Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
Is the people need to stop electing idiots.
No, the problem is only idiots run for election.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
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.
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
I like basketball!!1!
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?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
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!
Because Congress (both state and federal) likes to keep the Supreme Court on its toes? It certainly seems like it sometimes.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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?
... but I wouldn't hold your breath.
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
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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/
Let's cut to the chase: