

One large practical problem in collecting state taxes for buying across state lines is that everyone selling-- from a store down to some Ebayer, would have to know the tax rates and codes, and have to send off money to each state that any of their customers were from. This could be said to be a deal-breaking hairball.

As far as the constitutional angle goes, it does prevent individual states from protectionism and money-grabbing by creating inflated or restrictive tariffs for items coming into or out of their states.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

He is promoting fear, uncertainty, and doubt about some possible future consequences if these laws were to pass, based upon some random comments made almost 10 years ago. He is wanting people to believe there will be a tax on individual email messages. Look at many of the comments here on slashdot that seem to affirm this belief, made by people supposedly smarter than the average. Do you really think somebody is going to seriously try and tax your individiual email messages? The UN suggested such an idea years ago and immediately backed down.

If there is ever an email tax, it will be so in name only. It will be a flat rate tax attached to your ISP bill along with your backbone tax, your local access tax, your broadband tax, your VOIP tax, your instant messaging tax, etc..., like your cell phone bill is now. In reality, it will just be an internet tax.

Re:Fine: Define email

[AgentGibbled]

While that may be true, it *has* been reported to be a series of tubes. All the government has to do is sit at one end of the tubes and charge you a tax before you're allowed to get any of the internets that come out.

Seriously, though, this sort of thing displays the baffling-and-at-the-same-time-unsurprising lack of comprehension that $GOVERNMENT seems to have with regard to anything more technically sophisticated than a pen. This is obviously impractical on many fronts.

You want to tax internet connections? On what basis? Bytes transferred? That's unfair to Grandma with a pwned Win98 box (unbeknownst to her, of course). Flat rate? That's unfair to low-income earners who can barely afford internet access in the first place so Johnny can get his homework done. And what is "the internet" anyway? If I send an email from my desk to the guy in the next cube, is that taxable? Probably not because it's a private corporate network. How about if I sent an email to my next-door neighbour on the same ISP? The whole transfer lives on the ISP's "private" network, so technically it never hit "the internet", or did it? It's really difficult to adequately define when you're accessing "the internet" versus "some network", and taxing every corporate or, hell, residential network would be completely impractical.

If they try it, though, I propose lining the Canadian side of the 49th Parallel with high-powered wifi antennas pointed south.

Shipping goods across the border? Suppose the goods originated in, say, California and arrived at my place in Alberta, Canada... do I owe California state sales tax? (assuming California even has state sales tax. Pretend it does if not). I already owe fees to customs and Canadian federal sales tax and whatever percentage my bank decides to charge me for the currency conversion (and possibly ludicrous brokerage fees to whichever company did the shipping). This additional sales tax might just make it not worth buying. Maybe it doesn't count as an "internet sale" if I phone them instead? Can I apply a refund as a non-resident if I go through the requisite paperwork hassle? Seems like a pretty good way to kill international trade originating in states with a sales tax -- sellers would just pack up and move to a state without sales tax. I bet the constituents will be happy with that one.

So don't panic guys. This is far too ill-conceived to see the light of day (or to have any real effect if it does).

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

I live in a state without a state income tax (and I'm not a business), so I don't think that kind of law would apply to me, though I could be wrong.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Attila Dimedici]

Oh goody, I look forward to the day that my local municipality, my local county, and my state all tax my internet service...Oh yeah that is on top of the federal tax. Let's not forget, if I use the Internet to communicate with you, your local municipality, county and state are going to try and tax me too. Unless there is some law limiting what government body can tax who, every government body is going to try and tax every person who uses internet service through their jurisdiction. I know it is ridiculous, you know it is ridiculous, but when did that ever stop a politician from taxing something.

Re:Fine: Define email

[quanticle]

If you use the internet to make a purchase from a business that has no prescence in that state, you are exempt from state taxes. This is why Newegg will charge you tax if you live in New Jersey (they have their distribution center there).

Re:Fine: Define email

[Machtyn]

At least in KY, the consumer is required to declare all of their online purchases. Therefore, if you bought a $5.00 mouse from woot.com, which is based in TX, you have to declare that purchase.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution? Is that thing still around?

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. I am a thief. What about the things I use but never buy?

Re:Fine: Define email

[Khashishi]

Does the "use tax" apply to things you buy but never use?

In other words, do retailers pay the use tax?

Re:Fine: Define email

[jettawu]

This flawed on so many levels. Exactly... I laugh at the thought of how they'll tax spam. Those people running bot nets would really be laughing at us then.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MontyApollo]

But I thought this was how it has always worked, internet or not. Yes? Will the new law they are proposing only apply to internet purchases, or are they just saying that the internet has brought about the need to change the law? I'm curious what the internet angle is to this.

Re:Fine: Define email

[StarvingSE]

I wonder if this persons idea is is for the sender or the recipient to pays the tax?

Why not charge both? The cell phone companies have been doing this forever...

Re:Fine: Define email

[Old Benjamin]

If you're not convinced the government is taking over now, I don't know what it'll take.

Re:Fine: Define email

[minion]

Internet access is expensive enough already without the government trying to skim off the top
 
Awesome way to describe their racketeering efforts. The government already taxes the land line, cable line, what-not on how the internet is delivered. Their desire to tax 'email' or even sales tax by definition is racketeering. Its like a mob boss wanting "protection money" for your business in his neighborhood.
 
Now, if the telephone lines, dsl lines, etc weren't taxed by the government they would have MORE of a leg to stand on, but it'd still be sketchy. Its not like its a public utility like sewer or the interstates.
 
I'm still pissed about being taxed for MAKING money, and being taxed when I SPEND that money. That is BS. We don't need more lawmakers in government. We have enough laws. We just need more enforcement. If our governments (local, federal, state) would stop trying to squeeze more money out of us and having to hire people to do the squeezing, we could downsize dramatically, have less taxes, and happier people. Never happen, which is why I'm bitter.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MrMarket]

I stand corrected. Still, a single throwaway line about email taxes doesn't seem like it should be eclipsing the real taxation issues. Those issues are the possibly taxation of goods sold across state lines as well as the taxation of internet connections themselves. Internet access is expensive enough already without the government trying to skim off the top, and shipping fees already wipe out any savings realized by a lack of taxes and "brick & mortar" overhead on goods.

I can't see how allowing internet taxes would do any good other than to have states fight over who should collect the taxes on an item shipped over state lines.
Don't forget VOIP. I'm sure the phone companies are lobbying for a tax on vonage and skype. When you want to know the real reason for legislation, follow the money.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

I think one thing no one understands is the use tax. All you have to do is read your state tax return (at least in CA), and discover that you must pay a "use tax / sales tax" on any item that was *not* taxed in the state you purchased from, or if the tax is *less* than you would have paid if you bought it in your own state. It was only more recently that this was added directly to state tax return to express how much in sales tax someone should have paid in the year, but as I understand, it always existed as one of those addon tax forms (form g?) that most common folk didnt know about or ignored.

The way it works:

If sales tax was 10% where you bought it, but 7% in your own state, you owe your state no sales/use tax.
If sales tax was 7% where you bought it, but 10% in your own state, you owe your state 3% sales/use tax.

Re:Fine: Define email

[ak3ldama]

You talk like the Constitution is able to limit government's power somehow. I guess you haven't been paying attention, because that hasn't been true for some time now.We must continue to talk about it, because complacency is not an option.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

If sales tax was 10% where you bought it, but 7% in your own state, you owe your state no sales/use tax.
If sales tax was 7% where you bought it, but 10% in your own state, you owe your state 3% sales/use tax.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong.

If sales tax was 10% where you bought it, but 7% in your state, you owe your state 7% use tax UNLESS you paid the 10% in the other state.
You got the second part right.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Fordiman]

Yeah. I was thinking as I read this - if they tax e-mail, e-mail will go away in favor of a new technology that simply fails to call itself e-mail.

I'm working on a project management suite that can replace e-mail in its entirety, as well as provide needed organization to the e-mail concept. I wonder if this is now an opportune time to finish it up? The opportune time to release it, by the by, would be *after* any law of this nature is passed.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

Look in the King James version.

Re:Fine: Define email

[eonlabs]

This is different. This is more like saying that every time you use the word 'the' while talking on the phone, you owe the government 1 cent.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Grishnakh]

Sure, but it's also worth pointing out that in reality, the Constitution is widely ignored by our current laws. The DMCA is a good example of this. Laws like this may be unConstitutional, but they are still enforced, and the only way to change it is to have a court case that rises to the Supreme Court, and for the Justices to agree that it's unConstitutional. This isn't easily done.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

Which lips are you referring to?

Re:Fine: Define email

[bigpat]

This is different. This is more like saying that every time you use the word 'the' while talking on the phone, you owe the government 1 cent. Shhhh...Quiet! Do we really need to be giving them any more good ideas? next week a house committee will spend half a million on a study group for your brilliant "the" idea, the week after that it will be a quarterly estimated tax on "is" usage, depending what the meaning of "is" is.

Re:Fine: Define email

[MagusSlurpy]

Do you ever wish there was a "Depressing" mod option? ;)

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

This bullshit padding of the bill and recovery fees are taxes. Ok, I'll admit that they are taxes on the phone company itself and not the consumer but all companies force their expenses onto it's customers. It is how they are able to make a profit. And whenever you increase the tax on a company, they will pass this tax to the consumer and their product will be more costly then before. For companies with many products, the change isn't as noticeable, for less products, it is. Just because the phone company shows you why your cost went up doesn't mean jack in the entire scheme of things.

And one could argue that the access fees and such are an end run around formal taxing. Congress knows full well how companies work even if the public doesn't (or somehow pretends not to know). They knew that this cost was going to be passed onto the consumer when adding it. They might not have expected the telcos to differentiate the expense and name the reasons for the increase but everyone involved knew that the phone companies were going to pass it along.

And lets be honest about the cost recovery fees and such. This isn't anything underhanded, it is exactly what it says. Companies with the exception of Microsoft, don't have billions of dollars sitting around collecting dust waiting to happily pay taxes and fees imposed on them. The reinvest their money to expand the company, hold a little for operating expenses and a rainy day and then distribute everything else to the shareholders even if it isn't publicly traded. When someone invests in a company, they expect to make more then they would investing the same money into a savings account or other places in the market. There are some good cases to lose some money on purpose in an investment but that's another story. Anyone who thinks we can impose taxes and fees on companies and they will just pay it is sadly mistaken for the most part. Everyone should think about this the next time something is sky-high in price. And everyone should also think about this when electing politicians who are now attempting to tax and drive the cost of something they hold dear up.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

Catalog sales wouldn't likely be effected by this. They are already regulated by postal codes and are under a different section of the law.

And the shipment across state lines isn't what they are trying to tax, it is the orders you place or purchases you make from within the state to companies offering goods inside the state by means of an Internet connection. One could argue the effectiveness of who is were in relation to the sale, Most Internet providers are required to impose sales tax to the sales made to customers in the state they operating in or have offices in so typically, it is were the user resides when we look at who made the sale for sales tax.

This entire Idea of brick and morter stores suffering doesn't have to do with sales tax as much as it does every other tax they have to pay. Given the right locations, and the proper tax environment, some could make a small fortune selling stuff at the prices that retailers at more expensive environments have to pay.

A prime example is a computer shop I used to own, the city charged a business tax for having a store front that amounted to around 2000 a year plus they had a utility tax and extremely large sanitation charges. Because it was a business, I Payed 10 times what a residential person would for water services and about 15 times that for garbage collections which wasn't more then one or two bags a week because we sorted paper and card board and allowed an elderly man to pick it up twice a week for recycling.

I moved to a smaller city about 5 miles away, kept my other numbers and now save around $4000 or so a year in just the cost of staying open. Then, the local income tax is avoided saving another couple thousand a year. If I had an Internet only presence, I could split this costs with whoever else was one the servers and not have the expense so I could charge less. As it turns out, I don't charge any less, I just keep more money. Not everyone can relocate or control the tax environment around them. They are stuck with it. To be competitive, they make less money, and with the internet, they need to make even less money.

Internet sales has the ability to equalize the market place environment. This scares a lot of politicians who can tax more in their area because the relative income is higher. When other areas compete, they have an advantage. And this is very simular to the arguments for and against companies using third world countries to offset expenses.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

Because if there is one thing our government will work hard to to its lighten your wallet.

Well, we could make it easier for them by electing officials who openly claims they want to do this by raising taxes and giving the money to the poor or the children which is really code for how can you doubt me.

I seems to me was have quite a choice coming up, Keep your own money and elect an evil republican or forget you work hard for what your paid and elect the heavenly democrats who openly claim to want to take your money. And no, I'm not suggesting that your evil if you want to keep your money.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

How is the DMCA unconstitutional? I haven't heard that one before, I'm not saying it isn't, just that I haven't heard of it before. I am interested in the theory behind it.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

When you take steps to have it at your disposal, you generally get charged without regard to your actual use.

If your a retailer and buying it to resell, then most states have specific exemptions for this but you need to register your intent in some ways. A simple business license and tax ID (even if it is your SS number) is what it takes in my area. Other states might be different. But in my experience, you can only claim tax exempt for the things you intend to resale, the paper to print contracts or supplies to sign them are not excluded from that tax. They get recorded in a different way and you end up washing the tax on them with different programs and such. Although, Ohio has a doing business tax were a small tax is placed on all money rang in/collected even if it is covering the costs to make the item. Say you buy a dell computer for a customer, upgrade it into a gaming machine and then resell it to them, On top of the sales tax you charge th consumer, you will be charged a tax on all the money going through/collected with that sale even though a good portion was cost to get the Dell computer or even tax exempt depending on the customer.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

A sales tax is the tax on the sale. Historically, with mail order/catalog sales and such, the postal codes have regulated that the states can't impose laws requiring out of state companies to collect and forward taxes as if they are working from within the state. This is why you don't pay a sales tax for out of state orders.

The use tax, is just a codified name for the sales tax that isn't collected by the company making the sale. It is on the sale and not the import of anything. So while your corect in that the consitution doesn't allow taxes on imports, I don't believe any state is trying to make that an issue. Most products sold by companies inside the state were imported and with your interpretation, you would assume no sales tax can be applied to those product either. This isn't the case at all. What is the case is that the sale is being made by a resident of one state to a company who isn't subjected to the collection laws of a company residing in another state. So there are ways to compel that person to pay the appropriate sales tax when it isn't collected by the company.

This really has nothing to do with imports but with who is collecting the taxes or who is legally obliged to collect the taxes.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

They don't even need a simplifies tax code. All they need it a database hosted on a federal site that the states can access and change the amount of taxes appropriately. Then every merchants Cart system on checkout, looks up this relevant information based on either the shipping address or billing address and automatically applies the current taxes for the sale. Then once the sale is complete, it sends a notice saying it was final and they get a bill added to their regular state sales tax bill. You can even add a user-name and registration so specific companies can be identified and of course open it to everyone doing business. Any special exemptions or special discounts can be handled later on a regular tax return or the tax exempt account can be set up with the merchant and those sales can bypass it all together.

A system like this places the burden on the state and counties and municipalities for sorting through their tax codes and such. Ohio would get a check form NY at the end of th year and vice versa. And states without sales tax, which are the extreme minority of the cases, not participate but their retailers would have to forward the money to the appropriate states as it is collected.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

The individual sales taxes and such can be simple placed in a database on line hosted by the feds. They can report their sales and retrieve information regarding the taxes from this.

From here, it could be two separate options, the state could bill each and every company, they could bill each state or they could require the merchant to send a certain amount into the state according to a reference number given at the time of the sale by this site.

It doesn't have to be overly complicated and a system like this would place the burden on the states to comply rather then millions of online merchants.

Re:Fine: Define email

[cayenne8]

"I live in a state without a state income tax (and I'm not a business), so I don't think that kind of law would apply to me, though I could be wrong."

Not income tax...SALES tax. Some states do not have sales tax...if that is you, then no, this wouldn't bother you. But, if you state has sales taxes on items purchased by you in state, chances are, they have a USE tax law, which requires you to declare you purchases from out of state on which no sales tax was collected...and pay your own state a USE tax (basically sales tax) on those items.

Most people ignore this...so, they do not pay taxes. The same laws today are for internet purchases as for catalog purchases...usually treated just the same.

The reason for the 'internet angle' you keep asking about? It is because of the huge increase of sales across state lines due to the ease of doing it through the internet. Many more people buy stuff over the internet than do for catalog shopping...and states feel they're losing too much tax revenue...the states that have sales taxes that is.

HTH

Re:Fine: Define email

[duffbeer703]

No, you don't get it. A bottle of whisky is just some distilled spirits in a bottle -- yet the government can and does collect an exise tax on it.

If they want to tax email, they certainly can -- and they'll do it by requiring you to license your email server at the threat of some penalty. If the gov't can require licensing for dogs, they can do it for email servers.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Grishnakh]

Simple: it bans free speech.

It says it's illegal to have a "circumvention device" which helps people to copy protected content. Well, if all it takes to bypass protection is to hold down the Shift key because you're using a CD-ROM with an autorun file, then it's illegal to tell people this trick according to the law.

Or if takes a 7-line Perl script to bypass the protection on a DVD, then that Perl script is illegal (which it is, in the USA). A few lines of code can certainly be considered speech (of the writing variety; the 1st Amendment doesn't in spirit restrict "free speech" to the spoken variety).

Re:Fine: Define email

[Maximum Prophet]

What is it with you constitution lovers? Did this one document completely remove your brain's ability to have a rational argument? Ever heard of amendments to this fine document? If it's so perfect, why have there been 27 amendments to it (so far)? The world changes, and law needs to change to embrace these changes.

Be careful of what you ask for. This simple amendment to that fine document led to the quagmire we call the IRS.

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Still want to go in and add a simple amendment? In the US, there are something like 7000 different sales tax configuations. (State, country, city, town, etc.) It would be literally impossible for a small business to keep track of all them. They would have to hire someone or some firm to do it for them increasing cost, and driving some out of business.

"When you buy something online you pay the same tax as you would if you had bought it in your state"

Where in your state? Your shipping address or your billing address. If my parents live in the county and aren't subject to city taxes, can I have everything shipped to them and avoid some tax? What if I have a P.O. box for both shipping and billing, but live in one tax zone, and work in another?

Simply banning all taxes on imports keeps things much simpler. Another simple, legal system would be a Federal sales tax on all shipments. Everyone pays the same rate, and the rate is easy to compute. The states would get their share based on the IRS recorded legal residence.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why people in Chicago now use their cell phones to call across the street. It avoids the ridiculous long distance charges associated. The same thing would happen here, people would replace email with a different service that accomplishes the same thing.

Re:Fine: Define email

[shaitand]

'Shhhh...Quiet! Do we really need to be giving them any more good ideas? next week a house committee will spend half a million on a study group for your brilliant "the" idea, the week after that it will be a quarterly estimated tax on "is" usage, depending what the meaning of "is" is.'

I clarification in order to determine whether or not I am in favor of these taxes. Would the people using "is" be getting blowjobs when they use "is" or no? If so, would the blowjobs be coming from someone who looks like Monica, quality providers, or a grab bag?

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

I never heard it put that way. I don't think I would agree with it. That liberal definition of free speech would mean any slander, stalking, making deadly threat laws or even laws against giving top secret information to foreign agents would be unconstitutional. I don't think free speech as outlined in the constitution is supposed to be bent that way.

But then again, I maybe wrong and people should be able to tell foreign agents all our secrets and I should be able to threaten to kill my ex if she pisses me off. I should also be able to stalk and harrass her when she goes catting around too. But for some reason, I don't think I could claim those laws were unconstitutional and get away with it.

Re:Fine: Define email

[Grishnakh]

No, you've got the wrong idea.

There's something called "protected speech". Basically, anything that isn't dangerous to public safety is protected. That's why yelling "FIRE!" in a theater is illegal. (Actually, you can do it, but you'll get in trouble later for it.) That's also why giving top secret information to foreign agents is illegal--that's treason.

Slander and libel aren't illegal--they're not crimes. They're torts. You can slander people as much as you want, but they can sue you in civil court for damages, if they can demonstrate it caused harm. Why do you think it's not illegal to call the President names?

Similarly, telling someone they can hold the Shift key while loading a DRMed CD-ROM should not be a crime, because it does not jeopardize public safety in any way, nor does distributing a program which breaks some trivial encryption on DVDs. Maybe they could get you sued (though the grounds would be questionable), but no rational person without an agenda would say they're criminal. That's what the DMCA does: it criminalizes these acts.

Re:Fine: Define email

[sumdumass]

Well, When you separate free speech and protected speech, you have set the stage that not all speech is free or protected. And when you get to pick and choose which speech is free or not based on qualifying circumstances, you have to admit there are times free in the sence of speech is overridden.

Congress has the right

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

This is outlines in Article one section eight of the constitution. Some would think the DMCA is just this, congress securing a right to a discovery or writing. I know copy right and patents are typically the vehicle for this, and those trample on free speech right too.

So given the ability to squash free speech rights based on the idea behind the laws, something directly derived from the constitution should be able to do the same. What you have seen is that the DMCA is another one of those factors that limit speech as you put it. But as long as we are happy with limiting speech, then were is the problem?

Wait...

[dreddnott]

So they plan on taxing things that don't make anybody any money? Or are they only taxing commercial e-mail?

Re:Wait...

[NeoTerra]

Since SMS *could* be considered a form of email from a government standpoint, would they charge tax on that, too?

Well then...

[Organic Brain Damage]

we'll just tax the 1's and leave the 0's free?

If it's an out-bound tax, could it be used to make SPAM economically unrewarding?

Re:Well then...

[Billosaur]

If it's an out-bound tax, could it be used to make SPAM economically unrewarding?

Well, they could conceivably not pay the tax. Of course then they stand to get the Al Capone treatment from the Treasury Department and the IRS for tax evasion. I'll admit, it's the only real upside I could find to this idea.

Re:Well then...

[N3WBI3]

Cause most spammers are in the US?

Re:Well then...

[Adambomb]

THANK you heh.

The day legislators around the world wake up and realize that their jurisdiction over the internet is only valid for servers operated within their regions will be a good day indeed.

I think most do not even realize that such legislation will merely push many services and providors outside of their jurisdiction, so they lose even the business and income taxes that they COULD have been receiving if they hadnt been caught up in asshattery.

Re:Well then...

[sustik]

Like for regular mail, they would probably levy the tax when the email is first handled by a US based server. Or they will tax the recipient for email received. That sounds pretty bad, but not without precedent: the US bills similarly for cell phone use (the called party also pays).

I would not mind at all a 1c tax on outgoing email. Let the spammers pay, and let the IRS get rid of the spammers when they evade paying. As soon as money is involved in hunting down spammers (unpaid tax) spammer hunting could become quite lucrative. I am drooling just at the thought!

Re:Well then...

[iminplaya]

They will cooperate in true bi-partisan fashion and tax ALL regions and any traffic passing through the border. They will find a way, and you(editorial) will re-elect them because they bring home the bacon to somebody in your little town. Everybody just want to vote themselves a bigger piece of the government pie.

Re:Well then...

[Adambomb]

What are you talking about.
ALL regions are not under the jurisdiction of any government.

Are you referring to all regions of the united states? in that case, companies will simply pull their servers out of the united states. or insert your preferred country or limit of jurisdiction for the government you mean.

Theres a wide world out there sir.

Re:Well then...

[N3WBI3]

Like for regular mail, they would probably levy the tax when the email is first handled by a US based server

Which would require a major restructuring of the internet. Mail gets thrown all over the place and taxing someone just because they are the first server touched and not the source or destination will not fly.

Or they will tax the recipient for email received.

And exactly how will this be accomplish for something like gmail or hotmail? What about email hosting services that are off shore (e.g. for example the hanmail my inlaws used that is hosted in Korea) and are accessed via http?

US bills similarly for cell phone use (the called party also pays).

this is way different...

I would not mind at all a 1c tax on outgoing email.

Ahh but you yourself just said its more likely to bill *incoming* emails.

Let the spammers pay, and let the IRS get rid of the spammers when they evade paying.

The IRS has *zero* jurisdiction over spammers hosting in China. it will only hurt Individuates and Legit Business that need email.

Re:Well then...

[iminplaya]

Theres a wide world out there sir.

That's what international treaties are for. Something the states is pretty good in strong-arming other countries into. On this continent we have NAFTA. WTO and IMF both have a way of standardizing procedures and conventions. Great for business, horrible for everyone else. Actually it's a very small world. Barring the weather, all points are reachable in less than 24 hours. And these rules can be adequately enforced despite the weather. Nobody is safe, anywhere. The pirates who make the rules to protect the merchants who sell their stolen goods will get their pound of flesh.

Re:Well then...

[Adambomb]

Which is why there are no massive offshore spam server farms, piracy groups, or other such activities? Which of these rules are even POSSIBLE for them to enforce globally? Sure there may be a crackdown once the US speaks with certain governments, but how often has say...Russia cared to american copyright law? How about Ascension island? Rwanda? etc etc?

The US DOES have a lot of clout economically and internationally, but the internet is one realm where geographic location is one of the lesser important aspects EXCEPT for the legalities of that jurisdiction; No location, location, location. If american legislators and international negotiators try to enforce such taxation abroad, they'll find they've found yet another moneysink that CANNOT be plugged unless they simply give up.

Explain to me HOW they willl be able to impose such standardization when they cant even win out concerning things like Softwood Lumber from Canada, Steel from China, etc?

Speaking of China, can you imagine ANYONE forcing China to do anything? When was the last time you heard of China caving to US pressure economically?

Re:Well then...

[iminplaya]

Which is why there are no massive offshore spam server farms, piracy groups, or other such activities?

I believe those groups have some mighty big backers. The "piracy" groups, for example, are insuring market share for the ??AAs and big software companies where none would exist without it. And the producers are getting kickbacks from it as the authorities shake down the "pirates". The corruption goes all the way to the top. The pharmaceuticals derive some benefit from the spammers, there can be no doubt. To believe otherwise is to see not even half of the story. Rwanda? How long will your servers last before machete wielding Tutsis or Hutus come tear the place down? The hired help put into place to protect them will want control of it also, if they want to keep that protection. Russia and China will come around as soon as the states offer up some numbers in their favor. In fact, that whole copyright story is a non story. The content producers are looking for a bigger cut. The present situation nets them plenty already. Everybody is getting paid, maybe just a little more "indirectly" than you think, but money is changing hands, or, quite simply, allofmp3.com would not exist. Or they(Russia, China) will take over the planet and act in an identical manner. But the US must disparage them in public to maintain appearances that they are in some kind of competition, and protecting the interests of the public. Well, they aren't. The back door deals going on are insuring record profits for all those people behind the scenes. In fact, I believe all these publicly made complaints are pure show, as diversionary as American Idol.

The papers have good reason to make us believe it's all out of control. I don't believe it. Yes, the pirates* fight amongst themselves also, like challengers to the alpha male. But over all things are looking pretty good for them, and they are afraid of the internet, and are desperately trying to control it. They are the ones trying to make it a one way street where only those authorized by them are allowed to upload anything. Our only remaining hope will be community wireless mesh or cloud with mobile, untraceable servers, like scud missiles. But the papers are yelling the sky is falling so that we will give up even more to the authorities. The stories about lumber and steel are smokescreens so we don't get mad over the price fixing that is really being done. All this needless complexity of giving a different name to the word "skimming" is really unnecessary. All they need to do is skim a little deeper into the service provider's river of money, and the providers can adjust their prices accordingly. But the control factor is very important to keep anybody from peeking into the smoke filled rooms where the dirty deals are being made. Any attempt to clear the smoke will meet with strong resistance.

It is fruitless to discuss any disagreement amongst the major power players here, as there really isn't any. I believe everything is going rather smoothly, with the possible exception of the control issue(as long as we remain on the wire, that's not a real issue either), despite what the screaming ninnies are all yelling about in the mass media.

*the real ones, the ones who make the rules. The ones people vote for to make the system work. The small timers you hear about in the news are insignificant fleas. They are "off the books" distributors. They are one reason that this and this happen virtually every single year.

Re:Well then...

[sustik]

> Which would require a major restructuring of the internet. Mail gets thrown all over the place and taxing someone just because they are the first server touched and not the source or destination will not fly.

Yes to restructuring. Introducing taxation where tax has not been collected before is expected to have costs. Ever wondered how much of the tax paid is spent on administering the collection and administration efforts?

>>Or they will tax the recipient for email received.

>And exactly how will this be accomplish for something like gmail or hotmail? What about email hosting services that are off shore (e.g. for example the hanmail my inlaws used that is hosted in Korea) and are accessed via http?

Google and Microsoft would be paying. The customers only use http and only pay if http is taxed (a possiblity which was not mentioned). Say good bye to free webmail! The offshore solution works and would not be taxed by the US IRS. Note that the email in that case need not enter a US server (as an email) as you pointed out.

>>US bills similarly for cell phone use (the called party also pays).

>this is way different...

Both makes the same amount of sense to me. You just got used to the cell phone billing practice already.

>>I would not mind at all a 1c tax on outgoing email.

>Ahh but you yourself just said its more likely to bill *incoming* emails.

I did not ponder about the likelyhood of any implementation. (And watch out for the use of 'its'.) My original text: "Or they will tax the recipient for email received. That sounds pretty bad,..." was not intended to imply that that solution has higher probability when implementations are considered. I am sorry if I was mistaken, English is my second language.

>>Let the spammers pay, and let the IRS get rid of the spammers when they evade paying.

>The IRS has *zero* jurisdiction over spammers hosting in China. it will only hurt Individuates and Legit Business that need email.

The Chinese spammer would have hard time getting its spam accepted at a US server. I imagined an analogy with paper mail. If a Chineses letter has inadequate postage on it, I assume that it will not make it to a US address. It might not even be returned, but simply dumped. So if a Chinese email is not accompanied by proof of payment it would be just ignored.

By the way legit business send paper mail cheaper than the regular rate. I would assume that a similar system would evolve with email. The key word is legitimate, so that the company can be held accountable for the email it sent. That does not appear to be the case today.

Re:Well then...

[N3WBI3]

The offshore solution works and would not be taxed by the US IRS. Note that the email in that case need not enter a US server (as an email) as you pointed out.

So we set up this wonderful system to tax email and all you will see is companies open up gmail like entities in other nations. A pointless reduction of freedom and expansion of Government power for little gain.

The Chinese spammer would have hard time getting its spam accepted at a US server

You have to be kidding! These are the same people that regularly hack systems, set up spam bots on your desktop, and all other kinds of nonsense. Can you imagine some grandmother getting a tax bill for 5000$ because someone put a bot on her vista box? wow that would be fnu in an audit.

Re:Well then...

[Plutonite]

You see if the internet was a truck it would be easy to do this kind of thing. Tubes are another story.. they're so damn long and interconnected and you never know when the damn hackers cause leaks in them until it's too late. Where on earth is Ted Stevens when you need him? He should be explaining to these schmucks that the US government is not a plumbing service, and that there are too many tubes today to toll.

Re:Well then...

[nobaloney]

Can you imagine some grandmother getting a tax bill for 5000$ because someone put a bot on her vista box? wow that would be fnu in an audit.

Not much different than what the RIAA is doing to grandmothers now.

Well, why not just

[Bananatree3]

put a toll meter on one of the Tubes. Voila!

Re:Well, why not just

[Xtravar]

"I will use my EZ Pass so I don't have to stop when driving through the internets. Nurrr."

Re:Well, why not just

[AKAImBatman]

I will use my EZ Pass so I don't have to stop when driving through the internets

SLOW DOWN AHEAD! 35Kbps through the toll!

Re:Well, why not just

[guruevi]

Well, if it's in New York state, they would require actually two people sitting there manually charging you every time you pass each way instead of automating it.

Re:Well, why not just

[operagost]

As another example, on the New Jersey Turnpike there are toll booths where people are inexplicably employed to hand you tickets, instead of employing the ticket machines. This has happened on about 1/3 of my recent trips to NJ, so I'd say there's more to it than simply a malfunctioning ticket machine.

Re:Well, why not just

[Eagleartoo]

Well, if it's in New York state, they would require actually two people sitting there manually charging you every time you pass each way instead of automating it.

[sarcasm]Don't you just LOVE unions?![/sarcasm]

Re:Well, why not just

[guruevi]

That's exactly what I was talking about, the same is true for New York State, There are about 6 booths (both ways) where people hand you tickets and 2 Ez-Pass ones. The Ez-Pass is just about as expensive as manually paying for it, so I don't see the benefit of prepaying and then having some money left over if I don't use toll lanes anymore.

DAMNIT!

[C_Kode]

If they start taxing Email I will just start using Gmail!

Now take that you bastards!

Re:DAMNIT!

[Rob the Bold]

If they start taxing Email I will just start using Gmail!

One step at a time, dude. First switch to Fmail, then Gmail.

Re:DAMNIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

But this tax would make the Email already F'ed up, so we'd have to move directly to Gmail.

Re:DAMNIT!

[|/|/|||]

That makes no sense. After Fmail comes 10mail, right? What the hell is Gmail?

Re:DAMNIT!

[Aladrin]

Base 17 is a bitch, ain't it?

Democrats, right, of course

[hxnwix]

That makes sense because Mr. Enzi, the bill's sponser, who is listed at the very top of the bill as its sponser, is a Republican.

Yes. That's right. Republicans want big government in your computer and want big government's hand in your wallet.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[KermodeBear]

Unfortunately, this is turning out to be more and more true as time goes on. The Republican party is really losing touch with traditional conservatism: Small government, low taxes, state rights. That's why I'm leaning more towards the (weirdo-filled but well meaning) Libertarian party these days.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying Republicans like taxes more than Democrats? What is the weather like in your part of Timbuktu this part of the year?

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[DefenderThree]

Yes. That's right. Republicans want big government in your computer and want big government's hand in your wallet. Yes, but it seems a Republican brought our attention to this bill and the former Republican Majority Leader is complaining about it. Clearly a bolded generalization is in order here!

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Really losing?!? They lost it with Reagan...

Oh wait, make that Nixon...

Oh wait, make that somtime in the early 20th century... perhaps the last sane republican being Roosevelt?!?

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[KiltedKnight]

But President Theodore Roosevelt was one of those whose administrations saw one of the largest expansions of the federal government's power.

• Abraham Lincoln
• Theodore Roosevelt
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson

Those four are the earlier culprits. Of course, we can now add George W. Bush to that list. But it seems to be running reasonably close with regards to Republican vs Democrat.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[jkauzlar]

No. Democrats know how to work a budget and see the necessity of taxes, but they're not afraid of taxing large campaign contributors. Republicans know that a good deal of their constituents, (and the Republican representatives themselves) can barely fathom the idea of 'internet'. Democrats are much hipper to the technology of the past 30 years. Case in point, the overwhelming liberal bias on Slashdot.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[griffjon]

is really losing touch with traditional conservatism

s/is really losing/has lost/g

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

The overwhelming liberal bias on internet sites in general comes from the fact that conservatives are too busy being productive to do so much whining.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of IT pukes, many drop-outs from Engineering, are lefty slash-dot readers.
Engineering types are more conservative.
So the most techno-HIP are the convervative engineering types who create the technology
that the IT pukes take advantage of.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Sciros]

It's all BS. Enzi was the one who proposed the last extension of the moratorium on internet taxes. I'm not sure what exactly his agenda is this time, but I expect it's just to undermine the Dems a bit. If they ever even get around to voting on this bill, I bet he'll vote against it himself.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Guuge]

I noticed that too. Just how dumb do they think we are? Anyone who reads the first few lines of the bill knows that it comes from a Wyoming Republican.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[bryan1945]

Why blame Dems or Reps? They both want your money. They both are trying to take aware personal freedoms. I'm an independent, and have voted both ways, but as one poster below said, the Libertarians are looking better.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

What's so weird about believing that individuals have a natural human right (god-given if you prefer) to freedom? Or that voluntary association is a clearer, safer, more productive, and more just path than coercion?

These concepts aren't weird. They are self-evident. They are a simple product of human nature and our ability to reason. What's weird is how so many people are readily convinced otherwise by those in the business of government, when quite obviously the business of government is designed to benfit the power elite, and takes further steps in that direction year after year after year.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out Ron Paul. He's the only one who knows what he's talking about in this area, and I hope he makes it to presidency...

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Hokie06]

RFTA. Oh wait theis is slashdot There are two issues at hand. The bill sponsored by Enzi has to do with imposing sales tax on goods bought in other states. The other issue has to do with not extending the moratorium on taxing net access. (Which is what the headline is based on. I guess if you are paying net access tax, you could say you are paying a tax to send email) Much like the way your cable and phone bill is filled with other misc. taxes. So this seems more like both sides want to raise taxes, just in different ways.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Lockejaw]

s/liberal/libertarian/
And that's libertarian with a lower-case 'l'.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[iminplaya]

Doesn't matter. The democrats will roll over, just like they're doing on that really big issue that has nothing to do with email. There are no heroes. Least of all the democrats. Maybe Mr. Enzi is acting as somebody's proxy, or he's getting something else entirely out of it. Nothing is as it seems. Both sides want your money. It is foolish to believe otherwise.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[bahwi]

I'm 100% republican, that's why I vote democratic(except the few times where a sane republican pops his head up). Libertarians are too weird.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Colin Smith]

I think that's because US politics tends to be one dimensional. Left->right. Reality just isn't that simple, but the electoral system doesn't reflect this.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone in Wyoming (Mr Enzi's state) even know what email is?

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[iminplaya]

I liked Ike. When grading these people on a curve, he was okay.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

A greater truth I have never read on this site.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[triffid_98]

Precisely. Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is just deciding which of your unalienable rights you'd like to lose between now and the next election. Gotta love that two party system.

Why blame Dems or Reps? They both want your money. They both are trying to take aware personal freedoms. I'm an independent, and have voted both ways

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

yeah but George Bush the Ruler, gave us all a $300 tax break!

It's all a magic trick folks. Look over here, while i do something over there.

The Republicans are criminals, the Democrats are criminals. FUCKING VOTE INDEPENDENTLY FROM NOW ON AMERICA. GET WITH IT ALREADY.

Re:Democrats, right, of course

[Brandybuck]

You are right of course, but fails to note that Democrats are every bit as bad. The 00s finally saw the Republican Party divest itself of the last vestiges of small government rhetoric. But the Democrats never even had that.

What's the difference between the Republicans and Democrats in 2007? Is there any? The Dems currently want to get out of Iraq, but where the fsck where they when we went in? They have no moral opposition to military interventionism, just as the Republicans have demonstrated they have no moral opposition to fiscal irresponsibility.

"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[TheWoozle]

nor is it a set group of people, places, etc.

Just how do they expect to enforce their levy of taxes?

Trying to tax the internet is somewhat like trying to tax other forms of communication. The best they'll be able to do is tax the businesses that provide a service to connect to the internet (telcos and ISPs).

That reminds me of something... wasn't the Stamp Act one of those "taxation without representation" things that pissed off the revolutionaries in the 13 colonies? Hmmm...

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[SpiritGod21]

You are only not represented if you did not vote. If you did not vote, you have no right to complain.

If the person you voted for is doing things you don't want them to, do something about it.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[TheWoozle]

1. Why do you assume I'm from the US? (I am in the US, but that's a coincidence...lots of other people aren't)
2. I was thinking of all the millions of people on the internet who *aren't* citizens of the US... even though they aren't taxed directly, this would effectively be a burden on their communication with people in the US.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[MollyB]

[...]Just how do they expect to enforce their levy of taxes?

Trying to tax the internet is somewhat like trying to tax other forms of communication. The best they'll be able to do is tax the businesses that provide a service to connect to the internet (telcos and ISPs).[...] I would suppose they'll strong-arm those US telcos they can reach by leaning on the states in which they are based by withholding highway funds (a time-tested form of federal coercion). I don't see how they'd deal with non-US providers.

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to pay a cent or two for sending email if it meant the death of spam, UCE, or chain-letters!

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[TriezGamer]

What if the person I voted for did not win the election?

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[SpiritGod21]

Write letters, join or form activist groups, make your voice heard, and if all else fails, run for office.

I refuse to accept that all is hopeless just because the person I vote for loses. Not saying you're advocating that stance, but a lot of people do.

And if you're not from the US and this would cause a burden for you, then write to either your ambassador(s) or your own government so they can lobby the US and point out how this will hurt international business. If you think other countries don't lobby the American congress any less than American corporations, you are incorrect.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[paleo2002]

In a perfect world, I'd be happy to pay a cent or two for sending email if it meant the death of spam, UCE, or chain-letters!

Unfortunately, it won't. Postage doesn't keep credit card companies, sweepstakes, and other junk mailers from sending you stuff. In fact, the USPS makes it easier/cheaper for them with the bulk mail rate. If the govt tries to enact a digital stamp, you can be sure there'll be a big discount for corporate e-mailers.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[lisaparratt]

Why does voting give you the right to complain?

You chose which flavour lube - don't start complaining when you get fucked.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[SpiritGod21]

If I vote for someone based on their position and they do not abide by that position (because they lied or got bribed or whatever the case may be), I feel that I have the right to hold them accountable to that.

If I vote for someone other than the person who wins, I still retain my right to voice my opinion and speak out against their policies.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[bkr1_2k]

"You are only not represented if you did not vote"
Or you live in Washington DC. But that's no big deal...

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[HoosierPeschke]

I agree, I tend not to vote, which is my way of voting for neither candidate. Although I do believe I'll start writing myself (or Cowboy Neal) in as a candidate.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[lisaparratt]

You believe a single word a politician says? That strikes me as somewhat naieve.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[MollyB]

You're probably right, but in your reply a (dim?) bulb went off between my ears: If it were possible to identify email by class, UCE would stand out as the email equivalent of "bulk rate" (stuff that you don't even open via USPS). A digital stamp should be no less indicative of class than snail-mail bulk mailings.
However, I just realized this would start a whole cottage industry in defeating such a plan, so maybe my cure is worse than the disease... 8)

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[Cajun Hell]

What if the person I voted for did not win the election?

Then vote against power, and convince others to do the same. If the feds stuck to implementing the powers in the constitution, there wouldn't be half a country of "losers" after every election. Make it stop mattering; the parties running for federal offices should be squabbling about nearly insignificant details that no one cares about.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are only not represented if you did not vote. If you did not vote, you have no right to complain."

I totally agree. I tired of kids under 18 complaining all the time. Please go explain this to them.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[mr_matticus]

What are you talking about? Not only does D.C. have a representative (albeit non-voting), but the ENTIRE CONGRESS is responsible to the District of Columbia. They're the most represented of anyone.

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[bkr1_2k]

Yeah, that whole "non-voting" thing... let's just ignore that shall we?

How exactly does that qualify as "most represented" of anyone? The entire congress is no more responsible to DC than I am. Sure they're sort of required to abide by DC laws (except of course gun laws and several driving/parking restrictions) and they work in DC, but how are they responsible to DC in any other way?

Re:"The Internet" is not a tangible thing

[mr_matticus]

The United States Congress has complete authority over the District. Every single member of both Houses is accessible to its residents as a result and any of the 535 voting members can conduct constituent relations (i.e. the biggest job of an elected representative, and that which occupies the most time). Congress MAKES the DC laws, and the House is DC's biggest source of revenue.

Their representative doesn't get to vote because they're not a state and have no sovereign powers. That certainly does not mean that their representative has no power. 99% of votes are predetermined due to behind-the-scenes dealmaking, and the D.C. representative is far from powerless in those operations. S/he builds relationships and can be a single go-to guy for getting a whole block of votes.

Well...

[boilerbrown]

maybe this would be an opportunity to take out some spammers a la Al Capone. Hit em with some tax fraud for all the wonderful pharmaceutical, mortgage, personal advices, etc. that everyone seems to need so desperately.

The problem...

[RealBothersome]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

Re:The problem...

[Dunbal]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

      No, the problem is only idiots run for election.

Re:The problem...

[allscan]

You're both wrong. The problem is the majority of Americans just don't give a damn anymore. Look at the percentage of citizens in Iraq that went to vote and then the percentage of Americans that vote. Remember the Iraqis were threatened with death if they showed at polling locations.

I saw/read something where a commentator mentioned that Americans have 24 hour amnesia, meaning they wake up in the morning and remember jack about the last day. Learn some of America's history and for God's sake vote (or don't bitch as was mentioned in a previous reply).

Re:The problem...

[orclevegam]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

In order for that to happen we need to get a non-idiot to run first, and for him (or her) to have enough backing to have a reasonable chance of winning.

I voted for Bush in the last election not because I like him (I think he's a total moron) but because he was better than the other candidates, which says a lot about our politicians.

Re:The problem...

[div_2n]

No, the problem is only idiots run for election.

Actually I think it boils down to many wealthy backers tend to finance leaders that align with their philosophy or ones that they can easily influence. In the most recent elections, it just so happens that it was an idiot. His next in command conveniently aligns with their philosophies. They got the best of both worlds.

Re:The problem...

[mgabrys_sf]

Well I don't know anyone SMART who would run for office. Except Nader perhaps - and you saw how far that got him.

Re:The problem...

[amRadioHed]

I voted for Bush in the last election not because I like him but because he was better than the other candidates What country are you in? For a second I though you were talking about American elections, but that can't be since it was painfully obvious by any thoughtful person that George W. Bush was just going to stay the course with war, reckless spending, cronyism, and unconstitutional abuse of power if reelected.

Re:The problem...

[AnalogDiehard]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

No, the problem is only idiots run for election.

No, the problem is that there are too many idiots at the election booths.

Re:The problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it's not like the root of the problem lies in the very notion of power itself -- this special "right" to employ coercion as a business model which defines government and creates all the incentive in the world for self-interest to dominate the business of government.

Nope, the existence of vast amounts of power -- multiplying year after year and just waiting to be claimed by our honorable leaders -- couldn't possibly be the root of corruption and injustice in government. Don't believe me? Just ask your representative.

Re:The problem...

[orclevegam]

but that can't be since it was painfully obvious by any thoughtful person that George W. Bush was just going to stay the course with war, reckless spending, cronyism, and unconstitutional abuse of power if reelected.

Yes, and the other candidates if elected would make a total mess of pulling out of the war, have reckless spending, cronyism, and pass as much pork barrel socialist law as possible while trying to raise taxes. It's a choice between morons and morons, and I figured better the evil we know. At least you know exactly what kind of boneheaded things Bush is going to do, and for the most part he hasn't wasted time passing bills that will have a long term effect. The worst of his offense will be repealed in short order, and almost all of his power comes from the "state of war" that he managed to invoke. Once he's out of office it mostly goes away. If he hadn't made it, who knows what other stupid laws would already be on the books (like internet taxes). I'm just hoping that we get at least one decent candidate this time. Plus, look at it this way, we never have to worry about Dubya being president ever again.

Re:The problem...

[Paulrothrock]

The desire to hold public office should disqualify one from holding public office. (With apologies to DNA)

Re:The problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots

They're not idiots. They're corrupt. They've been bought by Big Corpotations who "donate" to both candidates in any given race. It doesn't matter whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting for the (mostly foreign owned; German Crysler, Japanese Sony, British BP, Dutch Shell, etc) corporate interests.

Witness the fact that democrats as well as republicans voted overwhelmingly for the DMCA, the Bono Act, and bankrupcy "reform" (a huge gift to the credit card companies. Most bankrupcies are a result of two things: divorce, as in my case, or medical bills, which contributed to my need to declare).

No, the idiots aren't the politicians but the American People themselves, who keep voting Democrat and Republican while ignoring the Greens and Libertarians.

-mcgrew

Re:The problem...

[mikee805]

Giant douche or a Turd sandwich

Re:The problem...

[TechnicolourSquirrel]

Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

No, the problem is only idiots run for election.

I would only buy that if in every choice of two, the people always choose the lesser idiot. But this is almost never the case. They almost always choose the bigger idiot. Therefore, as long as big idiots decide to run, it doesn't matter who else runs: the people will still fuck themselves.

Re:The problem...

[the eric conspiracy]

No, the problem is that most people have jobs that pay well enough to pay rent, buy beer and have a car. Given that it's obvious politics is a boring waste of time and I'd rather have another beer.

Re:The problem...

[QCompson]

Look at the percentage of citizens in Iraq that went to vote and then the percentage of Americans that vote. Remember the Iraqis were threatened with death if they showed at polling locations.

Another factor, however, is that Iraqis didn't have nearly as many restrictions on voting as Americans. The U.S. let anyone who appeared slightly human to vote in the Iraqi elections, because it was in their best interest to have a high voter turnout. Inside the U.S., there are many restrictive conditions placed on voter registration, which due to confusion about timing and residency requirements, keeps many Americans away from the voting booths. Many states also do not allow felons to vote, which is a significant portion of the population (and growing).

This still doesn't explain America's pitiful voter turnout, but it is certainly something to consider when comparing the "purple-finger" Iraqi elections to a U.S. election.

Also, the Iraqis may have been threatened with death if they showed up at polling booths, but the U.S. army also had a complete lockdown in specified areas during election time. It was likely much safer to go out during the election than on most other days.

Re:The problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the majority of Americans just don't give a damn anymore.

I'm 32 years old. Every year since I was born, government has expanded in both revenue and power over the people. Every year I am subject to more laws than the year before. Every year I am less free than the year before. Every year they spend more money than the year before, and every year they gain more power over the people. It doesn't matter who gets elected or what party they subscribe to. History shows that government will expand in power and revenue, year after year, regardless of the political situation. Every year that it happens, the probability of a repeat performance the next year gets closer to 100%.

Now you tell me: why should I give a damn? Every single bit of evidence I can find tells me that I'm screwed either way, and the only solution is to pack up and get the hell out of the country while I still can.

Re:The problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what are you waiting for? Run, already. Put your time and effort where your mouth (well, keyboard) is.

Re:The problem...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

actually these people are far from idiots. (George W. Bush aside). They are masterminds of bullshit, who know that they can get a nice bundle of cash if they play it right.

They dont care about any of us. They pass laws on a regular basis when the old laws on the book are fine enough and still well apply. However if they dont continuously pass laws, they look like they're doing nothing. This is a big problem.

I'm an artist, and often a fine peice of art is about refining it until it looks right. However if you refine and refine and go way beyond the last point you thought it all looked how you wanted... you cant ever get it back, without starting over.

Re:The problem...

[DarthSmeg]

It would appear to bee too many idiots all around.

Which makes sense. Imagine your average Joe Schmoe. Not too bright is he?
Now just think: Being average, that means half the population are even less bright than he is.

Wonderful, uplifting thoughts for the day. You're welcome.

Re:The problem...

[emilv]

Are you kidding me? Why can't criminals vote? And why are there _any_ sort of restrictions? Aren't everyone humans and part of the country, after all?

I'm from Sweden, where we get a letter a month before the election day with all the information we may need to get our vote counted. We don't have to register at all. If we can't vote on the election day we may even go to a nearby library, post office or embassy and vote there. They start the elections a few weeks before election day.

Every vote is important.

Re:The problem...

[allscan]

Why don't you run for office yourself? Or, revolt against the government. You'll find it is legal (a right in fact), you just can't go shooting up the place.

Re:The problem...

[Damvan]

I actually think that those restrictions are designed to keep the voter turnout low. Why isn't Election Day a National Holiday? Would one additional National Holiday every two years hurt our economy? Why do we have to register? Why do we have to go to a specific polling place?

The election last November, at my polling place, had at least 50 people waiting in line at closing time due to the fact that there was only one working voting machine (Diebold with paper ballots also printed). Why were the other eight machines not working? They ran out of paper. The poll workers told us that if that machine runs out, no more votes will be taken because they were given no alternate voting method other than the machines. Luckily, I managed to vote, but the machine shut down 3 people later, leaving at least 30 people out. They didn't have the option of going to another polling place, they couldn't vote another way, so they were screwed.

I believe that our voting system is restrictive and convoluted intentionally to keep voter turnout low.

Re:The problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I voted for Bush in the last election not because I like him but because he was better than the other candidates"

That statement is the problem more than anything...

New protocol could kill spam

[Lt.Hawkins]

If one protocol is taxed, we can push another protocol to take over. Imagine, if email is taxed, having the entire industry shift to a better system that is not regulated, and having the opportunity to design much-needed controls and authentication in to eliminate spam.

Re:New protocol could kill spam

[Yvan256]

To really have a tax kill email so we could switch to something better would require a world-wide tax from all governments. Not gonna happen.

Simple, a sales tax

[simong]

Here in Europe we pay VAT on our ISP charges, but I'm sure our forthcoming Great Leader will have his glass eye on trying to find another way to extract coins from the tubes.

Re:Simple, a sales tax

[griffjon]

I think you've hit the nail on the head - no one's going to try to tax FTP uploads, bittorrent, email, or any other protocol - that'd be (a) stupid (b) pointless and (c) just cause a jump to a new protocol[1]. Adding a fee to ISP charges is easy, though possibly double taxation (aren't we already paying taxes on phone lines and cables?)

[1] OK, fine, maybe if we did charge tax on email someone'd finally replace it?

When a spammer spoofs my e-mail address

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Do I get hit with a $70,000 tax bill?

What happens when I'm in a coffee shop using an anonymous mailer?

Do I have to attach my credit card number to each e-mail and, as a corrallary, can I not send e-mail 10 days later when all credit cards are canceled until further notice?

Tax the spammers

[Nick Driver]

I'm all for it if they want to only tax spam.

Re:Tax the spammers

[Dunbal]

I'm all for it if they want to only tax spam.

      I can't wait for you to find out that your computer is infected with a bot, when you get a $450,000 tax bill...

Re:Tax the spammers

[sl3xd]

I can't wait for you to find out that your computer is infected with a bot, when you get a $450,000 tax bill...

Why do you think a bot would mean you've got a tax bill?

What it means is that the company who profited by your computer's infection is committing tax fraud/evasion. The IRS will then mercilessly hunt down the company who infected your PC, and the company paying for the "advertising service," and instead of getting a slap on the wrist, involved parties get a nice cell in a Federal prison.

Preferably the one in Cuba.

But in all seriousness, historically, one of the most effective ways of bringing something that is "out of control" -- like spam is now, into balance is to tax and regulate it. It's not an ideal solution, but it has been effective in the past.

Re:Tax the spammers

[hotdiggitydawg]

Hell I'd happily pay a trivial amount per email as long as the policy was applied to all. With the right tax rate you won't even notice it for daily use, but a spammer sending millions of emails faces either a huge bill or being hunted down by the IRS for tax evasion. And remember, these are the guys who brought down Al Capone...

Bring it on!

Pass new laws that fuck over honest people

[brxndxn]

Spammers won't give a shit or report their activities. So, they won't be the ones paying the tax - even though they do the majority of emailing.

However, legitimite businesses and users would be more likely to attempt to pay this tax - which would mean keeping track of outgoing emails.. to how many people.. resends.. attachments.. sizes?

Come on Congress! Get a fucking grasp of the ideas you're trying to make into law before you even talk about acting on them. Congress seems to be full of a bunch of morons making snap decisions based on ideas they cannot begin to comprehend.

The only thing Congress should even talk about taxing is Internet-based sales.. Taxing data that essentially costs ZERO should be taxed at a flat rate, to be fair, which would mean ZERO tax income. They could even set the rate at 500% for all I care.

Re:Pass new laws that fuck over honest people

[PFI_Optix]

"Congress" isn't considering taxing e-mail that we've ever heard. One Republican is getting all hyperbolic and trying to grab headlines (quite successfully) by exaggerating the issue the way politicians are prone to doing.

Of course, this immediately prompts a swarm of "lying Republicans" posts...but hey, this is the internet. All Republicans lie here. Apparently Democrats don't.

Me, I prefer to rant about lying politicians :)

Re:Pass new laws that fuck over honest people

[mpapet]

You must be new to the U.S.

I'm all for outrage, but what have you done to be sure your Federal/State/Local representatives are representing honest people?

One doesnt justify the other

[falcon5768]

The republicans are throwing up smoke. Right now ALL retailers and people are required to pay sales tax on out of state items (depending on your state), most do not though because of varying loopholes and other features which benefit the businesses but lower sales tax revenue. What seems to be going through is a streamlining of the tax laws to take out all of those loopholes that businesses where using.

There is no mention or even hint that this is going to be used on email. The republicans are only saying that because it DOES effect their big backers, big business, with a vested interest in making money. This is going to effect a number of people like Amazon, but for others like Apple, who already DO charge and pay state sales tax, this is going to mean nothing.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[LWATCDR]

"Right now ALL retailers and people are required to pay sales tax on out of state items (depending on your state)"
Ummm... Huh?

States are forbidden from taxing interstate commerce. In some states if you buy something from out of state you the customer are supposed to pay the tax.

How can ALL the Retailers be required to pays sales tax on out of state items (depending on your state)?
1. I don't think you know what the world ALL means.
2. It isn't true. You must pay sales tax if you have a presence in that state. If you have a store, sales rep, office, or warehouse.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[aaronl]

Actually, States are *not* forbidden from taxing interstate commerce. They just have to treat goods from another state the same as good from their own. If they want to prevent buying wine over the Internet and having it shipped over the border, then they have to stop all wine shipments from Internet purchases. If they want a tax on goods from another state, they have to tax their own goods, as well.

What is being said is that if you live in a state with sales tax, and you buy from anothe state, you are obliged to report that to the state and pay the tax as if you bought it locally. As a vendor, you may be required to collect the sales tax directly if you have a presence in a state with sales tax, and someone in that state purchases from you.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[jfengel]

I gather (IANAL) that most states require you to pay taxes on stuff that is shipped into the state for you. (I believe it's called the use tax. They just can't force the retailer in another state to collect it under the current rules. You're supposed to report it on your taxes and pay it.

Honestly, I wouldn't know how to go about paying it in my state. Theoretically I'm on the hook for 5% of everything I've ever had shipped to my house.

This is all about trying to collect a tax that (theoretically) you owe them under the law already. Whether that tax is "fair"... there's no such thing as a fair tax so I'm not going to take a stand on that one way or another.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[korbin_dallas]

Nope. Get a copy of the Alabama State Income Tax forms.

On one of the pages is a box for "Taxes due from out of state purchases where sales tax was not levied." Essentially, the instructions said it was for Internet Purchases where sales tax was not levied. It says nothing of brick, sales rep or other presences. It specifically says for "internet purchases such as books, computers, or computer equipment."

Screw em, if they start taxing it, I'll just disconnect it.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[falcon5768]

Anything purchased out of state and brought into a state that taxes said item, is required by you the purchaser to submit the tax FOR said item. Thus if I buy something from amazon (say a DVD) I am required to report it to NJ and pay the state sales tax.

All this law does it have Amazon do it for you, so your getting properly taxed for it. Right now they cant, and thus most people dont report it since the state has no way of tracking that you bought something from out of state, this law changes it. If your state has no sales tax, you dont pay a thing. Most states you will though.

And as I pointed out before, it has NOTHING to do with email. Thus the republican smokescreen saying its the Democrats pushing it on a law CREATED by a republican.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[LWATCDR]

But they can not force a vendor in another state to collect the tax.

Re:One doesnt justify the other

[wytcld]

The pertinent Supreme Court ruling held that under current law states may not enforce sales tax charges on out-of-state merchants. However the Court in that ruling explicitly stated that Congress is free to enact different law.

Many states - roughly half of them - have unified their sales tax rules to make it easier for Congress to do just that without creating so much of a mess about calculating how much tax is due on what in which jurisdiction.

Now if you're Congress, do you let states raise this tax finally, or do you raise federal taxes to pay for the currently unfunded mandates that the feds have imposed on the states? Which would you get less blame for?

data is data

[Maxo-Texas]

if you tax email, folks will IM.
if you tax IM, folks will do something else.

Are you going to tax each sentence I type into an online game?
Each thing I type in an online meeting?

You could tax on total bytes transmitted but to try to tax based on the type of transmission is just asking for trouble and probably impossible given how malleable data is.

I do pay for email....

[methodic]

It's called my DSL bill, which also includes all the incurred taxes, so please leave me alone with this. kthx.

Re:I do pay for email....

[SydShamino]

In my state at least (Texas), there is no charge on internet service. There is tax on my phone bill, yes, due to the other components, but the internet service portion is not taxed.

Now, Texas does have a tax on internet gaming, passed before the tax moratorium. Thus I am charged tax on my World of Warcraft and (before that) EverQuest accounts set up with a credit card while I lived in Texas. Our first EQ account, set up while we still lived in Tennessee, never was charged the tax.

Email via IM

[tb()ne]

It would be interesting to see the ways that people would circumvent an email tax. I can see email riding over IM connections with the localhost email client using the IM client as a mail server on P2P email system. Worst case would be a per-byte tax on internet connections. That one would be hard to beat.

Re:Email via IM

[Paulrothrock]

We could call it MUSE: Mail in Userspace. It would allow people to send email over any system that sends data.

Public Outrage

[Vexor]

One can only hope a tax on "information" will die in flames.

Wow... that's cheap tax

[trogdor8667]

If most people only have 20% in landline tax, I'm getting screwed somewhere. My service is $12 a month, and I pay $10 a month in taxes, which means I'm paying about 80% in tax rates. I can't imagine my Comcast bill going up to have even 20% of taxes too... I wouldn't be able to afford it for sure. It would take us from $42.95 a month to $52 a month...

Re:Wow... that's cheap tax

[Dynedain]

That's because of your $10 in "taxes", only a couple bucks are actually tax. The others are fees imposed by your carrier to cover their costs of complying with various regulations. Like the "number switching fee" charged by cellphone carriers, it's not actually a tax, it's an arbitrary charge by your carrier to cover the cost of something they have to provide, while avoiding raising your base service charge.

Interested way to remain in power

[mulhollandj]

Look at campaigns like Ron Paul which are seriously questioning those in power. These efforts are growing rather quickly. The Internet allows a much cheaper platform for these people to compete. Is this an effort to keep certain types of people in power?

Re:Interested way to remain in power

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! I love Ru Paul!!!

In general, yes

[SuperKendall]

Although this particular bills sponsor is Republican, if you follow the other story links the general thinking is that by one means or another a house and congress with a larger democratic population is more likley to rescind the tax break.

Yes there are also Republicans that support this, but in aggregate in previous years the Republican members have been more inclined to keep the tax break. We'll know if the speculation about the Democrats wanting to break it actually is true or not if it survives another year...

Dump Trucks

[Octopus]

If Al Gore had invented the Internets as a bunch of dump trucks, it would be much easier to implement a tollbooth system. With all the maintenance it takes to clear up the tube system, it makes the true cost more abstract and difficult to quantify.

However, look at it this way - it will help create more government Internets jobs. Emails have to be cleaned because video packets leave color smudges on the envelopes; so many germs are passed on online money transactions and those UV cleaners have to be maintained; phishing sites are constantly scanned by Fish and Wildlife; and pr0n doesn't create itself.

This could be a good thing in the long run.

Looks like standard political plays

[tlhIngan]

All the articles state is that it's more likely to happen that the tax moratorium may end under the Democratic controlled house and senate, than if the government was composed of more Republican members.

Looks like it's just a cheap call to try to get some votes and cheap political points in. After all, the next round of elections will probably be heavily Internet based, and they're only a year away. What better way to rally people who haven't decided yet by saying their precious Internet is not going to be the tax-free haven it once was? (Especially given how the current Republican in power is potentially making life difficult for Republicans in swing states. Might as well try to score some cheap political points amongst bloggers and stuff when they post "OH NOES, INTERNET TAXES!!!!" when it's just a bill being discussed, and chances are better that the moratorium may end under a Democrat-controlled senate. They never actually said what chances are, after all. If it was likely to end with a 1% chance under Republicans and 1.5% under Democrats, well, chances are better (but no way it'll pass)...

You may now resume your "OH NOES, INTERNET TAXES ARE HERE!!!!" posts. ;-)

Anybody else want this to pass?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the United States is stuck in it's own little system while the rest of the world passes it by. I forsee a day when it will be a better choice economically for a country to just ignore the US than bow to it's petty demands. It's almost as if the politicians know we are fucked and are in some desperate cash grab before they burn this country to its core.

Sorry...

[dreddnott]

That would only be one step at a time if you were starting with Ebmail or switching to F#mail, then G#mail.

At least G#mail is pretty upscale compared to Email.

Re:Sorry...

[TriezGamer]

I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. As a music major, if I had mod points, I'd take you right up to +5 Funny

Re:Sorry...

[operagost]

Forget it! I went from Amail to C#mail to Email already... it was a Major upgrade!

Re:Sorry...

[blake3737]

I'd rather not have sharp mail, I'm afraid of getting cut.

Re:Sorry...

[Sax Maniac]

True, but it's much more difficult to use. Gmail only has one sharp, but G#mail 6 sharps and one double-sharp! Ouch! Abmail would a lot easier and it would look exactly the same.

Re:Sorry...

[MadMidnightBomber]

I use GBDMail, and I find it strikes a chord with a lot of my friends too.

Re:Sorry...

[interiot]

Upgrading from Email to Gmail resulted in Minor issues that made me sad.

Re:Sorry...

[StikyPad]

I prefer G flat to F sharp.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone please explain to me, what is there to tax on the Internet, that's so special? I am not from the U.S., but I guess it's similar there. When I buy a connection to the internet - a service - I pay VAT. When I buy something from an e-shop online, I pay the price including VAT. And when I buy/sell something from/to someone whom I've found online, I don't pay any additional tax, but this is the same as if I would buy/sell something from/to someone whom I met at a party (for example). So what's there so different that an additional tax should be created?

Re:I don't get it

[LurkerXXX]

Some states have a sales tax, others don't have a sales tax but rely entirely on other means of income such as property taxes, etc.

Since it varies state-to-state if you have any sales tax, sometimes the seller will just not charge the tax, leaving the buyer to deal with the hassle/paperwork of paying the tax. Lots of buyers simply don't pay any when they are supposed to.

On my annual state tax form (we have sales tax here) there is a special box for you to put in the $ amount you spent on internet purchases that you haven't yet paid taxes on (and a corresponding box to calculate what you now owe in taxes based on that amount).

Re:I don't get it

[Professor_UNIX]

On my annual state tax form (we have sales tax here) there is a special box for you to put in the $ amount you spent on internet purchases that you haven't yet paid taxes on (and a corresponding box to calculate what you now owe in taxes based on that amount).

And it's probably called a "Use Tax" on that form and not a "Sales Tax" since taxing interstate commerce is illegal. It applies to brick and mortar transactions in most places too. If I go from my home county where the tax is 7.5% and buy something in the neighboring county where the tax is 6%, the state expects me to pay the 1.5% difference in Use Tax. That's complete bullshit and conveniently enough, I've never bought anything outside my home county. ;-)

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, thank you both for the explanation. Compared to the U.S., our tax system seems a piece of cake :-) And most of the time it works even cross-borders, without being taxed twice. So I guess we in Europe have had the "e-mail tax" for a long time now, and no one complains. It's just the common VAT (value-added tax) for anything I buy (including internet connection).

Re:Stupid Democrats

[Dunbal]

yet you keep voting for them... WHEN will America realize that you should start taking a long hard look at some of your OTHER parties and independents?

Data compression

[ohearn]

Thats ok if they start taxing the internet based on bytes sent (or even packets sent) it will just push people to use more data compression more and free up some bandwidth.

Re:Data compression

[Control Group]

more data compression more

That phrase, for example, could have been losslessly compressed with a trivial algorithm by almost twenty percent!

Problem? What problem?

[dreddnott]

It looks to me more like the plan that these guys are carrying out is working like a charm!

It almost makes me ashamed that I didn't vote for any of those clownboats.

Re:Problem? What problem?

[bkr1_2k]

The problem with their tactic is my question. Who gets to decide who will be abysmally bad. There are still people who think Bush is doing a good job despite all the crap that has happened. There are people who think Ross Perot would have been an excellent President, and others who thank whatever god they pray to that he wasn't elected. The reason we have the problem we have now is exactly the reason their plan won't work. People just don't agree on things. There's simply too much complexity in the reasons people vote for the candidates they vote for to assume their little pet project will have any effect at all other than wasting a lot of votes.

My take on it is that's what they're hoping for. The people asking you to deliberately vote for the bad candidates have someone they think is good and they want you to take your vote away from his/her candidate. It's a technique (divide and conquer) that has been used to win wars throughout history.

Spam bots

[Anonymous Coward]

Well one good thing will be that the real owners of Spam Bots will find out that they have been 0wned ... when they get the invoice for all the spam they unknowingly sent.

RTFA

[SpiritGod21]

I just skimmed the bill linked in the summary... is it just me, or does this 1) not appear to apply to email whatsoever (it's not mentioned anywhere in the bill, though VOIP is) and 2) only applies to business doing $5 million USD or more in business a year.

Re:RTFA

[Styros]

I just skimmed the bill linked in the summary... is it just me, or does this 1) not appear to apply to email whatsoever (it's not mentioned anywhere in the bill, though VOIP is) and 2) only applies to business doing $5 million USD or more in business a year.

No, no, no. This is slashdot. You're not suppose to point out the facts! You're suppose to fuel our rampant speculation and knee-jerking.

This is what you're suppose to say:

I knew it!! This is a secret SCO conspiracy, backed by Microsoft, to FUD Linux in a desperate attempt to kill net neutrality. Damn you, RIAA! Damn you!!!

See?

Re:RTFA

[slew]

Although it's a lot of fear-mongering so far, if the moratorium is lifted, it would not be against federal rules to let a state or a municipality start taxing the intra-state email (although I fail to see how it would be possible to collect/enforce fairly).

States and municipalities are pretty darn'd good at dreaming up taxes right now and I wouldn't put it beyond some of them to tax corporation an assessment based on how many employees there are or tax broadband providers based on how many customers they had (although in the latter case, I'm sure they'd let them pass the surcharge to the subscriber). If you look at your telephone bill or cable bill, you'll see what I mean. I doubt there would ever be a per-email tax (for instance, how could you really tell web-mail from e-mail an define it properly w/o a loophole), but you could certainly get socked with a per megabyte of bandwidth consumption tax.

For instance, oregon, faced with the possiblity that better fuel economy would make increasing per-gallon tax on gasoline unfairly regressive to folks that must drive older cars that get worse gas, is looking into a GPS-based road tax...

Most of this urge to tax telecom is coming because of fear. Traditionally, local governments were able to shake down the telephone and cable companies for money by offering monopolies in exchange for access to the public right-of-way (e.g., to dig phone trenches and stretch coaxial cable), and a host of free or discount use of services (e.g., anyone remember public access cable, that's what we used before YouTube). With the telecom revolution bringing in many new players that don't have to bow before the local commissioners, local governments realize that the "monopolies" they were granting aren't really that valuable anymore and going forward it'll be hard to continue to shake-down these big companies and that the price of revenue enforcment will go up (can't just rely on the monopoly cable or telephone company to write them a check every month for the tax collection). As the cost of revenue enforcement goes up, so does the tax rate to compensate. Since they can't go that regressive on the taxes, they need to find new revenue streams (it's easier politically to tax the "rich" than the "middle-class" and the "poor"). That's were we are right now.

Here's some more info on the subject...

Simple solution...

[RingDev]

FTA: If that doesn't happen, other taxes may zoom upward instead, warned Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?" Enzi said. "I want to avoid that."

Well here's a simple idea... SPEND LESS MONEY!

Wow, imagine that, if you don't waste as much money, you wont have to tax the public more. Whodathunkit?

-Rick

Re:Simple solution...

[HoosierPeschke]

That would be nice but there are no incentives in spending less money. Government typically allocates funds to different pots of money. If your pot still has money at the end of the quarter, it gets taken away and you get less for the next quarter. If you get less the next quarter, you no longer have a cushion to fall back on in case of unexpected expenditures. If you need to exceed the amount in your pot, layers of bureaucracy and unwanted negative attention hinder the process to get the much need extra money. Basically, it's easier to waste all of the money than to be thrifty.

The only thing they can put a tax on

[suv4x4]

Is raw traffic, starting at the ISP. I.e. for example charge you 5 cents per GB, or something like that.

Unfortunately this means you miss on opportunities to charge low-traffic and high-value messages, like email. Or chat, but that's life.

If they tried to tax email, people would just ignore it.

Familiar

[Sciros]

It's similar to what the Dems pulled with the "bringing back the draft" BS they tried to claim Republicans were planning during the 2004 election (Dems were the ones who proposed twin bills for it, but then voted against it cause it was just a campaign tool to get college students to pledge votes for Kerry).

Now Republicans seem to be doing the same thing. Propose a BS bill, then claim "it's the Democrats' fault!"

I F-ING HATE POLITICS

Re:Familiar

[GodfatherofSoul]

Except, there WERE reports that the military and administration was asking questions regarding firing up the draft. The proposed bill was like a non-binding resolution, forcing members of Congress to make a statement one way or the other (they've been abused lately, but they do have a legitimate place). It was NOT some cynical plan to push a bill on the table and blame the other side. That makes not a bit of sense and can be discredited in about a second.

Now if I find out that the President is dusting off the Selective Service hammer, my ears would perk up, too. I'll give you the point that the Dems used it for political gain, but that doesn't mean the draft wasn't back on the table.

There's a lot more to politics than the public face and the propaganda. Try to look one level below the veneer.

Re:Familiar

[hey!]

Yes, and as a result we have a military that is stretched to the breaking point. The only reason it hasn't broken is that they're dropping recruitment standards, and already recruiters have been caught glossing over drug use and psychiatric problems to meet their quota.

I don't want a draft. But you can't fight the kind of war we are fighting there for the length of time we are apprently planning to without a draft. What if the surge continues until 2010, or longer? Are we going to send troops for one back to back deployment after another? Are we going to stop loss guys until we're putting men into the field who should have retired six or eight years earlier?

Yes, it's politics. But in this case it is the politics of realism. If you have A, then you must have B. If you have an unlimited commitment to extend the occupation of a country like Iraq, then you need a draft. The only reason Democrats don't want a draft is they don't want the occupation. The Republicans want the occupation, but don't want to face up to what we need to do in order to do it and meet our other challenges around the globe.

The Email tax thing is pure bullshit FUD fantasy. You're supposed to panic and run around frantic and scared. Look like most people here took the bait. YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Familiar

[Sciros]

The point was that these sister bills were simply used for political gain. As far as what goes on "behind the scenes" regarding anything, that's a different issue. For all we know there's some new provision by the Democrats being tagged onto military spending that taxes online auction sites (not really but if there were it wouldn't change anything I said).

Re:Familiar

[Sciros]

Why are you defending conscription all of a sudden? I wasn't even talking about pros or cons, rather just the same BS tactic used by politicians before as is being used now.

The US's military strategy is beyond me at this point. I don't understand to what actual purpose the occupation continues. But that's a totally different topic.

Re:Familiar

[GodfatherofSoul]

Not for political gain, for political *statement*. Rangel took a lot of heat for his bill (which he voted against). Look at what you're saying about it. And, not to sound superior but I don' think you understand the purpose of the "Bring Back the Draft" bills. Dems hear rumors and see some circumstantial evidence that the administration is considering the draft. The war is running poorly (though 3/4s of the citizens don't know it at the time) and the military has no way to sustain its deployments. Dems decide to force the Republicans hand by prematurely submitting a bill for a draft.

This prevents the President from slowly building up momentum to change public sentiment against the draft or to prepare for renewing the draft surreptitiously and places Republicans on the record against the draft. Note that the Rangel bill pretty much killed all of the supposedly innocuous draft inquiries.

You've been told over and over again that the Dems introduced the draft bill to scare people into voting for them. That makes no sense as it would be idiotic for Dems to do since:

1. They introduced the bill and it was easily associated with Dems
2. They knew it would fail resoundingly (even the author voted against it, something 400-2 in the House)

Politics isn't as cynical as people think. Most of the problems come from the Rovian "ends justify the means" attitude or the Dems lack of faith in the people (a legitimate concern).

Re:Familiar

[hey!]

I apologize for not being more clear.

There are elements of FUD in both situations of course. But the draft FUD at least had a reasonable purpose: to point out the logical consequences of occupation. The email tax FUD is pure FUD. Email taxes do not follow as a logical consequence of Internet sales taxes. On the other hand, a commitment to occupy a country in which the population is hostile toward us for an unlimited time implies one of two results: either we get out of Dodge (the later the more ignoble the exit), or we start drafting people.

I say this as somebody who has actually bothered to read the White House's strategy documents for Iraq. I'm not a military expert by any means, but I can add 2 + 2. The basic strategy amounts to propping up the status quo indefinitely, until the results we want more or less happen spontaneously. The natural implication is that we'll be fighting a low level conflict there for a long long time with a very large force. Ergo, the draft.

Re:Familiar

[Sciros]

BUT IT WORKED! A lot of college students pledged their vote for Kerry based on the idea that Bush's administration was planning to bring back conscription.

It wasn't that idiotic, just really underhanded.

Re:Familiar

[GodfatherofSoul]

And Bush WAS thinking about the draft, not just conscription. Now, you may choose to believe that Bush was just curious about the state of the SSS after about 30 years of it being stagnant. I believe the draft was going to be reinstated. Of course, that would have taken a hell of a marketing campaign kind of like the one that convinced 72% of Americans that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I don't call giving the public legitimate info underhanded.

Re:Familiar

[Sciros]

I'm aware of what you're talking about, but that's beside the point. I'm talking about politicians doing something so they can put the blame on the other party; you're saying it was some super clever tactic to force Bush's hand and nothing else. Somehow given what actually ended up happening I'm not convinced it was as one-sided as you describe. But meh, there's no point in discussing it further.

You read crap like this

[JohnnyGTO]

and you wonder how the RIAA gets away with things? These morons have no idea how things work, they just listen to the deepest pockets.

Internet Legislation

[duckle]

While we're at this trend of making decisions about topics in which we have no place, let's have all the male computer scientists settle the abortion debate! Maybe have kids under the age of 7 decide the new drinking age? Hell, let's just give every toddler the vote.

Why are politicians such professional dickheads?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I understand they need to justify their jobs by constantly introducing legislation, but please stop fucking up *everything*! ugh. I suffer outrage-exhaustion. I welcome the killer asteroid. Thankfully it'll do some good, as measures to stop it will never be funded. 2009 here we come.

Protect the border? NAY!!!!

[PHAEDRU5]

Tax your ass? YAY!!!!!!

As a Democrat,

[Anonymous Coward]

I can say unequivocally that I will not vote for anyone who votes for this, regardless of how crazy the other guy is.

Everyone calm down...

[isa-kuruption]

There are two separate things going on here.

First, the bill in the story has nothing to do with taxing internet email. It has to do with, specifically, sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet.

The second part of the story is about the temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes which limits taxes on items such as email, web surfing, etc.

Needless to say, these things are completely different. Leave it to crap|net to mix them all up to get your feathers ruffled.

In the first case, the bill being sponsored by Mr Envi, I kind of understand where he is coming from. States and local governments get a lot of their revenue from sales tax. Since there has been an increasing number of purchases made online, state and local governments and losing out on that sales tax money, which means they need to raise other taxes (e.g. property, fuel) in order to compensate. This hurts everyone, even those that do not own computers, and especially hurts the elderly who live on limited income. This bill also simplifies how states collect taxes for retailers to reduce paperwork, and has an exemption for e-tailers that earn less than $5 million a year doing internet sales.

On the temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes, this is something that has been renewed every couple of years for the last several under the Republican-led congress. The idea is that general broadband services are not taxed, such as email and web surfing, at the federal and state levels. It does not appear this will be renewed which means *new* taxes could (and probably will) be added to Internet users.

Now that it is clear...

While some may point out that Mr. Enzi is a Republican raising taxes, he's not so much raising taxes as he is 1) simplifying sales taxes; 2) ensuring the "current" level of taxes imposed by states; 3) thus reducing property taxes; 4) helping maintain state governments who are having financial problems due to lack of sales tax revenue.

On the other hand, the Democrats, if they do not renew the ban on broadband taxes, will be creating new taxes that will impact every internet user. These are not taxes that are being avoided or taxes that are being suppressed.... these are NEW taxes.. and we all know how the Democrats love their taxes!

Re:Everyone calm down...

[geekoid]

Sweet, I can't wait until this goes through and my property taxes decline!

Get real.

Re:Everyone calm down...

[dcollins]

While some may point out that Mr. Enzi is a Republican raising taxes, he's not so much raising taxes as he is 1) simplifying sales taxes; 2) ensuring the "current" level of taxes imposed by states; 3) thus reducing property taxes; 4) helping maintain state governments who are having financial problems due to lack of sales tax revenue.

On the other hand, the Democrats, if they do not renew the ban on broadband taxes, will be creating new taxes that will impact every internet user. These are not taxes that are being avoided or taxes that are being suppressed.... these are NEW taxes.. and we all know how the Democrats love their taxes!

Republicans raise taxes --> that's really lowering taxes.
Democrats don't raise taxes --> that's really raising taxes.
ORWELLIZATION COMPLETE.

gg gop

Re:Everyone calm down...

[goldspider]

2) ensuring the "current" level of taxes imposed by states; 3) thus reducing property taxes

2 has never ensured 3. Ever.

Re:Everyone calm down...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. As a new internet business owner, I read that I won't be affected at all, in fact I may be exempted from having to pay those taxes, because of the clause that exempts small business owners earning less than 5,000,000$ a year (100,000) domestically if you earn over 5 mil.
      Sounds like they are going after unregistered Indian Casino's as a cash source, along with the companies that are making millions online and not passing money back to the states where the money comes from. I know that a lot of people by that way now, instead of going to the local store that is paying federal and county taxes...not to mention the huge state tax.

I hate the idea of taxing Internet per.se. but I think that causing large companies to pay the local taxes they owe is a good idea. Our country is falling apart while Bush pushes his war, we need money from somewhere.
my 2 cents.

Re:Everyone calm down...

[CopaceticOpus]

Since there has been an increasing number of purchases made online, state and local governments and losing out on that sales tax money, which means they need to raise other taxes (e.g. property, fuel) in order to compensate. This hurts everyone...

Actually, this hurts people who shop locally, and helps people who shop more online. The sales tax that the online shoppers would have paid is instead spread across and paid statewide in the form of other taxes. In the long run this helps states such as California which have many online retailers by giving them an unfair sales advantage.

To make things fair, we'd need to eliminate sales tax, or convert sales tax to a single federal tax. I don't see either of those things happening.

Re:Everyone calm down...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there has been an increasing number of purchases made online, state and local governments and losing out on that sales tax money, which means they need to raise other taxes (e.g. property, fuel) in order to compensate.

This is an interesting side effect that most people don't think about when buying something online. Many people buy things online because the shipping cost is less than the tax would be if the product was bought locally. So, on the surface, it seems like you're saving money by purchasing online. But if other taxes are raised to make up for taxes that would have been collected had the purchase been made locally, the online purchase actually costs more than it would to purchase locally, since you essentially pay both shipping and tax.

Of course this is also a tragedy of the commons scenario, since those purchasing online are not directly paying the added tax on the item they purchase. That tax is levied against all residents of the state/municipality in some uniform way. If everyone stopped buying items online, those other increased taxes wouldn't have to happen and we might all save money on shipping costs. But since it will always be advantageous on an individual basis to buy online, people will always do it and we're all forced to do it or end up paying more than our fair share.

(note: the above commentary does not take into account instances where a central warehouse and a website lower the retailers cost and that savings gets partially passed onto the buyer. This no doubt lowers the cost of an item and, in many cases, more than covers shipping costs)

Re:Everyone calm down...

[theflakes]

This whole idea in government of how can we get the money due us is just patently ridiculous. We create a new tax to make up for a shortfall in another tax due to the changing business environment. Shouldn't state governments be looking at ways to attract these new internet businesses to their states thus increasing their tax base instead of these quick ill-conceived band-aids that end up doing more harm to the local economy than good. Where is the forethought; ohh that's right we are talking about government bureaucracies and all the little kingdom builders that create them.

It is absolutely inconceivable how many ways we are already taxed. The whole system needs to be thrown out and greatly simplified; both state and federal, but it will never happen due to all the self(ish) interest involved in politics.

I too only see hope for real change in the Libertarian party. The only way I would vote republican is if Ron Paul got the nod.

Don't be fooled, Republicans want this too

[greg_barton]

Republicans at the state level want this too. It's even in TFA, if you care to RTFA. Of course, the blame will be shifted to Democrats, because we all know that Republicans never raise taxes...

How is this news?

[giminy]

What next, an article on slashdot detailing the dissimilarities between the internet and a truck?

A senator warned about email tax? Senators say a lot of stupid and crazy things that aren't true. Until there is actual legislation on the table, the title of the article certainly isn't slashdot-worthy (can you say 'FUD'? I knew you could).

Internet sales tax is maybe slashdot-worthy, but it really isn't about internet sales tax. It's really about interstate sales tax -- telephone orders, even in-person orders that get delivered elsewhere would be subject to the same legislation.

At the very worst, you'll see a lot of internet sales companies move their 'operations center' to Delaware on paper or something...

Reid

two things

[Ep0xi]

1: Free email accounts are wiretapped. Once i had an hotmail account (paid) and it was wiretapped too. SO the tax is used to get money "without" wiretapping? 2: The tax is applicable to every internet account worldwide or just to the US? I hope they are not just to say that the TAX would be used to ensure the safety of the citizens because they already should DO THAT by using correctly the CIA and not WIRETAPPING our INET habbits

Re:two things

[dosius]

My PC is my e-mail server.

-uso.

Re:Stupid Democrats

[iminplaya]

yet you keep voting for them...

Not me! I quit when I realized I'm talking to the hand. Just like now with the stupid moderators. To any of you looking for conspiracies, you only have to go next door to find the conspirators that are taking away your freedom and destroying the country. Enjoy the taco.*

*not you personally. Don't know if you're in the states. If you are, then with the corrupt Americans voting for corrupt politicians, you should save yourself, get out now before your IQ adopts an inverse relationship to the rising global temperatures.

Hahaha Yanks

[ztransform]

Hey, sure, let's tax e-mails. And while we're at it, how bout we let any mentally disturbed idiot obtain guns and go shoot his school mates!

(We'll politely ignore the fact that the innocent school girls whom the NRA assume carry guns to protect themselves are thankful guns are so easy to obtain).

YOU ESS AYE.. YOU ESS AYE!

(Americans on average are really dumb. British on average are really selfish.)

Politicians are not the problem

[Nymz]

The problem... Is the people need to stop electing idiots.

Are you sure politicians are idiots? They do exactly what they were elected to do. People vote for whomever will favor their special intrest group with power or money taken from others.

If you expect Politicians to have integrity and to do-the-right-thing, then voters would have to value those ideals and vote accordingly. So if anyone is an idiot, it's your fellow voters.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Grishnakh]

The problem with your post is that there are no politicians with integrity. It's not hard to see why: we only get two choices, after all.

There's other countries where voters get lots of choices, and there's 5-10 parties, with new ones forming and old ones dying out all the time. That's a much better system of representative democracy than what we have, where there's only two parties, and two choices, and no possibility of new parties gaining power because the election system makes it impossible.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[jguthrie]

I think you're wrong. I once heard a joke to the effect that 90% of politicians give the rest of them a bad reputation. I believe that there are politicians with integrety, I just don't know who they are. I also don't believe that having multiple distinct parties makes the process less screwed up.

On a more serious note, I once read that the constituents have a strange attitude: They like their congresscritter, but they (largely) don't like Congress I think that this is due to a variation on the "tragedy of the commons" where that district gets "pork" while this district gets projects that "create badly needed jobs". My own personal belief is that job creation in and of itself is not a function of any government that doesn't have you swearing fealty to your liege lord.

But that's just me.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[the eric conspiracy]

Since when are there only two candidates? I usually see several like the Natural Law guys, Greens, Libertarians in addition to the two major parties.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Cajun Hell]

we only get two choices, after all.

You have dozens of choices. You just talk yourself into believing that only two of them are for non-crackpots. Or worse: you let someone else talk you into it.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Grishnakh]

Right, but you're "wasting" your vote by voting for them, because there's no realistic chance they'll win. That's the problem with our two-party system. You can vote for third-party candidates, but because the two dominant parties are, well, dominant, very few people will vote for third-party candidates because they know that everyone else is also voting for one of the two main candidates. So if they vote for a third-party candidate and it's a close race, there's a good chance they're effectively helping the candidate they like the least to win. In recent years, many races have been extremely close, so this is a valid concern.

Voting third-party only works if a very large number of voters are also disenfranchised with the two dominant parties' offerings, and also happen to vote third-party, as they did when Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota. However, there's no way to know this is going to happen before polls open. So obviously, occurrences like this are extremely rare.

This is why we need an election system like those used in other countries, where voters can select an order of preference, or where they have "run-off" elections, one election where you vote for whoever you want, and a second election to vote between the top two winners of the first race. Something like this would more accurately reflect the preferences of the voters.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Grishnakh]

Multiple distinct parties, all with equal chances at winning due to a fair election system, makes it much harder for the parties and politicians to become corrupt and to keep power, because it's easier for challengers to unseat them. When you only have a choice between bad and also-bad, and any other choice is unlikely to win so there's no point voting for them, it's easy to see why the two dominant parties have little reason to reform or do better.

As for your opinion of constituents, that may be true for some people, but definitely not all. I think many people don't like their congresscritters very much, because 1) after all, many people voted against him/her, and 2) many people who did only voted for "the lesser of two evils."

Personally, I don't want my congresscritters securing any pork-barrel funds for my state, like bridges to nowhere, highways to congressmens' homes in rural areas, etc. Those dollars ultimately come out of the same Treasury that's needed for more important things like defense or space exploration, and from my taxes. Congress is Federal anyway, so I want them to lower taxes, stop wasting money, spend money only on important things which benefit the whole country (bridges to nowhere are a state concern, for instance), etc. If a particular state wants to waste money on stupid stuff within their state, like a bridge to an island with 50 people on it, then that state can pay for it with their own citizens' tax money, acquired through state income tax, property taxes, sales tax, etc.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Grishnakh]

You sound very naive.

Yes, we do allow others to talk us into two-party choices. That's how voting systems work. Your vote only counts in the context of other votes. So if all the other voters are voting for one of two candidates, it's pointless to vote for a third candidate. The only way you can change this is to talk at least 33% of the other voters into voting for a third-party candidate. With a population of 300 million, good luck with that, even if less than 50% of those are voting.

Re:Politicians are not the problem

[Cajun Hell]

So if all the other voters are voting for one of two candidates, it's pointless to vote for a third candidate.

If all the voters are voting for one candidate, it's pointless to vote for a second one.

Obligatory...

[d3ac0n]

"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :)

sales tax already required

[bl8n8r]

In some states you are required to declare out of state purchases (Internet purchases) in some form or another. A lot of people ignore it though or argue the interpretation. Wisconsin also requires out of state purchases to be declared on income taxes.

http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/usetax.html
http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79b.pdf
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-perfin18mar1 8,1,6878957.column

Great News: and Tax Everything Possible

[Anonymous Coward]

to fund the Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL Complex.

Fuck Bush

Should we really listen to...

[Anonymous Coward]

a man named Dick Armey? I mean seriously...what the hell are we thinking. Dick Armey, seriously your name is Dick...Armey, no no no I'm sorry..I uh just..well I just want to make sure that I'm getting this right. D - I - C - K Armey? hahaha...uh yeah ok...sorry.

Re:Should we really listen to...

[TheDarkener]

"So what's your wife's name, vagina coastguard?"

Re:Should we really listen to...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually. Her name's Incontinentia Buttocks.

B. Dickus

Re:Stupid Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

yet you keep voting for them... WHEN will America realize that you should start taking a long hard look at some of your OTHER parties and independents?

I am looking. I like what I hear from Ron Paul, who is running as a Republican, but is very much a Libertarian. I am looking at the Libertarian party. I am waiting for the Pirate Party to get itself organized. I am looking at others.

How about this. Why don't WE run for office? Why is there not someone from the tech industry running for office? Surely there are those of us that do not fit the stereotype of dwelling in our mother's basements, although it is fun to joke about that.

I am looking at running for office. Would I win, barring something absurd, no. Could I educate some people along the way, yes. That is what is needed. More of US should be running for office. If enough of us get some sort of word out then maybe we could bring things back a few steps.

For the record, I have never voted down party lines. I have always voted for someone I agreed with or I voted present by signing my ballot and not voting for races in which I did not agree with any candidate.

-Zon

I'm all for an e-mail tax

[Anonymous Coward]

A sender tax on e-mail would do a lot to cut down on spam.

Of course, the article has nothing to do with tax on e-mail.

Umm

[future assassin]

People are already paying to the ISP for the access to send emails. The ISP then pays taxes on their income and you paid sales taxes on the service.

When I send out a paper letter/package I pay the post office/courier for a service which is to send my mail and deliver it. I also paid sales taxes on the service charge.

What next? Taxing IM messages that sit on the server because the recipient was set to "AWAY"

In a nation where...

[Tiger Smile]

...income tax was voted in, and NEVER voted out, I don't see taxes not happening. I'll fight it and we all should. But don't allow the Coke and Pepsi parties to point fingers and distract you. Putting any political animal in charge of any taxes is like handing control of the local CVS(drug store) to the local drug addict. Dillinger once was asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money's at." Smart man. If he had been in politics he'd have gone far.

When someone spends $40,000,000 on a $400,000 a year job, you can assume they have been corrupted. Watch them like a hawk. Always.

Re:In a nation where...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

So true... and if you can, shoot a few of them whenever possible ;)

It's all about money. The entire system. This is not Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln... This is George W Bush, John Kerry, and Oren Hatch. They're scum, no matter how hard they reference founding fathers and speak as if legacy matters in the senate, congress and the whitehouse... They all dont give a dam, it is about money, lots of fucking money.

You do not matter. That is the reality of this whole thing. We need to stop pretending that we matter to the rich people of this country. We do not. They look out for their selves and their friends (lobbiests included). You do not matter unless you can be exploited. Exploited for a sound bite, a photo op on the evening news, or exploited for cash (taxes). Your well being is not of a concern.

The sooner you realize it, the sooner you'll stop voting for the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE EVERY YEAR AND EXPECTING A CHANGE. Isnt that the definition of madness? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome?

Get with it. Do not let your neighbors vote for these 2 party idiots.

They can start by taxing Email spam

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for it, provided they start by implementing an email tax on all the spam messages sent out. And they may not do any futher taxation of internet services until some high threshhold of spam taxes are actually being collected, say 90%.

You'll pay one way or another

[etnu]

If they don't tax internet sales, they'll just raise state income taxes. Sadly, for most of us the choice is between asshat republicans who want to waste billions on war, and asshat democrats who want to waste billions on social welfare programs.

Bullets not ballots!

[apathy maybe]

I've an idea, let's just shoot the buggers instead. In fact, if we take out the politicians the the corporate bosses, perhaps we could start running our own lives for ourselves. That sounds like a nice idea, and I know that I could handle it.

Probably people will disagree, perhaps because they think they couldn't handle the responsibility of having to police themselves instead of having the police do it for them...

Re:Bullets not ballots!

[apathy maybe]

I'm guessing the mod who modded it troll couldn't cope with policing themselves. Doesn't stop 'em policing others though...

Funny how you often get people who are the most strident about various things (especially related to morality) who are also so hypocritical.

I'm capable of not going on a rampage through the streets, you should be too, and if aren't, do you really think the police will stop you? (Obviously the police don't stop rampages through the streets...)

E-mail tax would be a good thing.

[Qwavel]

Assuming that taxes are a necessary evil, an e-mail tax would be great. It could raise a lot of money extremely efficiently (in theory). The pain/cost for the average user would be tiny. Spam would dissapear in an instant.

And on a general note, I'm not sure why people think it is wrong to tax internet commerce, but it is OK to tax traditional commerce.

The idea of an e-mail tax will go nowhere. I could probably have a rational discussion of the topic here on /., but out in the real world, it is politically suicide to be in favour of almost any new tax (even if it could be used to reduce other taxes).

Re:E-mail tax would be a good thing.

[grapeape]

Umm no it wouldnt, 99% of the spam you see comes from overseas taxing it in the US would eliminate the comparatively miniscule amount of domestic spam but do nothing for that coming from places outside US jurisdiction. Unless the levy was made purely on outgoing email you would essentially be forced to pay for the spam you recieve and why would the govt want to stop that, the more recieved the more it lines their coffers.

Re:E-mail tax would be a good thing.

[pla]

And on a general note, I'm not sure why people think it is wrong to tax internet commerce, but it is OK to tax traditional commerce.

I wouldn't say I consider it Okay, but the key difference here comes from the word "interstate". States simply do not have the legal authority to regulate interstate commerce, which includes taxing it. Many try to get around that with a "use" tax on their own citizens, but currently no one actually declares their use tax, making it something of a joke.

FWIW, you don't have to pay sales tax on mail-order, either... Though the internet all but killed the traditional catalogue-based form of that.

Purpose of taxes

[NorseWarrior]

While an intriguing concept, the overall point of taxation is to provide the services a society needs to function. In all of the rhetoric over 'no new taxes', the salient point is missed--we need taxes to create the core infrastructures we all use. Someone has to maintain the commons--and corporations don't have an incentive to do so.

The internet is a new 'commons'. It is displacing the existing commons of local shops and entities. Hence, the revenue is also displaced, but not the cost of maintaining the services.

(and please spare me the diatribes over gold plated hammers--we all agree it's wrong, and we all agree it doesn't happen that often).

So, if you want services like public education, roads, police and fire departments, then you have to fund it. And, in this world, we all get what we pay for--and if you pay a teacher 24K a year, you get 24K worth of employee...is that what you really want?

If you don't like service taxes on the internet, find the revenue elsewhere.

Re:Protect the border? NAY!!!! (YAY!)

[Anonymous Coward]

Protect the border? NAY!!!!

Tax your ass? YAY!!!!!!
--
668: Neighbour of the Beast

No racism, No borders.
No countries, No state, No government!

--
Oh, and like I thought 666 was the "number of the beast", not sure if you are trying to be ironic or are just stupid...

I'd like to tax people standing in water!

[otis wildflower]

DAMN!!

Vote for Ron Paul

[Lost Found]

Brief Overview of Congressman Pauls Record
  He has never voted to raise taxes.
  He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
  He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
  He has never taken a government-paid junket.
  He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
  He voted against regulating the Internet.
  He voted against the Iraq war.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[45mm]

Sounds great and all ... but did you mean he voted against those you listed? Or didn't vote at all? A congress(wo)man that doesn't vote is worse than half the country that doesn't vote in elections.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Walkingshark]

Actually, in the primaries this year I plan on voting in the Republican primary just so I can vote for Ron Paul.

I won't vote for him in the General, but I think he's the only good candidate on the R side of the column and I want it to be a choice between him and whoever the dems put in.

I'd love to see a race between Ron Paul and Obama. Thats as close to a win win as you get in american politics.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[cnet-declan]

Ron Paul also won the highest score on CNET's 2006 technology voting scorecard:
http://news.com.com/2009-1040-6131719.html

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

On immigration, and the treatment of "non-citizens", he's a damn racist. He can take that long walk off the short pier also. Feel free to spew all you want about the "necessity" of controlling the borders. I know why they exist.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Chibi Merrow]

I'd love to see a race between Ron Paul and Obama. Thats as close to a win win as you get in american politics.

Your definition of winning and my definition of winning seem to have significant disagreements.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

To clarify my previous post,

From wiki:
He has expressed concerns that welfare and other aid programs have made the US a magnet for illegal aliens, and that uncontrolled immigration is increasing welfare payments and exacerbating the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.

Paul believes that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally under the law through a "coherent immigration policy." He has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants because it undermines the rule of law and grants pardons to lawbreakers. Paul voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.

Paul also believes that children born in the United States to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic citizenship. He has called for a Constitutional amendment to revise the Fourteenth Amendment, to "end automatic birthright citizenship" in order to address welfare issues.

Typical redneck Newscorp attitude. Right up there with O'Reilly. He is no better than anybody.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[PixelScuba]

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

That's the sheer brilliance of Congressional pay. He doesn't HAVE to vote for a pay increase because they are guaranteed a pay increase unless they vote to NOT get one.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[dr_dank]

He voted against the Patriot Act.

I thought Russ Feingold was the only congressman to vote against the Patriot Act.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the world does that make him a racist?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[ceejayoz]

Yes, yes, yes. We get it. He says no to everything.

Not all of us find that appealing.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Flamerule]

I thought Russ Feingold was the only congressman to vote against the Patriot Act.

Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it; Paul was one of 3 Republican Congressmen (66 from all parties) to vote against it.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[benzapp]

No, you are mistaken. He also was one of the few who voted against the Iraq War. In general, he supports a total non-interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr09 0402.htm

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Peter La Casse]

I thought Russ Feingold was the only congressman to vote against the Patriot Act.

Feingold was the only Senator to vote against it, but not the only member of Congress; some Representatives also voted against it.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

> He has expressed concerns that welfare and other aid programs have made the US a magnet for
> illegal aliens, and that uncontrolled immigration is increasing welfare payments and
> exacerbating the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.

> Typical redneck Newscorp attitude. Right up there with O'Reilly. He is no better than anybody.

Am I missing something? Do illegals no longer qualify for aid programs?

The key difference between Ron Paul and O'Reilly is that Ron Paul does not believe that big government and unchecked force can be used to solve all problems. He is also a pretty knowledgeable debater. In contrast, O'Reilly simply reads whatever sensationalist "news" will keep his audience mad at the Democrat party.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Okay, a bigot. Every bit as bad in my book. I know "code" when I see it. He's no damn good.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

One's mere existence makes them qualified from a human being's point of view. A political animal might feel differently. Any money issues should be taken out of the employers hide. The exploitation rides purely on their shoulders. They are the ones dodging the taxes, while the workers get paid subhuman wages and work in subhuman conditions.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[ichigo 2.0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#Alleged_raci al_remarks

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Obama?? That bum voted for the renewal of the patriot act! I want to know what he gets in return. No freedom lover is he! Nuff said about him. Kucinich is the only democrat worth a second look.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

One's mere existence makes them qualified from a human being's point of view. A political animal might feel differently. Any money issues should be taken out of the employers hide. The exploitation rides purely on their shoulders. They are the ones dodging the taxes, while the workers get paid subhuman wages and work in subhuman conditions.

The illegals are exploiting a weak border to invade someone else's home without their permission, use their first aid kit (hospitals) without paying, have babies born here so they can automatically call our house their home without having to go through the process of actually buying the home, and then, anything they don't consume themselves, they send away to someone else. Oh, in the process, they ensure wages for jobs that people don't want to do stay low so that poorly educated Americans would rather collect welfare than earn wages lowered by increased supply of labor.

Yep... the businesses are just as guilty, they're exploiting the illegals, the Americans who would otherwise be doing the job if the wage was balanced by market forces and the rest of America by avoiding taxes. How about instead of illegals exploiting the US, they revolt at home and fix their own country to make it livable? Telling them to follow our laws isn't any more racist than telling people not to speed.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

The law is unjust. The fence says "whites only". That is inhuman. They come here to work. That is all.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Walkingshark]

What about Gravel!? :)

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Well, that would make a real horse race. Then maybe a Gravell/Kucinich ticket could work out. I need to hear some arguments against his positions. Logical ones. Not some rant from Newscorp drones. Could you point me to some? I heard him talk once. For some reason he reminds me of Art Bell. I didn't find that too comforting. He seems a bit eccentric. One thing for sure, he's no worse than any of the others. If he adopted the same position on 9/11 as Ron Paul, for instance, I would know he's on the right track in that department. I don't have sufficient information to make an informed choice. He pushes most of the right buttons so far. If he truly believes in EQUAL freedom and justice for ALL, without exception, not just some sub-group, he could get my nod. But let's face facts, with today's mentally, as expressed by the moderation of my very first comment on the article, he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything. The fix is in. The machine is churning away. The only democrat with any real cajones is not in Washington. He's the Mayor of Chicago. But he wouldn't get my vote either. Unless chutzpah was the only issue in the table.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[runderwo]

And how many work visas were granted to Canadians over the same period of time? Thanks for playing.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[runderwo]

The only way to fix the federal government IS to start saying 'no'. Get used to it, at least if you like freedom.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

I am referring to the signs that used to be placed by public water fountains, etc. It's the thought, not the exact words. To deny access due to place of birth is exactly, precisely the same as doing so due to skin color, gender, etc. It's bigotry. There is no other way to look at it. But the bigots choose to remain blind to that fact. Thanks for picking the nits out of my hair to avoid discussing the issue. And just so you know, escaped slaves were frequently denied citizenship also, probably for breaking the law. If they would have just followed procedure and stayed on the plantation until the war was over...

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, I didn't see a "whites only" painted on the fence anywhere... I could have swore that the whole purpose was to keep out everyone trying to cross the border. I didn't see the holes that only a white person could fit through. Can you show me how to make a hole in a fence that will keep out everyone but white people?

They come here to work, send money out of the economy, and take away jobs/drive down wages for people already in the country who didn't have the privilege of earning a college degree. Can't outsource $50-100k IT jobs to India since that means fewer jobs for Americans but we sure as hell can import cheap labor to take $15k agriculture jobs away from Americans to keep food marginally cheaper for the IT guys.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Never said it's any better going the other direction. All the fences must come down, not just the American one. And I find the nit picking quite humorous. It clearly demonstrates the complete unwillingness to discuss the actual point I make. Feel free to speak up when you're willing to do that. Here's a spoiler alert. "Americans only" = "Whites only". Discuss that, please, and tell me why you feel that the statement is false. I fully expect this post to go unanswered, unless of course you can find more nits. However, a logical response will be considered extremely interesting. You just might be able to convince me. You'll never know until you try. Please note that simply stating "because everybody else does it" will not be considered at all. I can't remember how many times I tried that with my parents. It didn't work then. It certainly won't work now. Give me real justification. And like my math teacher said, "Show your work."

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[ceejayoz]

My freedom is not helped by saying no to everything (well, everything except abortion bans and meddling in marriage definitions via DOMA, it would seem).

I say no to returning this part of the civilised world to the 1800s.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

Freedom is an absence of restriction. Since the vast majority of legislation is a restriction of one kind or another, the more Ron Paul's "no" votes help your freedom. Freedom is for more than just you and your friends, it's for everyone. So even voting "no" on a restriction against people you don't like helps your freedom.

It's time to stop depending on government to care for our needs, and time we started acting like responsible adults.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

You're right. I dislike 90% of Kucinich's positions, so I doubt I could ever vote for him. But as one of only two honest men in congress, he definitely is worth a second look.

Besides, who the fsck knows what Obama stands for? He hasn't said anything of real substance. He's a great big cipher.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

How about because non-Americans have no fundamental right to be in and use the resources of the United States? If they want the rights and privileges associated with being an American, there is a legal framework to do so. I can't just go to the golf course down the road, hop the fence and play 18 holes, I have to either buy a membership (be it a lifetime one like citizenship) or a pass (kinda like a green card or visa). Just because their property adjoins mine doesn't mean I have the right to go fetch balls out of their water hazards, take up residence in their maintenance garage, sell snacks out on the 9th tee or undercut some 16 year old kid on caddying.

If seeing the golf course next to my property makes me lament where I live, I could always try to fix up my property instead of trying to mooch off the golf course and/or disparaging them for having a nicer landscaping than my own. Of course, its much easier for me to invite my friends to a party on the golf course's property than it is to fix up my own yard beforehand and clean it back up afterward.

The best part is the golf course doesn't care what color your skin is, what gender you are or what language you speak as long as you follow their process for being allowed to play and respect the rules of their property while you are there. The US isn't any different than the golf course in this case, so the whole Jim Crow reference is just an inductive fallacy.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

He is in favor of immigration. Legal immigration. In fact he wants to fix legal immigration, to not favor immigrants from one nation over another. But being against illegal immigration is not racist. If white Canadians were illegally crossing the border in equally large numbers, he would still be against it.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

The exact same argument was used against the slaves. The Jim Crow reference holds up quite well. To me, the right of passage precludes property rights. In other words, nobody has a right to block my way from Mexico to Canada and back. I have at least the same rights as a moose or any other migratory animal to follow the food. When the law is unjust, I have every right to ignore it. Your argument can just as easily defend the property rights of the slave owner. The law is unreal, except for the bullets. What would be a real reason for prohibiting access?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

To deny access due to place of birth is exactly, precisely the same as doing so due to skin color, gender, etc. It's bigotry.

No one is denying anyone access to water fountains based on their country of birth. Sheesh. Anyone who is here legally in this country has equal access to all public water fountains. Mexicans, Canadians, Germans, Chinese, etc.

But why are you focusing on those who break the law and trespass to get to this country? Why aren't you on a tirade to make legal immigration easier? If you want to enter this country legally, it's a fricking nightmare. My friend married a lady from the Phillipines, and it was a nightmare getting her here. Steep fees, bureaucratic mazes, interrogations about their sexual behavior, etc. It was tempted to hire a coyote to bring her in illegally. It would have been cheaper, and she would have had more practical rights. Why should the illegal alien be treated better just because he or she cheated and jumped to the head of the line?

Why should illegal aliens be treated better than legal immigrants? Why must we have no restrictions on the importation of unskilled below-minimum-wage labor, but we start screaming protectionism when some company wants to bring in a skilled H1B developer?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

Except that he gives back part of his congressional budget every year. Neither does he participate in the congressional retirement plan.

Besides, I don't know how much more "no" you can vote than "no". Would you rather have a congressman that voted "yes" on every pay increase?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that Ron Paul actually represents a conservative philosophy. I'm not sure what the or who the Bushies really represent, but I know that I don't like it.

Edwards is an actual liberal. If we have Edwards vs. Paul, then we could have an actual election where the candidates are who they say they are -- and I'd very much respect the outcome, even if the candidates opposite views.

If it's Rudy vs. Hillary, we have something drastically different -- it's a contest between two not-exactly-corrupt politicians with a lot of baggage who are in the game for a good time... Give me Edwards vs. Paul and I'll be happy with either socialized health care or pure market-driven health care -- but just give me some fucking sanity and competence for a change!

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

He's a great big cipher.

He most certainly is. And an even bigger mystery is who is responsible for all the media attention? What is motivating it? Oh, damn, now I'm becoming all wrapped is the "who" thing. Anyway, I consider him completely untrustworthy, as shown by his voting record. I don't why you don't like Kucinich. He's a real stand up guy when it comes to individual freedom, or he's putting on very good show. I like Mike, but he's got a bit of a Ross Perot aura about him. I can't quite tell if he's all there. And he doesn't look long for this world. He could keel over any second now. I need somebody willing to insure equal protection under the law for everybody in the custody of the authorities or under their influence in any way, no matter who they are or where they are from. Ron Paul will not offer that. I honestly don't know if Kucinich would either, but he didn't knock himself off the list the way Paul has. Kucinich has a bit of a protectionist streak when it comes to industry. I don't know how much of that carries over into individuals. I believe in "people first", not "America first".

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, the right of passage precludes property rights. In other words, nobody has a right to block my way from Mexico to Canada and back.

Can you post your address here so I can come over and live at your house, eat your food and use your internet access to browse kiddy porn? You won't mind if I bring a million or so of my closest friends too, will you? I mean, you yourself say you have no right to artificially block our way to your stuff.

For all of humanity, we have been a tribal species. Before we were countries, we were cities and before we were cities, we were clans. Clans didn't always have physical property boundaries but they certainly had social boundaries. If you weren't a member of a clan, you couldn't expect them to support you. Clans would sometimes band together with other clans to fight a different clan who was trying to cause some type of harm (real or perceived) to a clan. As time went on, clans formed permanent alliances and grew large enough to dominate an entire region. If you threatened that region, you were threatening the clan (perhaps by taking away their food sources). Later, proper villages and towns came into existence for logistical reasons. As towns prospered, markets began to thrive and the best towns attracted traders, merchants and visitors morphing them into cities. Cities would grow in power and scope of influence which begat states. As city states flourished and warred against each other, like minded regional states developed into countries. If you threatened one city, the entire country would respond. We've had different systems since then such as feudalism but they've all kept the same idea; Localities banding together for protection and influence from outside forces (be it from the top down or the bottom up).

Other nations, and specifically a lot of Mexicans, are invading our tribe's ground because it is easier to hunt on our land due to the hard work our tribe has spent generations performing. They don't want to put the effort into working their own tribe's land since ours is so much better cultivated and just a stone's throw away. They don't wish to follow the Chief's rules for becoming a member of the tribe (and thus getting the right to use the land) but wish to rape and pillage it for their own and send anything they don't use themselves back to their tribe so they have even less reason to work their own land.

From this post of yours on another thread today

Yes, much more so than the wool these people are pulling over your eyes. Fine, have at it. Make people have even less respect for the law. It's like these companies are some kind of anarchists in disguise. They want us to destroy all our institutions, and of course put them in charge. Got news for ya, They are already in charge. You people put them there. Guess you all are too comfortable to care.

Your sarcasm implies that you personally believe it is a bad thing for people to lose respect for the law. At the same time, you advocate people deliberately ignore the law when it suits your own ideology that flies in face of the entire history of man.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

You're not thinking this through and applying the proper scale. This country, and any other country, is the "water fountain", a very big one. It's Jim Crow on a massive scale. You are not going to see me defend the treatment of your friends wife. You never did. You are mistaken to think that. There should be no line for anybody. What makes you think I'm giving priorities to "illegals"? I only advocate equal treatment to ALL people, no matter where they are from. Do you stop the birds from migrating, even though they might damage your crops? No. And chances are the overall benefit outweighs the negative. Same goes for humans. Why won't you give them the same rights you give to animals? In fact check out the design of the Alaska Pipeline. They designed it specifically to stay out of the way. We are doing precisely the opposite to humans. 90% of all human endeavors is spent on exclusion with all the fences and walls and enforcement infrastructure involved. Such a waste. We are more territorial than the animals are. Really it's the same, we mark our territory like a damn dog, subconsciously for the exact same reason. Those reasons still apply to animals. For humans, it's completely irrational and purely instinctive. The piddly legalities are so superficial. That's why I don't even bring them up.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

When a law exists to protect freedom, I will always stand up for it. There's no inconsistency there. These laws do just the opposite and deserve nothing but contempt. They exist solely for the benefit of a select group. In the case you brought up, the merchants that sell pillaged goods stolen from far off lands, and they diminish respect for the other laws. So you are off base. On the other hand I know how to show respect to others without the need for written law. Do you? Or do I need to put a gun to head head to get you to leave me alone whether you are part of my "tribe" or not? So I can accept that there should be no need for any of it. But I'll also accept those that protect one's essential freedom to live and die peacefully for now. At the same time I do believe they only need to exist to reign in our animal instincts until all individuals can do it without them. Most importantly they must be applied absolutely equally to all, without exception. Otherwise they are meaningless.

All that other stuff you posted describes little more than animal evolution. Humans marking their territory are no different from the animals, except for humans to do it is illogical. Animals have to follow their food. Humans can take it where ever they go. Or they can produce it where ever they are. They can bring in all the necessary resources to do so. Not so with the animals. You seem to believe that we are acting differently from them. Such is not the case. Much of everything we do revolves around territory and denying access. Much of everything we make is to aid and abet this enforcement of boundaries. We do relatively little for the benefit of the entire species on this tiny, little, spherical rock.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[shlashdot]

Then I'm sure you don't mind if I rummage through your possessions and help myself to anything I like. After all what's yours is mine, right?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

There's a quote from Badnarik from the last election. [paraphrase] "Just because we have an open door policy doesn't mean you can sneak in through the bedroom window." In my opinion, we should liberalize immigration. I would allow anyone in who has a job lined up. I'm all in favor of temporary visas for seasonal labor. But they have to come in through the "front door". I'm not quite anarchist enough yet to get rid of borders entirely.

Ron Paul wants to reform immigration, not to eliminate it. Here's part of his platform: "Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process. The current system is incoherent and unfair. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods." You claim Dr. Paul is racist, but here he is advocating balanced equitable treatment to all legal immigrants regardless of country of origin. He is the only candidate advocating this.

Another of his reform points: eliminate government assistance magnets for illegals (food stamps, welfare, etc). Did you know that illegal aliens get to attend college at state resident tuition prices, cheaper than out of state native citizens can? Where's the social justice in that? My grandparents were immigrants. America has a great tradition of legal immigration. But that was before we got this strange idea of universal cradle-to-grave welfare. Immigration reform is just one of many of Ron Paul's planks, another is the elimination of the welfare state. The first without the second is pointless.

Ron Paul is in favor of free trade, and labor is just another good to trade. But like trade, immigration needs to be legal and above board. If goods from China must go through customs, then labor from Mexico must go through border checkpoints.

Finally, "Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship."

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Did you know that illegal aliens get to attend college at state resident tuition prices, cheaper than out of state native citizens can?

I'm sorry if out of state Americans are being treated so poorly. Don't blame the immigrants for that. Blame the people who make it so difficult for the out of staters. No matter where anybody is from, I believe it's good that they are interested in getting an education. And it should be free to anybody who attends the classes without disrupting them. It's better for everybody. Or do you think ignorance and illiteracy is somehow better still. There are some who do believe that. I fully understand the reasoning behind it. It's a power thing. And furthermore, if you actually believe that any significant number of people are coming in to collect welfare benefits, then I'm afraid you have fallen into the same trap. That's Newscorp talking. These people come to work, the vast, vast majority of them. And most of them are actually brought in by the employers. But all that footage from the IR cameras make for good soap opera and has great propaganda value. It has people believing that their first stop is the welfare office. The responses I'm getting overall are an overt display of this bigotry I'm talking about. So shameful.

One stupid dope says they ought to revolt and fix their own country, completely ignoring what happens when they try. Guess which which direction the invasion flows then. Do I need to remind you who props up all that misery everywhere south of the Rio Grande to damn near Antarctica? Would you have liked to stay in Nicaragua during the Contra raids and long before? And is still going on to some extent? How about El Salvador while the death squads are capturing and killing your family? The Mexican Government won't stand on its own without American help. No way. It cannot maintain the stranglehold on its economy without that help. There are many dirty deals going on to keep all these governments afloat. I can tell you that if the pirate corporations from all over would butt out, we wouldn't be discussing this. This is the same type of "blowback" that Ron Paul correctly brings up about 9/11. Where is he on this issue?? If he want to discuss immigration, this is what he should be talking about, instead of the bigoted comments about welfare and citizenship. So if you don't want them going to the states, at the very least leave them in peace at home. I hope that's not too much to ask. But the states won't do that. That want to wages to stay low. That need the immigrants there to keep lettuce at less than ten dollars a head. I can guarantee you they would rather stay home with their families, and work their own farms or whatever, but the Americans won't let them. They want their stuff for nothing. So please, sir, try to understand why this is really happening instead of simply believing what's being spoon fed by FOX! If you want them to respect your border, you should at least show the same respect for theirs, no?

No sir. I repeat. He's no good, for the states, or anywhere north and south. He wants to give BIGCO a free ride, and he's playing the same game as all the rest. And I can make a bigoted comment about him, too in saying it's no surprise that he's from Texas, the same state that gave us that rat bastard LBJ and both Bushes, and the likes of "Good Time Charlie"*. To me that speaks volumes.

*have to admit, he was funny :-)

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with you Americans and persistently putting "opposes restrictions on gun ownership" on an otherwise perfectly sensible list of Good Things a politician claims?

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

When a law exists to protect freedom, I will always stand up for it.

The right to own property without someone usurping it from you is an essential freedom. Speaking of which, you forgot to post your address so I can come live in your house since you believe my right to live on your property trumps your own property rights. Until you post it, you're being naive and hypocritical.

These laws do just the opposite and deserve nothing but contempt. They exist solely for the benefit of a select group.

ALL laws, government and societies exist solely for the benefit of a select group. The US government and its laws exist for the benefit of Americans. The Turkish government and laws exist for the benefit of Turks. The laws of my state benefit the people of my state even though another state may not offer the same protections.

In the case you brought up, the merchants that sell pillaged goods stolen from far off lands, and they diminish respect for the other laws.

Who said anything about merchants selling pillaged goods? If my city produces excess grain and tools, people will come from far away to buy or barter for my grain and tools with the excess goods that they produce. Thus, a beneficial market is established that doesn't require any pillaging.

On the other hand I know how to show respect to others without the need for written law. Do you? Or do I need to put a gun to head head to get you to leave me alone whether you are part of my "tribe" or not?

Sociopaths would thrive in your world... after all, the world revolves around them and their desires. Written law is often a mere formality to try to restrict them, unwritten laws/rules don't matter at all. If some people can't follow strict laws like "don't murder someone," what makes you think they'll obey a suggested and unwritten law of "don't take the food out of my child's mouth?" Since you don't believe in property rights, I assume you think rape should be legal too since everyone has the right to a woman's hole if they want it. What's the difference between someone having the right to come in and taking my house and food for their own and them going one step further and claiming my wife for their own? And yes, there are more people who would do it if they felt they were entitled to it and didn't have the threat of a gun against their head.

Your idea of government may very well work in a mosh pit but there's a reason why we don't live in anarchy. If you give everyone the right to do anything they want with anything they want, you subvert the rights of everyone and in the process, promote violence. If I catch invaders stealing the food that I worked hard to grow, I have no choice but to attack them to protect my family. Similarly, if they feel they are entitled to the benefits of my labor because they choose to not put effort in for themselves, they will believe it is their right to attack me for the benefits of my work. Also, in this land of anarcho-communism of yours, civilization would revert back to a mostly agrarian age since we would have to spend most of our time worrying about feeding and protecting our families from others who wish to reap the benefits of people's labor without contributing themselves. The entire system ignores the very nature of man (and all mammals), expecting everyone to subdue their own free will and desires to work at the level of an insect hive. Oh, wait a minute, you already believe i humans giving up the right to self determination I do believe they only need to exist to reign in our animal instincts until all individuals can do it without them.

Most importantly they must be applied absolutely equally to all, without exception. Otherwise they are meaningless.

Most laws are applied equally... Sure, there are unjust laws like the DMCA, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Society exists because people unite together for protection from other people and in the proc

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[khallow]

Animals don't have a "right" to follow the food. There are a number of cases in the US and elsewhere where animals are killed for going certain places. For example, there have been several bison kills in the Yellowstone area because the bison start migrating into ranch lands. The bison carry a disease that routinely causes still births in cattle. Bears and raccoons are routinely killed for following the food.

Second, humans don't have this right either as has been readily demonstrated in the US for a considerable period of time.

My take is that they shouldn't either. Unrestricted immigration can kill the golden goose. It burdens infrastructure and damages the cohension of society. I know the US did fine in the past with few or no restrictions on immigration so it is possible that my fears are unfounded. But I'm not going to relinquish my position merely because it obstructs some hypothetical but nonexistent right or because it's not fair.

What's my stake in this? How does unrestricted immigration improve my society? These questions need to be answered to my satisfaction between I will support any such action.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

It goes against every instinct known to man and animal.

Thank you! Glad to see you admit that we live by instinct and conditioned reflex, just like the animals. The desire to remain that way indicates all the morality of a chimpanzee...ne...an amoeba, as I indicated in other posts in another place. I prefer to make the attempt to be human. To each his own.

...exactly how is it that you think the US can handle stabilizing every government from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn... emphasis mine on both

Stabilizing??? Oh! That's rich! Is THAT what you call colonizing, robbing, pillaging, murdering, and torturing now? Not too arrogant, are we? Funny, I couldn't find that definition of the the word "stabilizing" in the dictionary. Which one are you using?

Again, thank you for completely validating my thoughts and opinions. I feel completely vindicated and much better about them now, stronger than ever. You have made yourself perfectly clear. Enjoy your rat race.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

From a completely economic standpoint you would be correct, and I understand completely. And as an "import/export"(pirate) merchant, I would fight to the death to keep those barriers up to protect my profits. Make then as strong as possible. That is why they exist to begin with. The differential is what creates the flow of money through enforced poverty, etc. They don't exist to protect you, your property, or your life. They exist for the sole benefit of commercial interests. And here we are...in perpetual war...which as it turns out, is damn good business by itself. No problem as long as you can keep it off shore. I should have gotten into the arms trade. It's probably the only industry that's more profitable than prostitution.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Brandybuck]

I grew up in a heavy migrant worker agricultural town. I've lived next door to illegal aliens most of my life. I do agree with you that the vast majority of illegal aliens come here to work. And they work hard. But an increasingly large number of their children are getting sucked into a destructive welfare lifestyle.

But welfare is more than just AFDC, and their is more government assistance than just welfare. Public school education is one. Before your head explodes, hear me out. I am not saying to deny education to the children of illegal aliens, I am saying that it is a huge cost that must be taken into account.

And please stop playing the race/bigotry card. It's tiresome. A white illegal alien from Canada is just as illegal as a hispanic illegal alien from Mexico. The country of origin has nothing to do with it. If you want to point the racist finger, point it at people on your side who keep bringing up the extremely classist "jobs no one wants" argument.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

" If he truly believes in EQUAL freedom and justice for ALL, without exception, not just some sub-group, he could get my nod."

No candidate is going to get your nod then, not if you believe that equal freedom and justice for all means completely opening the borders to all. I have read every one of your posts here, and I gotta say, you are completely delusional.

Posting AC because I don't want iminplaya to steal my stuff, since he doesn't believe in property rights.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

"I believe in "people first", not "America first"."

So, how many illegal immigrants are crashing at your pad? How many did you feed last night? How many did you clothe? How many are you providing medical care for?

You have been posting and posting about how we should open the borders to complete, unfettered immigration. The more I read your posts, the more I realize that you are not "people first" you are "my tribe first" and your tribe just happens to not be American.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[khallow]

I don't understand what parts apply to my comment. I guess you're saying either sincerely or sarcastically that it's ok both for migration to be completely unrestricted yet for the corresponding flow of goods not to be. Even though global trade is much more effective than migration in mitigating global poverty and it faces less resistance from developed world populations. And economically everyone is a commercial interest. US immigration policy or its trade barriers didn't spring up merely because big agriculture, steel, etc wanted it. Government enforced rent-seeking is more profitable than prostitution and far safer than arms trading.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Damvan]

"point it at people on your side who keep bringing up the extremely classist "jobs no one wants" argument."

Amen brother. "Jobs no one wants" my ass. It is "Jobs no one wants at those wages." I have worked construction for 25 years. 15-20 years ago, one could make a good, middle class, living on a single construction wage. A skilled carpenter, framer, or pipesetter could make a living. Those skilled trades are gone, replaced by minimum wage, immigrant workers. Not only has a good, viable career path been removed for some people, but the quality of work has gone down substantially.

As an example, I made $15 an hour 25 years ago working construction. I am now the Resident Engineer on construction sites. That same job I worked 25 years ago is now a minimum wage position.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you are comparing our immigration policy to slavery?

Since you think right of passage precludes property rights, why haven't you moved to the border and allowed the illegal immigrants to walk through your house on their way to free money, free medical care, and free education?

I noticed you still haven't posted your address. Why not? My right of passage through your property precludes your property rights. I want to exercise my right of passage on your property. Post that address!

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

:-) It's all good. whatever makes you feel right. Someday you will see that delusion is reality. I'm as happy as can be... So, anytime you wish to carry on, I'll always be here. Got a wide open journal. For now "...you go your way, I'll go mine..." Peace, my friend.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Government enforced rent-seeking is more profitable than prostitution...

I wouldn't know the difference...

...it's ok both for migration to be completely unrestricted yet for the corresponding flow of goods not to be.

Don't know how you deduced that, but mind reading is not a big thing of mine. In fact, I'm drunk as a motherf'er right now, and will only respond in the journal for now because I no longer wish to pollute this article. *hicccc* thankyouverrrymuch...

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

...I am saying that it is a huge cost that must be taken into account.

The benefits far outweigh the costs, but not to the snake oil salesmen running the planet. They depend on ignorance to keep the worker bees from flying the coup. That's the only reason to deny an education.

And please stop playing the race/bigotry card.

Why? Besides the money angle, which is the REAL reason that they exist, that's all that's left. It is just as bigoted to exclude someone due place of birth as anything else. And, as you say, "The country of origin has nothing to do with it.". That's exactly what I'm saying. You never heard me say different. You want to restrict access due to "country" of origin. Precisely the same thing as doing so because of one's skin color. The analogy holds up very well. So well, in fact, you will do what you can to get people to ignore it through the distractions I've mentioned. The analogy is so accurate that it could get people to actually take action. This goes to the very core, and those in the "import/export" business have the most to lose, and will crank up the propaganda machinery full throttle to keep people in the dark. Well, I will do what it takes to keep people focused on the real nature of the issue, and I just may get results. It's worth every effort to do what can be done to set people free. This is a global issue, not just American.

...point it at people on your side who keep bringing up the extremely classist "jobs no one wants" argument.

You never once heard me use that (yet another) Newscorp distraction. That seems to be a very common tactic with the people on YOUR side, not mine. I'm talking about being a human being and treating others likewise, instead of keeping them caged like animals. I'm telling you that borders are imprisonment and slavery, and all of you keep trying to divert attention away from that. You believe the lie put forth by vested interests that the border is for your protection when nothing could be further from the truth. You've been hoodwinked, and you keep disparaging those who are telling you so, instead of attacking the "hoodwinkers"(hoodwankers). Well, that just sounds like a symptom of the Stockholm Syndrome where the victim defends their kidnapper. You are doing exactly that. You have formed a natural bond. You defend the thief, for fear of looking like a fool by admitting you've been robbed. It has also become a matter of saving face. The Americans stayed in Vietnam for that exact same reason, and is doing the same in Iraq. It is foolish pride, and people are dying for it. It's a very common defense mechanism. But you still fail to explain logically why international borders are needed without using the propagandist's arguments. While I can clearly show that you merely want to corral people like cattle, for maximum "efficiency", and profit.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[PixelScuba]

You have misinterpreted my comment. Nothing against Ron Paul, of the candidates running for office in the republican party he is the most intriguing. I know he is actually a Libertarian at heart and I generally vote more socialist, so I wouldn't vote for him personally, but I wouldn't raise ire if he were elected. However I was just commenting on the Congressinal pay system, I don't know anything about Ron Paul's votes or term in the senate.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[iminplaya]

Kind of a second reply:

He is in favor of immigration. Legal immigration.

Yes, and I'm in favor of granting citizenship to ex-slaves, but not runaways. That's a violation of my property rights. And I want my "property" back! They should wait until I sign them over. They should follow procedure. Failure to do so is an insult to those who have. It's no better to be the property of the state as you are under the present system than it is to be the property of an individual. But you are being held as property(prisoner) if you don't have a passport. The analogy is still holding up very well, thanks. In fact, it's gets stronger as the thought goes deeper.

Re:Vote for Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough with your "Utopian Global Community idea"! I've read through a few of your drunken posts (you did admit you were drunken!) and come to the conclusion that while humanistically possibly OK, the reality is that the ideal society that you speak of can never exist. People think differently, governments think differently, and you will never get everyone on the globe to agree to the same thing. What you will end up having is that if one country (such as the US as you want it to be) opens itself completely up and gives everyone a heavily subsidized living (payed mostly by citizens and companies in the tax base), it will fail. The local school districts already have raised property taxes sky high in my area to pay for building a new middle school due to the increasing population of legal and illegal immigrants. How is it that while my parents had to pay X dollars in property taxes to get me an education, that I will need to pay 3*(X+inflation) to pay for my children's education?

Re:Email via IM Wireless Mesh

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a tax on data transmitted would lead to a proliferation of Wireless and Mesh networks as well as a renewed interest in dial and point to point links. They would literally have to tax the data as it left the PC. The Internet would cease to be what it is a an evolve into something anew.

What did you do with our money?

[OrangeTide]

Maybe if they spent our tax dollars a little more wisely we wouldn't be so resistant to new taxes. Wars instead of schools? Oil subsidies instead of medical research?

What's wrong with all the money we mailed them last April? Did they spend it already?

seriously, those guys on capital hill are ticking us off. it's not liberal versus conservative, or democrat versus republican. It's Us versus Them.

Man we get fired up!

[moore.dustin]

Every single time something is posted that threatens the internet community, our community, everyone gets all riled up and starts fact finding. While nothing has really happened yet, I can only imagine what will happen if the government tries to tamper with what we have now.

If taxation or net neutrality manages to come into effect, our community, which built, understands, and gets the most out of the web are not going to just 'take it.' I feel bad for whoever is on the receiving end of our responce because, honestly, I think we can cause so much trouble/damage that they would be forced to do something. That opens up a whole different bag of issues, but that isnt the point. The point is that if the whole geek/nerd community decided to take action against something, our voice would be the loudest, most recognized voice in history probably. We are the internet and the internet is HUGE.

Meanwhile, in other news ...

[PPH]

... voters warn senator of elections the next fall.

Typical Political FUD

[lord_mike]

If the moratorium expires, one ardent tax foe is predicting taxes on e-mail. A United Nations agency proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, but retreated after criticism.

"They might say, 'We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,' but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access," said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "We need to be honest about what we're endorsing and what we're opposing."

When reality doesn't side with your politics, you just make stuff up or pull it out of your behind.... Kudos to the senator's staffer who found an 8 year old story and make it sound like an "impending threat of dire circumstance!" when it is complete fiction.

None of these proposals "tax"... The two issues are whether sites like Amazon.com should collect sales taxes for out of state sales (like any major catalog company like Sears has been doing for generations), and whether municipalities can tax internet access like they do phone and cable... The original moratorium was designed to encourage greater participation in the Internet. that goal has been accomplished, and further subsidizing it probably makes little sense.

Yes, it sucks.... no one likes paying taxes, but the roads don't get built by themselves, and the cops don't protect your house for free. The money has to come from somewhere.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:Typical Political FUD

[scatalogical]

The cops don't protect anything. Nice squeeky clean brain you have there. Search for "supreme court police protect citizen" and read the SCOTUS decision which states so.

Re:Typical Political FUD

[Qzukk]

(like any major catalog company like Sears has been doing for generations)

Mail order doesn't charge out-of-state users taxes either, assuming that you actually are out of state, which is pretty hard to do when there's a Sears in just about every major city.

Re:Typical Political FUD

[FirstTimeCaller]

The money has to come from somewhere.

I thought that's what grandchildren were for.

Re:Typical Political FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

breathing air tax anyone? :) oh, c'mon "roads don't get built by themselves"

Re:Typical Political FUD

[Dhalka226]

but the roads don't get built by themselves, and the cops don't protect your house for free. The money has to come from somewhere.

That's true, and I think most people wouldn't necessarily argue with collecting same taxes.

But haven't we been building roads and hiring police for decades? Why do they need more money all of the sudden? We pay federal income taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes in many jurisdictions. We pay consumption taxes and use taxes and many places still have the balls to even have toll booths on their major roads despite all of that. There are property taxes and estate taxes and capital gains taxes. Taxes on businesses before the money makes it to a person who is then taxed. There are taxes that they pretend aren't really taxes, like filing fees for starting a business. At my house we pay for garbage stickers and lawn waste stickers. There are fees for other services, like water fees and sewage fees. Many states have lotteries which also funnel money into their coffers.

And for the most part we bitch a little bit but largely are okay with paying all this because, after all, roads don't get built by themselves and police don't protect our houses for free. Then we hear about the constant corruption, and pork-barrel projects like the wonderful Highway to Nowhere. We hear about programs we may not personally agree with*. We hear how illegal immigrants are entitled to free education, free lunches and free healthcare--all of which come out of our pockets--for as long as they can avoid getting caught. We see politicians spending millions of dollars of their own money to win a job that pays them a bit over a hundred grand a year and we know something has to be up.

It comes to a point where one has to begin wondering how much money they really need and how much is just us getting fleeced for no apparent reason, to funnel back to bullshit projects that don't do anything but get that congressman re-elected and make his friends rich.

We seem to be getting along fine without these new taxes. If we really need more money for schools and streets and police, we should look at cutting out some of the crap that goes on and fixing broken programs. Unfortunately the solution always seems to be "let's find something new to tax."

* I'm not saying this is an excuse against taxes by any stretch, merely that it contributes to the annoyance.

Re:Typical Political FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it sucks.... no one likes paying taxes, but the roads don't get built by themselves, and the cops don't protect your house for free. The money has to come from somewhere.

Roads get built with fuel taxes, you ignorant twit.

Correction

[lord_mike]

None of these proposals "tax"...

should be

None of these proposals "tax" email...

Thanks,

Mike

Don't complain

[Arthur B.]

Either you oppose taxes or your don't. There's no middle-ground, every tax is irrational. Taxing dividends, gas, the internet, cheese consumption is ethically similar.
If you complain about email/internet taxes but think income tax, wealth tax, consumption taxes or social security are OK, you are just bitching for your own petty particular situation. If you want to be consistent (and ethical), you should reject *any* tax.

This story is just another example that the government will try and tax whatever it can for the purpose of ever increasing its power. Not only does it allow them to 'legally' control the internet, it provides them with the financial mean to do so...

Re:Don't complain

[Kohath]

Actually, certain taxes are different. Taxing gas to pay for road construction is more-or-less a pay-per-use system. It's not irrational at all.

Taxing property to pay for a fire department to protect property is similar.

Lots of taxes make sense and lots of others don't.

Re:Don't complain

[Maximum Prophet]

It's also logical to argue that there should be exactly one, across the board, tax. i.e. only Federal income tax, or a Federal sales tax, and all public expeditures should come from that.

Taxes are an economic optimization. If you were charged a toll for every road you took, it would be very expensive and inefficient to get anywhere. It's much like a subscription to a magazine. It's cheaper to buy a year at a time, than to have to individually pay for each issue.

You're right that the reason we have so many complicated taxes is control. The states want to control how much alcohol and tobacco people use, so the tax them. They want people to buy houses, so they give some money back to people who buy rather than rent. If they treated taxes as a simple money grab, they'd be a lot more efficient.

One system a friend of mine came up with was to simply apply an across the board Federal sales tax. (a regressive tax). Then give everyone a rebate of whatevery the current poverty level was plus $1, and thus, no more poverty. He did the computations for the year he came up with the idea, and figured the new system would actually put more money into the Treasury than the current system, while costing people less.

Re:Don't complain

[Arthur B.]

You could be driving on a private circuit, you could be using gas for private electricity generation... Same for property taxes, when did you require fire department service, how does the tax asses the precautions you take to avoid fire, etc.

Re:Don't complain

[Kohath]

Perfection is elusive.

Re:Don't complain

[Arthur B.]

Logic for what? The only logic of taxes is for the statesmen to take as much money as possible or to gain as much power as possible. Maybe in that case a unique federal tax is more logic, I don't know.

Taxes are pure economic waste because they are pure coercion. Also what exactly is being "optimized" other than the welfare of the regulators, please be precise.

Also why would you need to pay a toll at every road you take without taxes anyway... you gave the answer yourself, you can use a subscription service.

Even if pure money grab was sought, by controlling people, you can grab money more easily from them. Think public education for example.

The problem with your fiend's system is that if you give people that kind of relief, they will probably resist taxes much more and thus the treasury will end up making less.

Re:Don't complain

[aero6dof]

You could be driving on a private circuit, you could be using gas for private electricity generation... Same for property taxes, when did you require fire department service, how does the tax asses the precautions you take to avoid fire, etc.

Are you going to dump emissions from burning the gas into your own private atmosphere too?

Re:Don't complain

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like diesel. You could be using it on your crew boat, or you could be using it in your big truck. Why should you have to pay taxes on the diesel for your crew boat to pay for the roads that only your big truck uses.

I guess they'd need a way of marking the diesel that is exempt from taxes to pay for roads. Perhaps they could add dye to it. If they suspect you're using it in the truck, they just pull a sample and look to see if it's dyed (as a little dye goes a long way, even if you dilute the dyed diesel with undyed road diesel).

Oh, wait. They already do that.

Tax what specifically?

[Antony-Kyre]

Don't tax e-mail, Internet-type services, and the intangibles.

Tax sales made via the Internet all you want.

I have said what I said, and I am finished with this comment.

Re:Stupid Democrats

[iminplaya]

How 'bout nobody runs for office and people learn the fine art of real cooperation before it dies out completely? The 49.999%/50.999% rules of engagement are proving to be a miserable failure. I pray that American Idol doesn't get canceled. If they lose the distraction, they might, possibly wake up and actually start thinking, and we can't have that if we are to keep them enslaved. Good to see I'm more of a Troll than the slave owners. Shows exactly why this is happening. People don't want to hear that they're being raped. It makes them feel like a fool. Heh, turns out they are fools. and quite willing ones at that, as demonstrated by the mods. So typical of the "victim" mentality spreading like wildfire even faster than the declining IQs.

Low-hanging fruit

[Lockejaw]

What it means is that the company who profited by your computer's infection is committing tax fraud/evasion. The IRS will then mercilessly hunt down the company who infected your PC, and the company paying for the "advertising service," and instead of getting a slap on the wrist, involved parties get a nice cell in a Federal prison.

Or they'll say it's your machine, so it's your job to prove it wasn't you sending all of that. If you convince a court that it wasn't you, then they'll go to all the extra effort to get the money/jail time from whoever actually did it.

Re:Low-hanging fruit

[hotdiggitydawg]

What it means is that the company who profited by your computer's infection is committing tax fraud/evasion. The IRS will then mercilessly hunt down the company who infected your PC, and the company paying for the "advertising service," and instead of getting a slap on the wrist, involved parties get a nice cell in a Federal prison.

Or they'll say it's your machine, so it's your job to prove it wasn't you sending all of that. If you convince a court that it wasn't you, then they'll go to all the extra effort to get the money/jail time from whoever actually did it. Rubbish. Neither the IRS nor the government are interested in throwing half the population in jail or shaking them down for pennies. That actually costs them money. I'm sure they would much rather go after a few big fish with more money, and try to make a profit out of this new potential revenue stream.

Re:Low-hanging fruit

[Dunbal]

Rubbish. Neither the IRS nor the government are interested in throwing half the population in jail or shaking them down for pennies. That actually costs them money. I'm sure they would much rather go after a few big fish with more money, and try to make a profit out of this new potential revenue stream.

      Sure, ok, lie on your tax statements for the next couple years - not by much, just a couple thousand dollars or so (pennies, right?) and we'll see what happens to you...

      The government DOES shake people down for pennies. It's how they make money.

Re:Low-hanging fruit

[hotdiggitydawg]

You seem to be missing the point. With this proposed revenue stream, it may cost them five grand in man-hours and other resources to squeeze two grand out of me (assuming that it's even possible for me to legitimately have such a large bill under this proposed new tax scheme). That's a net loss for them. And heavily magnified when you now apply the same principle across half the population. No government would sustain a policy like that on a large scale and expect to remain solvent. When the cost of colllecting the tax exceeds the value of the tax there is no point collecting it. Bring in jail time and it becomes a double whammy, especially if it used on a large scale - not only are those inside no longer contributing to the national economy, but it also costs the state huge amounts just to keep them there.

Now apply it to the big fish - say it costs the IRS a hundred grand in man-hours and resources to squeeze five hundred grand out of one single large tax evader. That's a net profit, and that's how they'll make their money. And society at large is not going to feel any major economic impact if a few dozen major spammers got jailed.

It's NOT broken, so let's BREAK it!

[Newer Guy]

I don't believe the pure ignorance and incompetance of our Government. They have already worked hard to insure that we are (and will remain) a third world country broadband wise for many years to come. NOW they want to destroy the Internet's commercial possibilities. UNBELIEVABLE

Re:It's NOT broken, so let's BREAK it!

[Baba Ram Dass]

Everything the government touches turns to shit; get used to it.

Wasn't that repealed?

[spun]

I heard that a Federal phone tax was implemented to help pay for WWII. They were supposed to end it after the war, but they didn't. It was finally repealed last year, thus the tax form question about phone tax rebates this year, remember that?

Re:Wasn't that repealed?

[dangrover]

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/07/02/spanish -american-war-tax-on-telephone-service-continues-t oday/ Spanish-American war, actually.

Re:Wasn't that repealed?

[capnchicken]

The Federal Excise Tax was repealed and we had a one time refund. Also, it's from BEFORE WWI, more like the Spanish-American War in 1898. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_telephone_exc ise_tax

Re:Wasn't that repealed?

[capnchicken]

It is FROM 1898, but to be fair, it was repealed and reinstated a few times, for people who think I didn't RTFL I put up.

Re:Wasn't that repealed?

[adona1]

Yeah, very few temporary taxes get repealed once they're enacted, the same way that laws enacted for a period of time tend to remain in force after that period has ended ;)

Re:Wasn't that repealed?

[sumdumass]

Thats why most law should have a sunset clause. Sometimes laws need revisited to determine their effectiveness and continued applicability.

One of the side effects though, is all the political meandering like what is with the patriot act laws that have/had a sunset clause for the majority of it. Every tax and law passed should have this option.

Supply Side is better for gov't revenue

[yog]

Well there were several things mentioned in the article. While taxing email is technically unfeasible not to mention rather ridiculous, they definitely want to tax commerce that utilizes the Internet to work more efficiently.

For example, if you buy a book off Amazon.com, Amazon would pay local taxes to the "streamlined sales tax" system they're proposing. Of course, the consumer would bear the expenses of such a tax.

They (I'm lumping all the tax maggots into one pronoun) also want to impose a monthly internet use tax, i.e. a DSL tax.

What the Dems don't get is that the supply side approach is much better as was demonstrated during the 90s when many successful companies were founded such as Amazon and EBay. Although local sales taxes are avoided, these companies nonetheless contribute mightily to the tax base through employee income taxes, employee purchase of local homes, cars, food, travel services, and other products, corporate income tax, capital gains and other stock transaction related taxes, etc.

The internet revolution demonstrated the superiority of supply side economics. The successful companies generate the most revenue streams for the government in an organic manner. Imposing a regressive, universal tax on transactions will probably not destroy the current giants but will certainly discourage new companies from flourishing. Instead, incompetence will be rewarded because local governments will get all kinds of revenue they didn't deserve and will become totally dependent on it.

Then there are the unknown future uses of the internet that most of us can't even conceive. What about internet-based medical care? A surgeon on another continent operating on a patient via precision remote control, or physicians providing consultative services remotely--all of this will get taxed, and the middleware companies that are trying to market these services will get taxed to death before they can even get off the ground.

Monthly internet connection tax--what a slippery slope! Next they'll be taxing by the byte. Ultimately the cost of doing business for everyone will go up, including bricks and mortar stores which are also dependent on the internet today to run their businesses. Salaries will necessarily go down, people will have less discretionary income as a result, and the U.S. economy will be further Europeanized.

It will then become even more economically attractive to outsource manufacturing and service jobs. This is all to China and India's benefit. Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in.

Re:Supply Side is better for gov't revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice, but the bill's sponsor, Mike Enzi, is a Republican.

Re:Supply Side is better for gov't revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, stupid DEMS!

Wish we had a president like they had in the 90s.

You know a good old fashioned DEM.

Re:Supply Side is better for gov't revenue

[Bad D.N.A.]

It will then become even more economically attractive to outsource manufacturing and service jobs. This is all to China and India's benefit. Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in.

Seriously dude. Could you keep a straight face while you were typing this in?

What a fantastic job of revisionist history. The totally dominated republican government for the last 6 years have screwed things up so bad that it's not necessary to get into the details.

Now all of a sudden it's Hilary's fault? Two years away from an election that she very well might not win and it's already her fault?

Reality in my world is strange enough, but reality in your world must be totally gonzo!!!

Re:Supply Side is better for gov't revenue

[Riverman5]

What doesn't make any sense to me is why the government can't make itself more efficient with the internet. I've noticed the DMV near my house is less and less crowded. I haven't been using the internet renewal like everyone else... but the facility is being used less and less, and it costs pennies to operate the website.

They'll just keep doing things the old fashioned way and tax more and more. Always expanding....

Dick

[tepples]

Likewise, should we really listen to a man named Dick Stallman? I mean seriously...what the hell are we thinking. Dick Stallman, seriously your name is Dick...Stallman, no no no I'm sorry..I uh just..well I just want to make sure that I'm getting this right. D - I - C - K Stallman? hahaha...uh yeah ok...sorry.

Re:Dick

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Michigan's Attorney General Mike Cox?

What about all the money they are hiding from us?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure everyone here is familiar with the CAFR's (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). The "BUDGET" that they talk about only exists for the year in question. If you look at your states own CAFR report you will see that there are billions of dollars every year that are swept under the rug. They don't even hid the information either. Just do a google search on the state you live in and CAFR and you will find it with much ease. I think the sad this is how many people are not aware of the fleecing that occurs year after year. So, next time the state says it needs 20 millions dollars for education in this years budget but doesn't have the funds and needs to cut it, just look at the CAFR from last year and see the BILLIONS of dollars in revenue they are holding onto. Yes, the "BUDGET" doesn't have the funding available but the money is there... Just my .02$

Use taxes

[tepples]

People are already paying to the ISP for the access to send emails. The ISP then pays taxes on their income and you paid sales taxes on the service. If your e-mail smarthost is in another U.S. state, you have to pay a use tax to your state, but the majority of individuals in the United States evade this tax. The Article talks about efforts to enforce collection of this use tax.

Re:use taxes

[Creepy]

Heh - in one respect, I agree, I think having both a Sales Tax and an Income Tax is cutting at both ends, but the reality is that you still owe sales tax on purchases, even ones purchased out of state if your state collects sales tax. Catalog and online businesses already need to keep records of purchases and the state of purchase (by law they also have to provide states with a copy on request), so it would be easiest for them to collect taxes for that state like any other business doing cross-state transactions. People purchasing items or services on, say, e-bay and not paying use taxes are technically committing felony tax evasion punishable by up to 5 years in prison and $100000 fine. Of course, that means the IRS needs to prove that the evader willingly and knowingly were trying to avoid taxation, so usually a first offense is a fine + back taxes and interest. Do it again and you're screwed.

Look at the bright side - in China, you get executed for tax evasion.

Is this even possible?

[beerdini]

As other postings addressed, what defines an email? Who is going to keep track of all of the emails to count them? What if I go offshore with a foreign account, is that taxed? What about at work, are my internal emails taxed?

Seriously, the job of trying to count emails will be a nearly impossible task. It would probably decrease spam because who would want to pay to send out all that junk mail, but what happens when a computer gets infected with a virus that sends email? Who is responsible for the tax in that case?

Since email is pretty much a requirement in the business world, are they going to get email taxed too? If they decide to say any message that's source is from the U.S. I can only image how many companies, including yahoo, microsoft, google, etc... that would outsource or even go offshore with their operations to avoid paying the tax.

There would be so many negative repercussions of an email tax that anyone politician that voted for the tax would be voted out so fast their heads would be spinning.

Well Folks....

[flyneye]

Well folks,we get the government we deserve.
We started out as a Republic that collected tariffs on imports,constitutionally allowed so that the government could run a post office,protect the borders and make sure commerce ran smoothly interstate.
Times changed,corruption took its toll and now we have almost a complete reversal of Constitutional intention that empowers the corrupt.
What can I say? Vote Libertarian and urge others to do the same.It's the closest we can come to fixing the wrongs.
This internet tax bill is a crock of fertilizer as is any taxation on the citizens of the several states and their business.
Throw out the clowns(Republicans and Democrats)and fix it as it is dissapearing faster than the environment and is more urgently valuable.Freedom,use it or lose it.

A bit of perspective from Blighty..

[FreudianNightmare]

Really, what's the problem here? I'm in the UK and admittedly, we don't really have the issues with sales tax you guys have (no states, one national rate, called VAT, charged at 17.5%), but it seems quite simple. Options: a) Don't charge sales tax on internet sales, to ease operations. Bit unfair on bricks and mortar retailers, and hardly defensible b) Pay tax in the state in which the goods are deemed to have been sold. Head office, or dispatch point. Its up to you. Add the tax to the price charged, collect from retailer (as for bricks and mortar). Its not like you'd go into a hardware store in Ohio and say "Hey, I'm from Montana, can I not pay the tax please?" c) Pay tax in the state from which the purchase was made As decided by the delivery address, or billing address (again, your choice) Not as fair and one suspects that a store in one state would feel fairly aggrieved about having to pay taxes to another state entirely (though really the tax is on the purchaser, so its actually just admin). With either b) or c), its hardly a complex technological solution. You do only have 50 states. Check one location against a table of 50 states, work out the tax, and make an entry in the appropriate record. NOT HARD. Of course, if you think ALL sales taxes are unfair to start with... well thats a different debate.

Re:A bit of perspective from Blighty..

[SithLordOfLanc]

You raise a good point, however, some states have no sales tax.
Also, the US does not have a federal sales tax. AFAIK, the only thing that congress could do is ALLOW states to collect tax. I could be wrong, IANAL (or a dumb senator).

Re:A bit of perspective from Blighty..

[FreudianNightmare]

Hmmm, no federal sales tax. Lucky you guys. The flippant part of me wants to say 'give it time'... But the more thoughtful part of me says, well, even with some states NOT charging sales tax, b) or c) still work. Of course, if you chose b) a lot of online retailers are going to base (or dispatch) in a tax free state, but as long as taxes are not harmonised across states, there will always be many different companies moving round to achieve the most efficient (i.e. cheapest for them) tax position. It even happens here (to a small degree) with some online retailers (Amazon.co.uk, notably) will allow you to order from their Jersey (part of the channel islands, a British Territory but essentially a tax haven) operation and save the VAT. For the record, I'm not fond of Sales Taxes, because they are extremely regressive. That is, they disproportionately hit the less well off. An extra 17.5% isn't much to a rich guy, its potentially quite a lot to someone who's struggling already. Income taxes are much fairer. But, as long as you are going to have them (and the revenoo, they do love a good sales tax), they really ought to be applied to EVERY qualifying sale. a CD from Amazon really should have the same tax position as a CD from Walmart.

I knew it...

[Quiet_Desperation]

Coin slots on our modems. It was inevitable. :(

Oh well. Back to moon bounce.

Like we're not taxed enough...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody remembers history, do they? Not even history recent enough for me to remember, apparently.

Don't any of you remember the 1970s with its "stagflation"? And the result?

In 1974 OPEC was started, and the world wide price of petroleum skyrocketed. Gasoline was about 35 cents per gallon when I left for Thailand in August 1973. The day I reached the US in August 1974, the headline read "Nixon resigns". The next time I bought gasoline it was 75 cents per gallon.

Prices of everything started shooting up. The price of everything exept labor, any way

For the first time in US history, we had rampant inflation without an increase in the economy itself. Most working people saw their buying power decline rapidly, as their wages rose but not nearly enough to keep up with the price of everything.

And with rising wages (but without a resultant increase in buying power), there was what was known as "bracket creep". This raised everyone's taxes without Congress actually having to pass what would be a very unpopular tax increase to pay for the debacle that had been the Viet Nam war.

The inflation that led to the unlegislated tax increases was directly caused by oil prices. See, the price of everything depends on the price of oil. Plastic is made of oil. Factories need energy to run. And it takes a lot of oil to get raw ores to the smelter, and to get raw steel to the parts factories, and to get the parts to the finished goods factories, and to get the finished goods to the warehouses, and to get them from the warehouses to the retail stores.

When the price of oil goes up, the price of everything goes up.

Fast forward to the Bush administration. When Bush (an oil man, just like Vice President Cheney) took office I was paying $1.05 per gallon. This morning I bought five bucks worth at $3.34 per gallon, and the "empty" light didn't even go out. And, of course, we're fighting the Vietnam war agin (this time for a real reason - to destabilize the Middle East to drive up the price of oil, so the Bushes and Cheneys and friends can reap windfall profits).

The end of this decade, and maybe part of the next, will be as bad as the '70s. Maybe worse. But we'll need no tax increase, the coming hyperinflation will take care of any needed tax increases, without any legislation necessary. This internet tax included.

This time, pay attention, will you?

-mcgrew

Blaming Dems?

[Touvan]

I will admit they deserve their fair share of blame, but isn't usually republicans - like George Bush - who tend to prefer high maintenance, regressive point of sales and usage taxes systems, over more simple and progressive corporate income tax systems? And Aren't they both taxing the same money at the end of the quarter anyway?

E-mail already illegal in the US

[Random832]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode39/us c_sec_39_00000601----000-.html
(a) A letter may be carried out of the mails* when--
(1) it is enclosed in an envelope;
(2) the amount of postage which would have been charged on the letter if it had been sent by mail is paid by stamps, or postage meter stamps, on the envelope;
(3) the envelope is properly addressed;
(4) the envelope is so sealed that the letter cannot be taken from it without defacing the envelope;
(5) any stamps on the envelope are canceled in ink by the sender; and
(6) the date of the letter, of its transmission or receipt by the carrier is endorsed on the envelope in ink.

*in context, "out of the mails" means any form of delivery other than the US postal service

NONE of these are satisfied by typical emails.

Re:E-mail already illegal in the US

[the eric conspiracy]

Good. I'd hate to think I was doing anything legal.

Re:E-mail already illegal in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

"(4) the envelope is so sealed that the letter cannot be taken from it without defacing the envelope;"

How do you send postcards in the US, then? Don't they break item 4) above?

I thought you had the US constitution to protect you from any nasty thing in the world? Surely the 'founding fathers' had something to say about e-mail taxation? Oh. no - sorry, they didn't. Never mind, they said you should always have guns to protect yourselves against oppressive tyranny, so the obvious answer is to go and shoot the taxmen.

And all the foreigners. And anyone else who gets in your way.

You know, I can't help thinking that setting up a country by following the example of a set of communist rebels was asking for trouble.

Re:E-mail already illegal in the US

[Random832]

And if you write a letter on a postcard, you must send it through the mail, since it does not meet the requirements outlined above for sending it in a way OTHER than the mail. Read for comprehension, much?

Slashdot users warn of Stupid Senator tax

[N1ck0]

Slashdot users around the world this week began an all-out push for the power to tax stupid statements made by Senators and other government officials. A new revolt post would usher in Stupid taxes, and the Federation of Independent Internet Users (representing all users everywhere) advised senators at a hearing on Wednesday to issue a temporary moratorium on being idiots. One irked Republican senator warned that unless this tax is repealed, we could start seeing government progress and efficiency by the end of the year.

Crazy Talk

[PacketScan]

If by some idiotic reason gets passed how would this be monitored? Well we already are forced in most cases to use our ISP's outgoing server, will they just parse the logs? Or would their we clearing house servers by which the email must pass for a tax stamp if you will. And then what?, Sweeping Tax server outages?. The Feasibility of this is of enormous proportions.

how would they even do it

[EdelFactor19]

how would you even begin to go about taxing email.. seeing as the smtp stack is as secure as an unlocked car in NYC, and we can barely verify where email really comes from as is, how in the world are they going to tax it.

How do you think the bulk of spammers work right now? Ever notice how many of the spams you get don't even seem to have you address attached to them anywhere and come from fake senders. Seems like this is going to encourage everyone to do that. Secondly, how do they have the right to tax us for using something that isn't theirs. Next they are going to charge me a tax for taking money out of my own wallet?

I think there would be a lot of issues and hurdles ethically speaking, but the practicality seems flawed. I don't see how they can do it without violating a lot of privacy rights, agreements, and stepping on a whole lot of feet. That or we will all get our email servers relocated to somewhere else.

this seems like double taxing for the same thing. You pay tax for internet bandwidth, now they want more for certain types of data sent on the bandwidth?

I think its very short sighted to try to pin this on a particular political party however. This kind of stupidity tends to follow more from the uneducated fools in the party than the party's grand agenda itself. Frankly this is the kind of thing I'd more expect from Republicans, who would try to censor the email while they were at it

Re:how would they even do it

[pete6677]

What do you think Democrats will do once they realize they can use internet taxes for yet more wealth redistribution and "social programs"? All politicians love taxes; just for slightly different reasons.

Re:how would they even do it

[Teancum]

This sounds like the tax that the state of Minnesota imposes (used to impose?) on income tax refund checks.

Re-read this again if you don't get it. You get an income tax refund check because you paid too much in taxes, yet that refund was taxed as if it was income. And of course you didn't get a rebate if you ended up having to pay taxes instead of getting a refund.

Governments will do anything and everything to try and get you to part with the money in your wallet, and often the only difference between a fraudulent schemer and a congressman is that the congressman has the ability to write laws so everything he is doing is legal... by definition. Double taxation, while it doesn't make sense, happens routinely and in more ways than you can possibly imagine. At best all you should do is point out the hypocrisy when you see it and let others know how absurd governments can get.

Re:how would they even do it

[EdelFactor19]

get laughed at and watch their support vanish as their supporters refuse to send emails for communcation supporting them to avoid the tax. Boston Email party anyone? someone shuold post a list of who we shuold all start emailing and telling not to even think about doing this. A nice blanket of "dont tax email spam" could serve nicely as evidence of disapproval.

Abmail?

[nathan s]

That sounds like a lot of situps just to send a message. ;-)

Re:Abmail?

[nytes]

You only have to situp for the ones. The zeros are free.

It makes sending pictures pretty painful, though.

No fuckwit

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFATYDRBYAM:

If the moratorium expires, one ardent tax foe is predicting taxes on e-mail. A United Nations agency proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, but retreated after criticism. (A similar proposal, called bill "602P," is, however, actually an urban legend.)

"They might say, 'We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,' but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access," said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "We need to be honest about what we're endorsing and what we're opposing."

Acutally fucktard, it was a reasonable speculation about the government extending their tax powers once the moratorium on internet taxes is removed.

An ignorant liberal lying about Republicans on slashdot, that's definitely NOT a new one.

We're ALREADY being charged...

[PCMeister]

What these politicians (or techno-morons if you'd like) don't understand is that we, as ISP customers, are already being charged. This is because we pay a monthly SERVICE FEE (including several Federal and Local taxes) that gives us access to communicate over the internet, regardless of the content and potential end-use of said content.

They're simply trying to equate EMAIL to SNAIL MAIL, in which you get charged on a per item basis. However, unlike snail mail, no ADDITIONAL equipment or human resources are necessary (ie. truck drivers, fuel, etc. in the case of snail mail) to deliver email.

Just another way to squeeze more taxes out of the working stiff. People complain about Canada's high tax rate (approx. 40-50%), but they haven't bothered to take into account how much taxes Americans pay outside of Federal Income taxes. I'm sure it's up there as well, but we don't have anything to show for it (not even universal BASIC health care.) Granted, that's another topic altogether, but it had to be thrown in there.

Please save your "Love it or Leave it!" shit speech, because if that were the case, our forefathers would've gone somewhere else to establish our "Colony". Good luck to us all... Interesting times are definitely ahead of us!!!

Re:We're ALREADY being charged...

[Squiggle]

For reference:
from: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxra tes-e.html

Canada's federal income tax rate is:
        * 15.5% on the first $37,178 of taxable income, +
        * 22% on the next $37,179 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $37,178 and $74,357), +
        * 26% on the next $46,530 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $74,357 and $120,887), +
        * 29% of taxable income over $120,887.

Provincial income taxes range from ~5-15%.

There is also a 6% federal sales tax and generally a 6-7% provincial sales tax as well.

Re:We're ALREADY being charged...

[mr_matticus]

Actually, Canada's income taxes are lower than ours, and their highest bracket is around the equivalent of $105,000 or so. What's higher is GST.

The total amount of income contributed to taxable purposes is higher in Canada (like nearly every other country in the world, and IIRC, every SINGLE other first-world country), but that money goes to accomplish more.

Taxes in the US are too low and too Byzantine. All tax codes are complicated, but it'd be a lot easier if we raised the income tax and dropped most of the others. A harmonized sales tax (national variance of +/- 1% for example) would also make life easier for travelers.

Re:GIGO

[Anonymous Coward]

put a toll meter on one of the Tubes. Voila!

Would that be on the garbage in tube or the garbage out tube? Hopefully it's not the garbage in tube, because then according to Sturgeon's Law we'd all be t3h fux0rz. However if it's the garbage out tube then the tax would sit disproportionately on politicians, lawyers, and people with myspace pages. That just wouldn't be fair.

How about the rest of the world?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, how the US politicians think that they can legislate, impose tax on such item as email, which is used world-wide, crosses borders.

Well, it's not funny, seeing how they think that IP and copyright laws would just cover the entire world according to their own (lobbyists) interests.

It's easy to predict, that the USA is continuing to get isolated in the international community and that US companies will escape their new innovative products from the USA to off-shore, where American legislation can't hurt them.

Re:Stupid Democrats

[N1ck0]

Not me...I voted for Kodos

The internet is pregnant?

[fishdan]

Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said Wednesday that he'd like "to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet."

Ted, if you could please consistantly say that are completely stupid and crazy, it would make things much easier for me. Unless of course you want an impregnable ban on taxes of the internet because you are worried that the internet will get pregnant. In that case, dear sir carry on!

Re:The internet is pregnant?

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

Ted, if you could please consistantly say that are completely stupid and crazy, it would make things much easier for me. Unless of course you want an impregnable ban on taxes of the internet because you are worried that the internet will get pregnant. In that case, dear sir carry on!

Couldn't the Internet just get its tubes tied?

Use Tax

[ortcutt]

Uh no. It's called a use tax. It's a tax on the consumption of the good instate and not a interstate tariff. I wish I could read a Slashdot post on so-called "internet tax" which acknowledged the existence of use taxes for once. First, the term "internet tax" is wrong, because the way that the item was bought out-of-state is irrelevant. It could have been bought from a catalog, by mail, by phone, whatever. Second, states don't want to introduce a new tax. They just want to be able to collect the tax that already exists, the use tax. As it is now, the tax exists but few individuals pay it. I don't pay it myself since I have no idea when April 15th rolls around how much I bought from out-of-state. I would almost prefer that it were collected by the vendor, because that would save me the hassle of keeping receipts all year were I to pay the taxes I owed.

Re:Use Tax

[Maximum Prophet]

If it's really a "use tax", then why don't you pay it on things that you purchase in-state and "use" in that state? i.e. why isn't it applied to stuff that you've paid sales tax on. (I know that's the way the law was written, but what's the logic?)

Calling it a "use" tax is just an end-run around the constitution. It's not the first time, and not the last that government will do this.

Every time I hear tax this or tax that on the 'net

[Opportunist]

Isn't it funny that the US, the strongest pusher for online taxation, was founded to avoid a tax?

Yes, yes, the slogan was "no taxation without representation". But, honestly, dear netizens (yeah, I hate that world just as much as you do, but it fits, ok?) of the world: Do you feel represented by politicians who can't even turn a computer on without breaking it?

He is also opposed to personal liberties

[sheldon]

He's against abortion, gays, all the usual stuff.

Not much of a Libertarian at all.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but how does he vote?

No, really. I'm against abortion, too; it's just that I'm *more* against the government dictating such a thing.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[Brandybuck]

Abortion: Not the Federal Government's business
Gay Marriage: Not the Federal Government's business

Sounds right to me.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[ceejayoz]

Paul's not your guy, then.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[Brandybuck]

Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.

Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.

He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.

Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.

There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[ceejayoz]

Sorry, but a self-proclaimed strict constructionist who thinks "I don't like it" is a good enough reason to over turn the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution is a hypocritical asshole.

If he doesn't want the Constitution to apply to something, he should push for an amendment to change it, just like he tells everyone else to do.

The assault-abortion comparison is absurd, too. If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?

Again, "this particular issue is important enough to me that I feel the Constitution shouldn't apply" isn't something Paul gets to bash others for when he's doing it himself.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[sheldon]

Wow.

Ron Paul's supporters can sure spin like the rest of the Republicans.

You guys just have yourself convinced that smaller government means banning more things.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[Brandybuck]

You guys just have yourself convinced that smaller government means banning more things.

His vote for the defense of marriage act banned NOTHING! It was a vote to prevent one state from imposing its rules on another.

His vote against partial birth abortion did ban something. But small government doesn't mean no government. In the absence of a working anarcho-capitalist legal system, and in the presence of supreme court decisions that make abortion a federal issue, a vote for the partial birth abortion ban was perfectly sensible for a pro-life libertarian.

It's okay if you disagree with Ron Paul's views. But arguing that he's a hypocrite and big government statist is just plain silly. Getting your nose out of joint for his not being a 100% ideologically pure candidate is naive to the point of childishness.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[Brandybuck]

If a large number of states didn't feel it was worthy of a law, isn't that the very reason we have state's rights to begin with? To allow states to set their laws without interference from other states and the Federal government as much as is possible?

But that is EXACTLY what he voted for! Go read the link I gave you.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[ceejayoz]

I did.

I still fail to see how a Federal law banning a type of abortion promotes states' rights by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[sheldon]

It's okay if you disagree with Ron Paul's views. But arguing that he's a hypocrite and big government statist is just plain silly. Getting your nose out of joint for his not being a 100% ideologically pure candidate is naive to the point of childishness.

Whatever. I just point out the facts. And the facts are Ron Paul is a Big Government Statist.

He's a Republican. That's what the Republicans are all about. Anybody who claims otherwise is either lying to you, or trying to pander to you.

Which is it that you are doing?

Re:He is also opposed to personal liberties

[sheldon]

I was just going to say. Don't take yourself too seriously.

I intend on sending some money to Ron Paul's campaign, because there's nothing finer than tossing an anchor to the Republican party which is in the midst of a self-implosion because of the stupidity of their candidates.

So...

[n6kuy]

Dick Cheney and Halliburton are in charge of the Democrats too?

THIS STORY IS A GEM

[Enrique1218]

Where do I begin?

One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.

Who elects these idiots?. Email is free! I suggest that senatorial prospects started submitting their resumes for election or taking at least take a iq test.

Want to tax the internet? Please meet these requirements first:

Rich- Develop better ways to tax those that control 90% of nation's wealth

Accountability- Stop giving President Bush a blank check. The man couldn't manage a lemonade stand. Watch every dime he spends like a hawk! Pinch the quarter till the eagle screams!

Remove the Pork!- Stop building bridges to nowhere.

Cutback the military- The military is absolute supreme leader in wasting money. I am "shocked and awed" by their how adept they are at wasting money. Some admiral get his newly designed toy aircraft carrier and yet we can't keep rats out of Walter Reed. I have one word: Oversight.

Once that is accomplished. Tax the internet in this order

Porn and gambling- I might get modded troll with this crowd, but if you haven't figure out how to get porn for free, then you need to be taxed. Moreover, taxing vice is an easy sell. Think cigarette taxes.

Tax internet commerce if you want, but only if a state tax hasn't been collected first.

Forget email! Have have your kid explain the internet to you before you come up with any other bright ideas.

Re:THIS STORY IS A GEM

[Speedracer1870]

Can't they understand the internet is a magical cloud with unicodes and happy 1's and 0's???

Let's cut to the chase

[DanielMarkham]

Let's cut to the chase:

• It's not about partisan politcs. It's a power grab by a political system that continues to trade money to special interests for votes. Not all spending is bad. Some is. But that's a conversation for a different day.
• It's not about email, sales tax, or whatever. It's about having a lot of money floating around on the net, and politicians wanting a piece of the action.
• It's not about reason. Yes, taxing email makes no sense. Neither does taxing online sales, which will just move elsewhere or underground. This is the same political setup as DRM -- people will wave their hands around and make great moral arguments about people "paying their fair share" and "making big business pull it's weight" ad infinitum. If you choose to buy this schtick, don't come complaining to me
• These things have historical patterns which are instructive. Take a look at the income tax: passed in the early 1900s to pay for WWI. Supposed to only be around a few years. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), passed recenty, supposed to sock it to the rich guys who have too many tax breaks. In each of these cases and dozens more, the bozo-head making the original pitch disappears but the tax never does. Most times it just grows. "Letting the moratorium expire" or "streamlining the tax sysem" is just a way of getting a foot in the door. They know they can't go after your wallet directly, so they're willing to take a decade or two. Like the story of boiling the frog.
• This isn't about good people or bad people, or good government or bad government. This is about the natural tendency of the government over the past seventy years to consume more and more resources from the people it is supposed to be protecting. I imagine most of these expenditures are great ideas. The problem is that we can't pay for the crap politicians got elected on twenty years ago, much less the crap they're promising for the upcoming election. Both parties, full of great, smart, ethical people, are stuck in a process that is always looking for more money to pay off special interests. Nobody fixes a problem that isn't immediate and crtical because they get votes for blaming things on the other guys.
• It's a losing game. We can try to stop them at this line by trying to pass something like a constitutional ammendment preventing any tax on internet-based economic activity, but this is a thousand-year battle, guys. One which we'll probably lose very quickly while you-all go patting yourself on the back for not buying into the FUD and being so much smarter the the political wonks.
• It'll work just like DRM. In the grand scheme, it will push the economy underground where it will be completely unregulated and offshore where people actually appreciate the business. But pay attention: soon (within ten years) we'll be hearing those same old DRM stories spun for sales taxes. Granny makes rugs in basement and goes to jail for failing to file. Big companies setting up offshore pulling american dollars for the same stuff that used to happen here. More politicians will appear on TV yelling at the other side for getting us into this mess, and promising to fix it (either by law and order or by relaxing the law). Nothing will happen, though, because this will become yet another issue that can be used to stir up support for an election. Fixing the problem would be like throwing cold water on the base, so it ain't gonna happen.

Re:Let's cut to the chase

[AV_ACE]

no

An end to spam?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the tax issued included an incremental cost, I'd gladly support it. Paying several dollars each month to use email doesn't bother me one bit if it means an end to spam.

Redundant!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already an article listed on Slashdot at the moment that talks about this senator proposing to tax us on emails (and the entire senate, for that matter)...it was entitled "Radiation-eating Fungi!"

Fault?

[paulmer2003]

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey blames it on the Democrats taking over, as do Yahoo and eBay lobbyists

This is a accurate statement. Republicans are *supposed* to be for *small* goverenment and few taxes.

Loopholes galore..

[mulvane]

What about non email based forms of communication? Message boards with PM's and RSS readers to alert you that you have a new pm(email). There is no way to track that, especially if done over https.

congressional pay

[SEAL]

Congress actually now classifies their pay raises as a "cost of living" increase, to skate around the restrictions imposed by the 27th Amendment.

Insightful and you didn't even catch the AUTHOR?

[C10H14N2]

Ahem:

http://politechbot.com/docs/enzi.sales.tax.bill.05 2407.pdf

"Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in."

It would appear that the likes of YOU voted these particular imbeciles in:

http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction =AboutWyoming.WyomingDelegation

I pay state tax on Internet purchases [Re:One doe

[tfreport]

I have only lived in two states (MI and VA) since the beginning of the Internet age and both required me to pay taxes on purchases made on the Internet or through catalogs.

Michigan was nice as it allowed me to simply pay a flat rate depending on my income or calculate the 6% on all goods and purchases made from out of state. At the time, financially, it always made more sense to pay the flat fee. In Virginia, I have to actually figure it out. Since I make a lot of small purchases online, I sort of guess. I should probably start to keep better records but because I do not, this is the place I am most worried every year. Hopefully a judge will give me the benefit of the doubt for a good faith effort.

For those that keep claiming that they do not have to pay sales tax on these purchases - a) do you live in a state without sales tax? b) do you pay income tax? c) do you read your state tax forms?

My Amendment

[erareno]

I can just see this on the committee floor. *Some rep passes on an Amendment form over to the chairman* *Chairman recieves form* Chair: We have an amendment proposed before us. Will the clerk please read the amendment? Clerk: Amendment #17 proposed by - Rep: Mr. Chairman, I propose we dispense with any further reading. I just made this bill apply only to spam, defined as a source of email sent to over 2,000 email addresses daily. *30 minutes later* .... Chair: The clerk will read the results of the motion to report the bill. Clerk: Ayes: All - Nays: 0

phone tax

[falconwolf]

I heard that a Federal phone tax was implemented to help pay for WWII.

Actually the Federal Excise Tax was implemented in 1898 to pay for Spanish American War.

Falcon

Let it happen...

[mi]

you can count on at least a few lesser jurisdictions (states, municipalities, etc.) to attempt to impose come crack-brained e-mail tax (or something similar)

But what if it is to benefit poor children? I can see it already: "Why is idontgno opposing help for the most vulnerable members of our society?!!" Uh-oh...

I say, a locality should be allowed any such idiocy (if its voters want it — via their elected representatives) — if only to prove, it is, in fact, an idiocy.

Municipal Wi-Fi comes to mind.

taxes and online purchases

[falconwolf]

It's odd that they would prefer to tax the individual at the point of sale, rather than just taxing the income of the companies selling stuff online (like Amazon). It seems it would be significantly cheaper - as far as overhead costs go - to regulate the few at the top, as apposed to the many at the bottom. It's also effectively the same transactions that are being taxed (you get it from the income at the top, rather than the transaction at the bottom - but it's the same money).

All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes.

Falcon

Re:taxes and online purchases

[Touvan]

Who is grabbing for power, and what power are they taking away from who?

Re:taxes and online purchases

[falconwolf]

Who is grabbing for power, and what power are they taking away from who?

The first Who? Those who want to tax. What power? The power to do what one wants with the money they work to earn. The second who? Those who work.

Falcon

Re:taxes and online purchases

[delong]

+5 Insightful

Re:taxes and online purchases

[Touvan]

I really want to understand your position, but you seem to giving me a vague kind of circular reasoning - you said that I posted about a grab for money and power, and then when I asked who you thought were grabbing for that power, you answered; those who want to tax. Do you see the problem with that odd reasoning?

So I'll give you multiple choice, maybe. Who out of the following, is trying to grab for power, by my suggestion that we move the point of taxation to the top, rather than at the bottom:

  * Corporations
  * Poor People
  * A vast left wing conspiracy
  * A vast right wing conspiracy
  * Rush Limbaugh
  * Jack Thompson
  * Democrats
  * Republicans
  * Old People
  * Young People
  * Mexicans
  * Insert Other _______

I really do want to understand your position, especially as your position seems to resonate here on slashdot. Although the above is a bit glib, I think it demonstrates my point, that you didn't really answer my question about who exactly is trying to grab for power in my previous suggestion.

Just to add more to my original position, I would suggest that historically, the first three times the income tax was introduced (repealed after the first two times), it only taxed the top 5%. The first time it was Lincoln, and the third time it was F.D.R. originally to pay for the war, but then made permanent later. So there's my historical precedence for my position. What is your historical precedent for your accused power grab?

As far as I can tell, since we've been removing corporate taxes and weakening the kinds of taxes that those who run corporations would pay (taxes on the interest made by investments for example, the inappropriately marketed "Death Tax"), we've seen a stagnating increase (even a small decrease recently) in the middle income in the U.S., and an unbelievable ballooning of corporate income, and of the incomes of those who run them.

Are you happy with the practical implications of that kind of concentration of wealth? I hope you are in that upper income group if you are.

Does that qualify as a "power grab". I guess it does, if you believe that money equals power.

Despite all this extra information here, what I originally proposed did nothing to tax corporations more. What I originally suggested, was simply a more efficient want to tax the same money, in a different way, that would be much easier - and cheaper - to run. Rather than burdening every transaction made at the point of sale (in this case, the website), you would simply tax the income that the company makes on those transactions instead.

It's the same money being taxed, no more and no less. How could that possibly be considered a grab for money or power by anyone? I'd really like to know.

Re:taxes and online purchases

[falconwolf]

you said that I posted about a grab for money and power

I said nothing of the sort. Directly from my original post here's what I said:
"All this is is another grab for power and money. Companies like Amazon already pays taxes. There's income tax, property tax, fuel tax, and tax on the services they buy. And I probably left out some taxes."
Nowhere in there do I say you posted about a power grab. Actually I was the one that posted about a power grab.

Falcon

Re:taxes and online purchases

[Touvan]

I assumed the "this" in "All this is is another grab for power and money" was referring to the post text that was quoted immediately before it, and I was right to do so. Further, you confirmed that assumption with your reply to my original question, when you attempted to defend your position. It's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab, when it seems - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that simple logical interpretation shows that you did.

And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who. Upon rereading your original post, I guess I could see how you would think that a progressive tax is a grab at the power that comes with large amounts of money in the hands of the few - and frankly, I do think there aught to be a check on the power that money grants. It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.

Re:taxes and online purchases

[falconwolf]

It's odd for you to now claim that you didn't say that I posted about a power grab

Because I didn't. You may have the perception I did but I didn't.

And you still didn't answer who exactly is grabbing the power from who.

I answered directly who, the one who wants to tax those who work to earn the money, ie "The first Who? Those who want to tax". And "The second who? Those who work."

It isn't just government that has the power to limit your freedom. Just ask anyone who has seen a third world sweat shop, or read about robber baron slums and sweatshops from our own history.

Ah, that's where unions come in. As for sweat shops, are you talking about those third world factories that pay more than what the local people are being paid? I find it amazing many call these businesses sweat shops, but I suppose it's an attempt to rationalize the demand to keep the factories in the US. "Hey, they pay less than an American worker would be paid. It must be a sweat shop." Sure the pay is less but then again the cost of living is lower too, and many of the workers are paid more than those not able to get jobs in the factories.

Falcon

That is a bit misleading.

[ichigo 2.0]

His opinion on those things do not matter. He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff". States are the ones supposed to deal with such matters.

Re:That is a bit misleading.

[ceejayoz]

He is a constitutionalist, and is of the correct position that the federal government has no business in legislating anything related to abortion, gays and "all the usual stuff".

So that's why his name's on the list of yeas for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and he supports the Defense of Marriage Act and Marriage Protection Act?

He's a bloody hypocrite just like the rest. Fuck him.

Re:constitutionality of taxing stuff

[apl73]

The constitution forbids states impeding interstate commerce (by taxing stuff imported
but not taxing stuff purchased in-state.)

It's perfectly legal for them to demand taxes when you buy something out-of-state
via phone/email/snail-mail. It's just really hard for them to collect if the
seller has no physical presence in the buyer's state.

Here is what happens. the tax will be cheap i bet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like $.01/email. Just one cent! That isn't so bad.... A few dollars a month?

But the bill will say "$.01/email plus costs necessary to administer the payment collecting system." "Studies" funded by private industry will show that the administration costs will come to just $1/month per person - "Probably a lot less for most people!" So the bill gets passed. "This is a good fair bill that will help maintain the safety and integrity of the internet."

If the government is in charge of administering it, you know it will be highly inefficient, a huge new bureaucracy created, and the administration cost will come to $.25/email. And if the government decides to "let private industry handle it because private industry is more efficient (e.g. Haliburton)" the results will be slightly less inefficient but the "screw the consumer" quotient will arise dramatically and the administration fee would be $.50/email. "We're only charging this as we have initial setup costs to recoup. Certainly the fees will fall!" says the private industry spokesperson. "We're not making any money on this. We're losing money actually! But we're doing it as a service to the United States." Company's stock price triples.

Then Congress will see that of the $.51/email being charged the US gov't is only getting one cent. Figuring thats unfair they'll bump the tax number up considerably so its more in line with the "administrative fee" being charged. Of course the email tax increase would be "temporary" and Congress would "look forward to rolling the back at some point in the future." Probably a few claims of "This is not a permanent increase!" to make things look a little credible.

sales tax on onlne purchases

[falconwolf]

From a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing.

If brick and morter stores are loosing sales to online stores then maybe they need to rethink their business, perhaps use the net themself. I knew someone who owned a small brick and morter specialty bookstore and she went ahead and took it online about 10 years ago. After a year or so she sold the physical store and kept the online store.

The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?

Bingo. Of course the way the USSC has ruled on a number of cases before them they'd probably allow states to tax online purchases from out of state businesses.

Falcon

I for one welcome this tax

[briancnorton]

I am always in favor of new ways for politicians to identify who amongst them is foolish. That, and in the unfathomable event that it actually happens, the $0.50 per year collected from the few morons that would pay it could go to defraying the billions of dollars it would take to attempt to collect it. Also, we could finally declare email "dead."

taxes fro online purchases

[falconwolf]

What if you live in a state without an income tax?

Some states have what's called a "use tax" residents are supposed to file and pay. This includes catalogue orders and online purchases.

Falcon

taxes on online purchases

[falconwolf]

If you use the internet to make a purchase from a business that has no prescence in that state, you are exempt from state taxes.

You are not exempt. Many states have a "use tax" which residents are supposed to file for and pay.

Falcon

Re:taxes on online purchases

[quanticle]

That's true. However, that tax relies on self-reporting, which essentially makes it unenforceable.

not your father's Republicans

[HappyEngineer]

Perhaps, but we can't really maintain any real expectations of the Republicans. In recent years Republicans have become the party of massive government (both in terms of control and in terms of spending).

Democrats may have desired universal health care for everyone, but it was Republicans that finally passed the massive spending bills in the federal government and in California.

Every other positive thing about the Republicans has been reversed in recent years. I see no reason to be surprised if they start passing a bunch of new taxes too.

Perhaps the parties are switching places again. It happened once before sometime in the last hundred years. It may be happening again now.

Haha email tax would RULE.

[br0d]

Most taxes suck, but this one would win. Sure, the spammers wouldn't end up paying for spam. But if you tax, say, one cent for each email, then spammers will be forced to acquire many more drones to continue to send out the volume they do. Because if a spammer sends out 10000 emails from one user's compromised PC, Joe Trojan is gonna FLIP OUT about his $100 email bill, and that will drive him to take responsibility for his computer (the "car in neutral rolling down a hill analogy.") Money is the great motivator. For spam to remain unnoticeavle on the averate bill, the spammer could only send like maybe 100-500 TOPS from each infected PC, in this case requiring 20x more drones. Thus, the spamming industry is virtually destroyed. I send what, 200 personal emails a month? I'd pay a $2/mo tax to smite spammers and force personal computing responsibility as a side effect.

"controul"

[falconwolf]

*Note to the pedantic. The word "controul" is a misspelling that's in the original document. Yes, the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of our Land, has misspellings.

Actually it is a correct spelling. Like other spellings used, controul is an archaic spelling. Elsewhere "chuse" is used whereas now it's spelled as "choose".

Falcon

Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymore.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Get the hell out of Iraq. That is the solution. The only reason we need to tax more, is because we're in such a dam hole thanks to the republicans. Whom can admit that they're the ones that put us in the hole, and whom cant admit they are for taxation.

Fuck them all. Get out of Iraq. Vote for real Independents, not Joe Leiberman Independents.

Re:I pay state tax on Internet purchases [Re:One d

[LWATCDR]

I live in a state with no State income tax so we don't get any tax forms. They do make an effort to collect sales tax on big ticket item like cars but for mail order they just let it go.

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

That's about time that we pay sales tax on out-of-state internet purchases. There is really no reason for this loophole. This ridiculous US law is an unfair advantage to big chains at the expense of local brick-and-mortar shops. Internet business will STILL have an advantage because they do not have the cost associated to maintaining a store. This just corrects an unfair advantage for internet companies.

As for other forms of "internet taxes", I oppose them.

It's axiomatic

[Xonstantine]

when Republicans are in power, there MAY be tax increases.

when Democrats are in power, there WILL be tax increases.

Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (actual quote).

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[/dev/trash]

funny. Was Congress 100% Republicans when the President asked for funding back in the day? I think not.

A less complicated approach

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not have a nation wide standardised sales tax? It seems to me that the paperwork savings alone would create a massive revenue increase... Let alone the cut in govt dept duplication

10% flat on every transaction.... goods and service.... Collected by the Federal Govt then redistributes back to the states. Depending on how equal you want to be it can either be distributed by the federal govt where they choose where it goes or straight back to the states = to what that state collected.

You end up only having one tax agency, you ditch all the millions of various taxation levels and you end up better off due to efficienties...

use taxes

[falconwolf]

Basically, what this bill is trying to do is have states set uniform use tax laws and in return, the catalog and online companies must collect and pay the taxes for the states.

Why should any catalog or online business collect and pay any tax?

Falcon

laws

[falconwolf]

We have enough laws.

We have too many laws.

If our governments (local, federal, state) would stop trying to squeeze more money out of us and having to hire people to do the squeezing, we could downsize dramatically, have less taxes

If our government were to stay within the limits put on it by the Constitution, taxes wouldn't need to be so high. Many of the agencies, authorities, bureaus, departments, and so on in the federal government are not authorized by the Constitution. Eliminate them and government spending will see a dramatic reduction.

Falcon

just try it and fail

[AlgorithMan]

yes, try it... spend billions of dollars for an infrastructure that we will bypass within hours...
we will develop a tool that will use a tunneled, SSL encrypted connection over port 8080 to a foreign email provider infact - we can do that already... just use TOR and privoxy and then setup your own machine as proxy for your email application...

good luck with trying to find out if I wrote an email or requested some webpages... in 11 month you might know if I have sent an email today... in 22 month you might know if I have sent an email today or tomorrow... in 44 month you might know if I or my neighbour has sent an email today or tomorrow... etc...

god I hate politicians that think they had any clue about the internet, just because they've sent some emails and visited some websites...

Schmaxes

[inKubus]

Between federal, state, and local taxes, tax money is equivalent to approximately 50% of our GDP. The Federal tax alone is approximately 5 TRILLION, with about 1 TRILLION for state, and another trillion for county and local. And when they aren't taxing us, they are printing more money thus diluting the small amount of savings we have. Inflation numbers are underreported for fear they will put the brakes on this huge scam. Beware, people, you are being milked. Since Late 2000, all of your money has been taxed away, and diluted by at least 50%. And all of Bush's friends have gotten way richer. Weird.

brick and morter vr online sales

[falconwolf]

From a bricks and mortar perspective, *stopping* the shipment of goods shipped over state lines would be a good thing.

Those brick and morter stores then need to change their business model.

Falcon

taxes

[falconwolf]

And this makes states that depend on sales tax for a big chunk of their revenue really, really nervous.

Well then those states need to modify their revenue stream and/or reduce their spending.

Falcon

Fear Mongering

[LaerKH]

"One irked Repubican Senator warns..." This is obviously fear-mongering hype from the party that can't stop lying about any topic that spills out of their mouth. Dick Armey blames it on the Democratic party's rise to power in Congress. Hmmm, does that surprise anyone?

So dissapointed in our government

[Anonymous Coward]

There are so much tax dollars wasted already. Why should we let them tax us on email? Instead of looking around and trying to find new things to tax why don't law makers take a look at the current system and make some changes? That's hard, but it's easy to say, hey lets tax email. This comes from minds that clearly don't understand the first thing about what the internet is, how it works and how it shapes our world and communication. As well as the impact this will have on all of our lives, by opening up doors to other legislation that will further restrict what I believe is an evolution of knowledge and communication that benefits us all.

Tax the goose

[nurb432]

And she will stop laying those golden eggs.

Ronald Reagan said it best...

[Money for Nothin']

[G]overnment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/quotes.cf m

Gmail and Yahoo|Mail will lobby this

[xinjiang77]

Both companies have so much money and assets, the government officials will not be above a few bribes im sure.

"Bipartisan" means ...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And that is about as close to bi-partisan cooperation as Congress will ever get.

Which is fine by me. I don't ever want to see "bipartisan cooperation".

"Bipartisan" means major parties have the same position on the issue. And THAT means the voters didn't have an effective way to oppose this "consensus of oligarchs" at the polls.

warning for them

[mr_musan]

Non usa users of the internet warn usa senators that they can pass all the laws you want, but we still won't care.

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Yes.. Congress was 100% Republican. You're first mistake was assuming that there is a single difference between the two parties. They are the same pile of shit.

It's Political FUD

[gevantry]

If this warning by Dick Armey is real, then it's FUD to pressure people into pressuring their reps to vote down sales taxes applied to purchases made over the internet. Why, the next you know, they COULD start taxing e-mail IF an evil sales tax is allowed. Emphasis is on the subjunctive.

THEN WHY HAS HE VOTED AGAINST BOTH!?

[sheldon]

You explain that one to me.

As a libertarian, that's my position. But Ron Paul does not share it.

Re:THEN WHY HAS HE VOTED AGAINST BOTH!?

[Brandybuck]

See my reply to the other post.

Well, they WERE fairly decent politicians

[darrenkopp]

It's too bad they won't get re-elected again...

DMail ?

[mistralol]

Greate time to rename email to dmail for digital mail. That way the tax will only be charged on email. dmail however will be a new system not taxed so will be adopted quickly.

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[Anonymous Coward]

So it is all the Democrats fault, right?

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[/dev/trash]

trol

Use tax

[falconwolf]

That's true. However, that tax relies on self-reporting, which essentially makes it unenforceable.

True enough. I didn't even know of the use tax until a couple of years ago, when a similar thread came up on /. and someone else posted info about the use tax. I doubt many others have heard of it before either.

Another poster on this thread did say his/her state income forms have a line to declare such purchases so residents in that state may know, but I've only lived in two states where "I" filed income taxes. The first one, Florida, does not have a state income tax. The second, Minneasota where I currently live, does. However I've never worked in the state, I had a bad accident that left me with a disability when I lived in FL and moved to MN to get more therapy. My sister, who moved here before me then asked me to move here to get the therapy, is a CPA and she does my taxes.

Falcon

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[/dev/trash]

How many enabled Bush? That's the percentage.

Re:Get out of Iraq. Problem Solved Dont Tax anymor

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

i think you mistyped "Truth"

Email Tax Impossible

[rising_hope]

The internet has been around for decades. Email has been around just as long. With billions of free email providers out there, who sign up users with bogus information every millisecond of the day, it'd be impossible to discover who to actually tax if email were sent. Additionally, people in the US would likely look for foreign email providers in order to avoid bogus email taxes. The bill would collapse on its own, without every collecting a red cent from any even slightly savvy internet user. Furthermore, spam creates over 99% of all the world's email at this point. I, certainly, would protest, even if it meant prison time for tax evasion, if I were being taxed for items received. Nor would any senator, who suddenly owed $1500 in taxes every month for the spam he received. Additionally, as one user stated, if email were taxed for outgoing mail, every computer out there in the US that's "o3n3d" out there would suddenly cost the end consumer a great deal. The idea of an internet tax isn't necessarily a horrible thing everyone here makes it out to be, but an email tax would be impossible to enforce. A flat % tax on the ISP fee would fit the bill. For those who "can't afford it" (Even at 10%, on my $45/mo connection at home, it'd still be less than a meal at McDonald's every month), most cities offer free dial up service through the local library systems. That said, I'm strongly opposed to even paying my existing taxes, because of government waste on an illegal war. As a citizen, the government just decided I owe another $333,333 in taxes to fund the remainder of the budget year for wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. That just ain't right. The credit card is maxed, boys -- time to come home and pay off the debt. -- "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."