Internet Service Tax Moritorium Set To Expire

nelsonjs writes "On November 1, the ban on taxing Internet service is set to expire. The ban was originally implemented in 1998 in order to encourage the proliferation of Net access. The Senate is considering two competing bills to extend the ban: one would extend it for four years and the other would make the ban permanent. Verizon and Google, usually to be found on opposite sides of any question of Net access, are united in lobbying for the permanent tax ban. If neither passes by November 1, prices for Internet service nationwide could jump by as much as 17 percent, according to ISPs."

Comments

Double Dipping

[name*censored*]

They can't tax the internet - that's double dipping! Isn't porn ALREADY taxed?

Re:Double Dipping

[PlatyPaul]

Strangely enough, you could argue that it may be (FYI, this is the cited precedent for most anti-tax situations). If you made a purchase for which sales tax would be applicable within your home state, and sales tax isn't included in the cost, then you may be responsible for declaring the purchase to the state and paying the tax accordingly.

This all assumes that you actually paid for that porn in the first place, though.

Re:Double Dipping

[SpectreBlofeld]

Honestly, I don't understand how an internet tax could be levied - we're already taxed and fined by the FCC for use of the phone/cable lines we use to connect, we're taxed on the electricity we use, we're taxed on the hardware we buy, etc.... these things together *are* the Internet.

that's mor-A-torium

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Re:that's mor-A-torium

[cez]

It defin-I-tely is...

This comes up periodically...

[Algorithmnast]

The politicians are unlikely to make the ban (on the tax) permanent - each time the ban is about to expire, they get to look good to their constituents without actually doing anything.

So it'll get extended... again... and then in N years we'll hear another net-centric story propagated by a media wanting our avid attention for politicians who want our unconditional vote.

Move Along.... nothing to really see here...

Re:This comes up periodically...

[infonography]

It has to come up periodically otherwise the lobbyists wouldn't have anything to do with all that money but buy mansions in Tuscany. Still one can never have too many mansions think what the poor mansion builders of tuscany would do without the support of American lobbyists.

So join me brothers and sisters and help save the Gnomes of Zürich!

Re:This comes up periodically...

[CrimsonAvenger]

The politicians are unlikely to make the ban (on the tax) permanent

The politicians CANNOT make the ban (on the tax) permanent. Any law automatically supersedes any previously written laws on a given issue, given proper jurisdiction (States cannot override Federal laws, though the Feds CAN override State laws).

Theoretically, they could ban internet taxes forever tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow, impose a $1/bit tax on internet traffic. And, lo! There would be a $1/bit tax on the internet. Until a new law was written.

Note that that means even an extension doesn't mean quite what you might think. If they extend the ban for five years, and three years from now, they "revisit" the issue, the ban can be ignored in favour of a tax, in spite of the ban saying that the internet can't be taxed.

On the other hand, the ban DOES prevent lesser jurisdictions from taxing the internet. Which is pretty much the intent of the ban. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the internet can't be taxed if a permanent ban is passed. It just means it can't be taxed until Congress decides it's in Congress's interest to tax the internet.

Re:This comes up periodically...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

This comes up periodically. The whiners are unlikely to do anything about the political environment. Each time a politician doesn't do exactly what they want to do, no matter the effort or cost, the whiners get to look good to their peers without actually doing anything. So social problems get extended... again... and then in N minutes, another whiny comment propagated by an irrational hatred for authority and media sites who want our unconditional patronage.

Move along... nothing to really see here...

Re:This comes up periodically...

[dashg]

I agree. Politicians will not make the ban permanent. They have already extended it twice before and will do so again. They want to show the voters that they are actually doing something every 4 or so years, so when it comes up for expiration again down the line, we can go through this story again and politicians will get more publicity once again.
The more publicity means more votes

Re:This comes up periodically...

[wdr1]

Which is why it would nice if every law expired after one year.

That way lawmakers would spend their time on real issues, instead of parading in front of constituents w/ silly things they spend their free time on, such as Schiavo & Foley.

Re:This comes up periodically...

[eonlabs]

Doesn't it make them look shitty if they turn down the permanent one with preference for the four year one just in an attempt to look good in N years.
They also look shitty if they allow the tax to fall into place, unless they were going to start maintaining the network fiber themselves, which might not be a bad thing... Depending on a lot of course

Misnomer

[MyLongNickName]

They can pass a bill to make the non-tax "Permanent", but it only takes another bill to tax it again. The only upside to passing the bill would be to create a bit of legislative inertia.

Extend it...DUH!

[DarkNemesis618]

I hope the ban is extended. I'd prefer permanently, but I'd be content with a 4 year extension...for 4 years anyway. If it's not the internet is gonna become just like cell phones. Sign up for a $40/month plan and end up paying $55 after all the taxes. C'mon congress!

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Colin Smith]

Stop complaining, you voted for it. 99% of Americans voted for high tax parties.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[bentcd]

Stop complaining, you voted for it. 99% of Americans voted for high tax parties. Does this include the ~45% of Americans that didn't actually bother to vote?

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[suv4x4]

I hope the ban is extended. I'd prefer permanently, but I'd be content with a 4 year extension...for 4 years anyway. If it's not the internet is gonna become just like cell phones. Sign up for a $40/month plan and end up paying $55 after all the taxes. C'mon congress!

In EU we pay VAT on services and products, so we do sign up for $40/month plan and pay $55 after the taxes. But somehow our Internet is still faster and cheaper than the US one.

Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Colin Smith]

Well they clearly don't care so why would anyone else care what they think?

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Phisbut]

Does this include the ~45% of Americans that didn't actually bother to vote?

Yes, because many people consider voting to not be a right but a responsibility, and the "right to vote" is tied to the "right to complain". If you didn't vote, shut up and swallow the pill.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[SatanicPuppy]

The number of people who don't vote outnumber the number of people who vote for either party. If they united behind a candidate and got up off their asses, they could have it all their own way.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[oyenstikker]

I moved to a new county fewer than 30 days before the 2006 elections and promptly registered to vote in my new county. Thus, by law, I was not able to vote anywhere. Does that mean I am not allowed to complain?

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[absoluteflatness]

Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.

Well why tax anything? Why tax income, or sales, or gasoline, or any of the other million categories of items that are taxed? The bottom line is, the government needs money, and it's probably a lot easier to get it by nickel-and-diming people with taxes on everything they pay for than by raising income taxes or some other high-profile tax. Of course this simplistically assumes that all tax revenue just goes into a big pile to be used for anything, but...

Also, in response to the other part of your post, I thought that the main complaint about Internet access in Europe was higher prices. I'm spoiled by being on the edge of an urban area, where I get 10Mb "unlimited" broadband for $25 a month. I know many areas of the country can't get broadband at all, or just super-expensive options from only one provider, but claiming that the Internet is faster and cheaper in Europe than the US is a claim I'd need some numbers to back up before I believed it. On average you might have us beat, but I think our best options probably match up pretty well.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[bentcd]

Well they clearly don't care so why would anyone else care what they think? True, true. Why should anyone care about a demographic that in 1996 was only a majority of US voters. Democracy is just sooo 20th century :-)

What I am trying to get at is that whenever I see assertions of the kind "80% of Americans voted for . . ." it just screams out at me because the /truth/ is "80% of the Americans /that voted/ voted for . . ." and the difference is really very important.

As an example, the current president is probably lucky if he can /actually/ boast more than 20% public support back on election day if you take voter turnout and the disenfranchised into account (this isn't an attempt at Bush-bashing btw, previous presidents suffered from the same). Everything else is just spin. This fact needs to be taken into account whenever a president's (or other elected official's) legitimacy is to be considered. Is a president with only 20% of /actual/ Americans behind him really to be allowed to go to war on behalf of his country? Is a Congress faction with less than 40% of /actual/ Americans behind it really to be allowed to amend the Constitution?

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[suv4x4]

Well why tax anything? Why tax income, or sales, or gasoline, or any of the other million categories of items that are taxed? The bottom line is, the government needs money, and it's probably a lot easier to get it by nickel-and-diming people with taxes on everything they pay for than by raising income taxes or some other high-profile tax. Of course this simplistically assumes that all tax revenue just goes into a big pile to be used for anything, but...

Maybe you don't understand my intention. If you tax all of this above you mentioned, the internet is already implicitly taxed.

One would think taxing corporate and private income once is sufficient. The complication of taxes is just a way to hide how big taxes are in fact.

Taking 60% of your income? Outrageous! But split those 50% in various insurances and other tax types, and there we go.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[absoluteflatness]

If you tax all of this above you mentioned, the internet is already implicitly taxed. .... The complication of taxes is just a way to hide how big taxes are in fact

Well, the point of my post was, originally anyway, to say basically the same thing, that many small individual taxes are easier to get done.

Of course, by your logic, everything is already implicitly taxed, since income is. Which, in a way is very much true. I've always hated the political objection to some taxes as "taxing money twice". All money is taxed at least twice, pretty much, once it's spent, barring charitable donations or tax loopholes (or Delaware). Most money gets taxed more, with capital gains and interest taxes, inheritance taxes, etc. Ever since income tax was instituted, we've been taxing people multiple times over. Why stop now?

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[operagost]

40%? The approval rating for Congress right now is about 25-30%! That's worse than the President's!

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[bentcd]

40%? The approval rating for Congress right now is about 25-30%! That's worse than the President's! I'm not referring to current polls but rather to election results. It's an intended consequence of the system we have that we only sample the public opinion every couple of years.

Of course, even if you look at actual election results I'm probably being overly optimistic. Not having the time to actually look up the exact numbers, let's assume that congressional elections have 50% turnout (this is a bit high?) and that you need a 67% supermajority to change the Constitution (there are probably complications I'm not aware of here). Also assume that representation in Congress is actually an accurate reflection of the votes cast (probably overly naïve). This means that it only takes 33% of Americans to make such a thing happen - less if you also adjust for the disenfranchised. Even less if you adjust for my still somewhat optimistic assumptions. This seems to me to be a democratic problem and I don't think we're doing ourselves any favours when we hide this by saying "80% of us voted for . . ." instead of the more truthful "40% of us voted for . . ."

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Omestes]

What I am trying to get at is that whenever I see assertions of the kind "80% of Americans voted for . . ." it just screams out at me because the /truth/ is "80% of the Americans /that voted/ voted for . . ." and the difference is really very important. How is it important? If you don't vote, you kind of voluntarily opting out of the game. Do we consider the testing scores of drop outs when evaluating a school? No. If you don't vote, it means your opinion isn't even worth enough to motivate you to some very small action. If you don't put enough stock in your opinion to do something about it, it can't be too important.

As brought up lower down, there are valid, and temporary, reasons some people CAN'T vote, which are completely separate from people who DON'T vote (nor have any desire too).

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[bentcd]

How is it important? It is important because the whole point of modern democracy is to have a form of government that gets its legitimacy from a majority of the people. Once this is gone (e.g. the shots are called by only 20%) then the entire basis of the system is falling apart. It doesn't matter if the 50% no-shows are lazy, or disillusioned, or disenfranchised, or whatever. What matters is that the government isn't representative of the population. A government that isn't representative of the population quite simply isn't a democratic one.

If you don't vote, you kind of voluntarily opting out of the game. But this is largely irrelevant. Throwing blame around isn't solving the problem. By mentally "punishing" the no-shows in this manner you really are punishing yourself by throwing democracy out the window.

If you don't put enough stock in your opinion to do something about it, it can't be too important. Even if one voter doesn't hold his opinions of much value, they still are of inestimable value to the democratic system. One single vote might be argued to be unimportant in the big picture, but in aggregate that single vote is of vital importance.

As an (abstract) example, consider that there exists a demographic of 30% of the population that holds some opinion or set of opinions that they find important but which they do not care to defend by voting. They stay at home. Over the course of a series of presidential periods, laws are written that gradually make it more difficult to hold those opinions. This happens because the 30% who would otherwise oppose this have opted out of the democratic process. Eventually, conditions become untenable for the 30% because the laws are now very firmly set against them. "Now", you say, "that's what they get for being lazy gits". At this point, however, they finally rally and consider that their best course of action is armed rebellion in order to restore a political climate that is friendly to them. In the ensuing civil war, /you/ will suffer hardship and most likely the loss of loved ones and even if you may still go around saying "bah, the lazy bastards, they had it coming" those words will probably leave a sour taste. This is the sort of situation a democratic system is supposed to counteract by giving the 30% a way of continually participating in policy-making but since they /do not/, democracy didn't work.

This is why a government with only 20% public support at election day is a very very bad thing and a serious threat to democracy.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Omestes]

A government that isn't representative of the population quite simply isn't a democratic one.

I'd say that the current American democracy IS representative of the population. The people who don't vote made a choice not to count in decisions (for whatever tragic reason). They don't want to have a say, and thus don't really count, by choice. Your not going to get me to say this is a good thing, or disagree that the whole system is falling apart, though.

But this is largely irrelevant. Throwing blame around isn't solving the problem. By mentally "punishing" the no-shows in this manner you really are punishing yourself by throwing democracy out the window.

They are punishing themselves by willfully not voting. Being ignored is the consequence of not talking, but choosing the latter you accept the former as a consequence. Its not up to me to speak (and guess intentions) for those who refuse to speak. Nor is it anyone else's job.

One single vote might be argued to be unimportant in the big picture, but in aggregate that single vote is of vital importance.


We're not talking of the minority here (voters), we're talking about those people who, for whatever reason, refuse to vote. I agree each vote counts, though. But those who don't, don't, nor want to.

Again, I'm NOT going to say this is a good state of affairs. I think its tragic, and shows that the American democracy is failing, seriously, and more so that America is failing its constituents. I'm just saying that these people who don't want a voice, shouldn't expect to be heard. Even if they were to start an armed rebellion (something that would surprise me, since we're dealing with apathy, not the best precondition for revolution), all the hardship would be ultimately their fault for their choice of not having a choice. There is no way to guess, either, what they want since they refuse to tell us.

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[bentcd]

I'd say that the current American democracy IS representative of the population. The people who don't vote made a choice not to count in decisions (for whatever tragic reason). They don't want to have a say, and thus don't really count, by choice. You do realise that what you're basically saying here is that people who don't vote aren't actually people?

I'm just saying that these people who don't want a voice, shouldn't expect to be heard. But that isn't the point. It's not that they have a need to be heard - clearly being heard doesn't interest them. The problem is that /we/ need to hear them and them refusing to talk to us is a serious problem.

Even if they were to start an armed rebellion (something that would surprise me, since we're dealing with apathy, not the best precondition for revolution), Perhaps, but then this is not the only type of calamity that can strike an apathic "democracy". Consider that we currently have an extremely wealthy drug cartel that is the cause of much organised crime throughout the world and that the fact that these people are so well-funded is causing serious problems for life, liberty, democracy and the economy. Suppose for a moment that much of the reason for this is the zero tolerance perpetuated through the war on drugs and that this war started mainly because the people who voted for it are the 20% of the population that have never been exposed to drugs or drug users and who harbour an irrational level of fear of both drugs and those who use it. If the drug using demographic could have bothered to vote, perhaps society's response to the drug problem would have been less ill-informed, less draconian and less nurturing of organized crime. If so, then we all would have benefited and, conversely, we are all currently suffering for this failure of democracy. While this situation may or may not be true for drugs, the example illustrates the type of pitfalls we are likely to blunder straight into when we are only too happy to accept that "oh well, 50% no-shows, no big deal, slackers the lot of them".

all the hardship would be ultimately their fault for their choice of not having a choice. When your home is burned to the ground and your children have been killed on the front lines, I fail to see what sort of comfort this is going to be to you. (Replace with your calamity of choice.)

Re:Extend it...DUH!

[Omestes]

You do realise that what you're basically saying here is that people who don't vote aren't actually people?

Never claimed that, I just don't think its possible for the rest of us (voters) to possibly give them a voice if they don't want one. How can we presume to act on the behalf of someone who has no opinions (or don't find them valid enough to act up), they are by nature unknowable. I do think, on a real level, they get what they ask for, and don't really see this as a bad thing. Perhaps when things get bad enough, they WILL do something, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

The real problem is the cause of disenfranchisement, and not representing them, imo. We can't represent them, so we must find a way to coax them into the political arena. Make them want to vote, participate.

As to how to do this, I have no clue. I'm sure whatever it is wouldn't be healthy for the powers-that-be, or would cost public money, and thus will never be approached.

Along this line, sadly, I am of the thought "it must get much worse, before it gets better". Our country and government has been on a nice decline for some time. We're getting dumber than most developed countries, religious tyranny is becoming a valid fear, our government represents money and money alone, 66% of voters don't, political debate has become sound bites (Bush = dumb, Taxes = evil, ect...), and we, the plebes, are suspicious of any form of reason higher than this, and unable to comprehend, or sit through, debates longer than 3 seconds. If all these people started voting, would we actually be better off? Democracy depends on an informed public, something we left behind long ago.

Unfair taxing

[packetmon]

You know, this is insanely stupid bill. Let's take two people, Farmer Joe in Oregon and City Jake in New York City. Farmer Joe has Internet access for mundane tasks and will usually go online maybe 3 times a month to check weather stats, maybe check out the prices on Cattle feed. For his access he pays say 20.00 a month. City Jake in New York City - to make a long story short - lives online spending in excess of 12 hours daily. He pays 20.00 a month. Why should Farmer Joe now have to pay an Internet tax if he should, why should it be more than City Jakes taxes. What I can see happening is less usage over time as consumers will be less likely inclined to pay high fees for what is almost always in the home segment iffy service at best (how many times has your cable provider went down... DSL had issues). If this should happen it would mean less consumer spending throughout the country and world (why should I spend a 17% tax when I can walk to the mall). Politicians are just plain e-stupid

Re:Unfair taxing

[Aladrin]

Might as well ask why he has to pay the same $20 in the first place. We -used- to have usage-based fees on our internet access, but the overwhelming majority of the market demanded unlimited access for a set cost. Now you'd like to go back to usage-based cost.

Your example is poor, anyhow, since City Jake doesn't have $20/month access, he has $50/month because he prefers the speed. His livelihood is based on the net (or he couldn't afford to spend 12 hours a day on it) and if he used a slower line, he'd spend more time than he has to. So now we've got Farmer Joe for $20/month and City Jake for $50/month, and appropriate taxes on each. Sounds pretty fair to me, considering their usage of the service.

And 17% higher than 'current fees' is not 'high fees'. It's a little more, but not enough that most people will care. Some will choose a lower speed line, some will choose to drop internet altogether... But the majority will change nothing.

As for the mall... What does that have to do with anything? How is walking to the mall a substitute for the internet? Sure, you can talk to people there, but that's like saying you'll just play games on your cellphone because a Nintendo DS costs too much. I'm sure -someone- has said it, but the overwhelming majority think that person is more than a little off.

Re:Unfair taxing

[Metasquares]

Jake is actually easier to provide access to than Joe, living in a very dense urban area where millions of customers can offset the cost of laying fiber. I don't know whether this offsets the cost of his increased access, but it is something to consider in your example.

Re:Unfair taxing

[Red Flayer]

Why should Farmer Joe now have to pay an Internet tax if he should, why should it be more than City Jakes taxes

Perhaps because it's more expensive to provide that internet service to Joe?

Perhaps because the net benefit to society of cheaper access for urban consumers is greater than the benefit of cheaper access for rural consumers?

Many 'economic development zones' have a reduced tax burden to encourage businesses to move there. Why should it be any different for residential zones where development is wanted in preference to other areas?

It is more efficient to provide most services in urban areas rather than rural, plus there is the value of retaining open space. I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).

At any rate, I digress. What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided. It doesn't matter how much Joe or Jake uses their internet service -- what matters is how much they pay for it to the service provider. If Joe wants to pay less tax, he'll need to figure out a way to pay less for his internet service -- it the cost of service that is unfair, not the tax assessed for that service.

Re:Unfair taxing

[nomadic]

Why should Farmer Joe now have to pay an Internet tax if he should, why should it be more than City Jakes taxes.

Seems fair, since City Jake is heavily subsidizing Farmer Joe through his taxes.

Re:Unfair taxing

[dabraun]

I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).

While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't really understand how you pay more for your property to live in a less-populated area. Certainly land costs less in less-populated areas as a nearly universal rule.

It's interesting, a few years ago I would have found the idea of taxing internet service to be totally outrageous in a 'how dare they stick their fingers into our world.' But the internet has become fundamental to our economy, and to the extent that the government is responsible for building and maintaining that network (and I don't really know how much of this they are responsible for) it actually makes sense to tax the usage of the network so that we can fund this with a use tax - let's face it, if we don't tax internet service then the cost comes out of the genereal tax pool. I suppose the broader question is 'should this be a use tax' or can we assume that virtually everyone benefits from the internet whether or not they use it (much like roads, even if you don't own a car you buy products and consume service that are built upon that infrastructure) - in which case using general tax funds makes more sense and saves the overhead of managing rates & billing for the internet access industry.

Re:Unfair taxing

[Red Flayer]

I don't really understand how you pay more for your property to live in a less-populated area. Certainly land costs less in less-populated areas as a nearly universal rule.

It's not just the cost of land, it's also the cost of the building, etc. If you look at median (or even mean) housing costs, you'll find that a lot of suburban and rural suburban areas are far higher than urban areas. Yes, there is more land, bigger homes, etc, but our purchasing choices are limited by what's on the market. Since minimum lot sizes are 3-5 acres where I live for new construction, it's simply impossible to find properties comparable to what you'd find in, say, Newark. Furthermore, school system quality is a huge price factor in NJ, where I live. Suburban and rural suburban schools in norhtern NJ are simply much better than their urban counterparts, also reducing the availability of low-priced (smaller) units in more rural areas.

I don't know how specific this situation is to NJ, so YMMV.

Re:Unfair taxing

[jimmy_dean]

17% extra is $105 a year more than I currently pay. I'd rather be free to spend that (or save) $100 as I see fit, not as some politicians out of touch with reality see fit.

Don't be so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

This time around, we have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

My guess? We're about to see Dem's true colors shine through: TAX IT!

And of course, the people cheering this on are going to be the same ones who want to put health-care decisions for the entire US in the hands of the same government that brought us the TSA. :-P

Re:Don't be so sure...

[smooth wombat]

And of course, the people cheering this on are going to be the same ones who want to put health-care decisions for the entire US in the hands of the same government that brought us the TSA.

So you're saying that Mitt Romney will be the next president? You remember Mitt, don't you? The Republican who forced the entire population of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine, starting with confiscating any tax refund you may get.

You do mean the Republicans, don't you?

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you're saying that Mitt Romney will be the next president? You remember Mitt, don't you? The Republican who forced the entire population of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine, starting with confiscating any tax refund you may get."

Not sure why this is flame bait, he just pointing out that both sides of the political spectrum have had quacks with horrible ideas (even if they were well meaning). Imho, the only difference in Reps and Dems are the tie colors - both sides have smart people and corrupt/stupid people.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

[OT]

That is true. Whereas the Republicans just want to spend it, without taxing it in the first place.

The cost just gets passed on to the next (current) generation. Thanks a bunch, not. Hey, I know, we'll just liquidate and cancel Social Security and cut off Medic[aid/are] to anyone over 65. Carry on.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Dunbal]

We're about to see Dem's true colors shine through: TAX IT!

      Yes, especially since the original bill was passed under Bill Clinton's presidency. Oh, good old Bill such a republican, wasn't he?

      Sigh. Yes I am being sarcastic.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[bkr1_2k]

"the only difference in Reps and Dems are the tie colors "

Are you sure? http://www.c-span.org/images/2004vote/bushkerry3_200.jpg

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you arn't an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.
Bills come out of the House and Senate. Congress makes the laws, Congress passes the laws, and in 1997 Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

As far as real powers go a President can't make a bill become law (they can possibly prevent it).

Re:Don't be so sure...

[smooth wombat]

Of course it's flamebait. 'Fair and Balanced' means pointing out only the wacky, socialist ideas that Democrats have, never the same socialist ideas that Republicans have and have implemented.

And let's not get into the whole "smaller government" thing that Republicans continually tout. That would be heresy to point out the HUGE government expansion the Republicans have done, not to mention the Big Brother-esque, all-knowing-all-seeing spying programs.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[kalirion]

It's just like credit cards - free money!

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Dunbal]

an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.

No, I'm not American. And yes I know the difference between the legislative and executive branches. However your presidents have veto power and they DO use it. The fact that Clinton did not veto the bill that established a moratorium on internet tax shows that he wasn't against it. In fact, he supported it at the time, since he was all for anything that "built" the internet. And since he was a democrat, I refute the argument of the original poster.

Non-Americans also pay attention to US politics because (unfortunately) they affect the world. Sometimes disastrously, as GWB has so poingantly demonstrated.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[djasbestos]

Hence why partisanship is crap, considering the rifts in the Democratic party and more notably the Republican party. I think "small government" Republicans are at best 1:1 with neocons and religious fanatics (when they aren't one and the same). Then you've got Kucinich and Dodd in the same party where the Dems are concerned.

Moral of the story: America, ALWAYS vote on the issues, NEVER based on the letter next to someone's name.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[cayenne8]

"And let's not get into the whole "smaller government" thing that Republicans continually tout. That would be heresy to point out the HUGE government expansion the Republicans have done, not to mention the Big Brother-esque, all-knowing-all-seeing spying programs."

That's because perceptions of the today's Repubicans, have not caught up the reality that they are NOT the Reps. of old. The Republican party used to be more for small limited government, less taxation, etc. However, for some reason, today's Reps are still touting those beliefs, and somehow getting away with it when in reality, they are NOT the GOP of old.

It is very disconcerting for those out there, and would really like to vote for a party that felt this way, but, between the two, there is no viable choice at this point. Both parties want larger govt...and I believe they both want more control and invasiveness. As one poster mentioned, they are nearly the same...with different tie colors.

Actually I see them the same except for their views on abortion, and raising taxes. And with these two issues, I'm split...I believe abortion should be the choice of those that are pregnant, and I'm tired of the govt. trying to tax every fscking cent they can. They have enough...learn to live with what you have, and quit trying to tax every new thing that comes along.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Firethorn]

I think that a large part of this problem with ever expanding government is the fact that people who run for office generally think in terms of solving problems through government, which leads to more government. For that matter, while in office your tool is government and thus every problem starts looking like a good candidate for a government solution. The government solution generally creates more problems, which leads to more government intervention, leading to massive inefficiency.

Just imagine if we could get redirect of even 10% of the workforce of various levels of government towards more productive careers building stuff. We wouldn't need illegals* to help build our houses.

And yeah, you tend to have nutjobs on both sides of the spectrum. If nothing else, the moderates aren't as motivated to go through the effort of being elected.

*No problem with immigration, unless it's illegal. Both sides of the issue need to be fixed. Legal immigration needs to be made easier, while deterrance and punishment for illegal immigration need to increase.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Xichekolas]

both sides have corrupt/stupid people. There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[Pope]

As I figured out well enough back in the 1980s:
Democrats tax & spend.
Republicans borrow & spend,

At least for the Dems, they know that the bills have to be paid. Either way, though, it's that common "spend" that needs to be looked after before any real progress will happen.

Re:Don't be so sure...

[falconwolf]

I hope you arn't an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.
Bills come out of the House and Senate. Congress makes the laws, Congress passes the laws, and in 1997 Congress was controlled by the Republicans.

But the president still has to sign it, unless congress overrides the veto.

Falocn

No special deal for internet companies

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If you want lower taxes, fight for lower taxes across the board. There is no reason to tax the brick and mortar establishments and give a blank check to the internet companies.

Why should the mom-and-pop diner that ekes out a living by selling coffee and donuts be forced to comply with the onerous burden of collecting and remitting taxes on every cup of joe they sell while the multi-billion dollar sale companies like Amazon get a free ride?

Long time ago it was considered too difficult for small internet start ups to follow the complex local taxes and exempt categories for all the 25,000 taxing jurisdictions in the country. That argument is no longer valid. The internet companies should be able to calculate the local tax and exempt categories based on the deliver address. Or they can float an internet startup to provide the service to other companies.

Fight for lower taxes across the board, fight for better spending efficiency by the government. Slashdot readers are tech savvy people who can avoid sales taxes by ordering online. If you fight to keep the special treatment of internet companies over brick-and-mortar companies, you are no better than the vested special interests that you often criticize.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[faloi]

If you fight to keep the special treatment of internet companies over brick-and-mortar companies, you are no better than the vested special interests that you often criticize.

A valid point, perhaps. Except that the article is in regards to additional taxes put on Internet services, and has nothing to do with taxing goods sold across the Internet. This is, essentially, an effort to hold down any additional fees that might be assessed for Internet access. Similar to keeping all the odd state and federal fees off a phone bill.

It's got nothing to do with interstate online commerce.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[TinBromide]

The websites and the brick and mortar shops both have to pay local state sales tax, provided that the customer is in the same state as the website's product point of origin (For a service, its the main/local office that determines if you pay sales). Thats why newegg customers have to pay tax in NJ and a few other states, they ship products from there. That's to prevent the diner from setting up a web kiosk to order coffee and allowing the waitresses to be merely couriers of the product ordered over the web.

I think you might have conventional sales tax confused with what this article is talking about. Unless the mom and pop diner opened up web service that would then be subject to the tax, they would actually end up with ~%11 savings over a taxed website.

Either that or it has to deal with ISP "service". I didn't read the article, the summary usually provides enough entertainment.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[Dunbal]

If you fight to keep the special treatment of internet companies over brick-and-mortar companies, you are no better than the vested special interests that you often criticize.

      So you suggest that in order to "fight taxes across the board" we should accept a tax on internet services, since everything else is taxed? I have a pastor friend who is looking for help with a new church, and I think we just found the right candidate for the job...

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

yes, I realized after posting. Will be eating crow for lunch today.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[kimvette]

Why should the mom-and-pop diner that ekes out a living by selling coffee and donuts be forced to comply with the onerous burden of collecting and remitting taxes on every cup of joe they sell while the multi-billion dollar sale companies like Amazon get a free ride?

Amazon does not get a free ride: they have to charge and remit taxes in any state in which they have a physical presence. If you live in say, Nebraska and an Amazon vendor has a physical presence in NE and you purchase from them, you will be charged sales tax.

Likewise, if that mom & pop diner got into selling meals via mail order, they would be collecting sales tax in their local state, any state they have a physical presence in, but would not have to for states in which they do not.

It IS fair when you come down to it.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[vertinox]

Fight for lower taxes across the board, fight for better spending efficiency by the government. Slashdot readers are tech savvy people who can avoid sales taxes by ordering online. If you fight to keep the special treatment of internet companies over brick-and-mortar companies, you are no better than the vested special interests that you often criticize.

That doesn't make much sense because most brick and mortars have store fronts these days. In reality, if internet companies want to avoid sales tax, they'll incorporate in Delaware or over seas.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[rawtatoor]

And as it turns out, there is a reason that you don't have to pay taxes for goods from another state.

Not that something like The Constitution of the United States of America has really mattered in reality for a long time, but I quote:

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." (Art 1, Sec 9, clause 5)

So, no it doesn't really have anything to do with supporting anybody over anybody else, just respect for the law.

Re:No special deal for internet companies

[SimFlyer]

If you favor a level playing field then either the internet seller should charge sales tax for where their business is located as brick and mortar businesses do now or brick and mortar businesses should have to ask each customer where they live and collect the appropriate sales tax for where the customer lives as is usually proposed for internet sales.

Shot in the arm for failed municipal wifi, etc.?

[Bearhouse]

Could be a boost to the 'failed' attempts at establishing 'free' wifi in urban & other areas, many of which originally intended to help the poor who - as often - were missing out on an important part of modern society.

Also for sites that encourage listing 'free' hotspots and help you with establishing your own. Too many to list here - Google is your friend, (uh, if you're logged out and using Noscript etc.)

Finally, if you're near a border, or have a rich friend that's just a little too far away, you can always try something like this!

http://www.instructables.com/id/Wifi-Signal-Strainer-(WokFi)/

Re:Why?

[morgan_greywolf]

You already pay tax on your Internet connection if:

• You use a dislup, DSL, ISDN or FiOS connection, you are paying into the Universal Service Fund, plus federal, state and local tax on the phone line
• Your ISP has a business presence in your state (state sales tax)
  
• You use a cable connection, you are you paying federal, state, and local tax on cable.
• You use a mobile broadband network, you are paying federal, state and local tax on cellular service
• 
  
  
  That's pretty much everybody. I didn't include satellite only because I've never had a satellite connection, and therefore I am unfamiliar with whether there are taxes included on that bill.
  
  Why on earth would you want to pay more tax?
  

Re:Why?

[Dunbal]

The argument used to be that everyone had dial up back then, so they were paying taxes on their phone line and therefore paying an internet tax on a phone line that was already taxed would amount to a form of "double taxation".

However the situation today is quite different - many people have broadband through ADSL lines, a lot of these people have even gotten rid of their regular phone lines to use VOIP, and are therefore not paying any tax at all on their voice/data communication services (unless they have a cell phone).

Personally I am never in favor of MORE tax - there comes a point where the government has to try make do with what it gets and try to prioritize and budget accordingly instead of finding new and creative ways to squeeze us for more cash. However I guess that the above is an argument that could be put forward in favor of the tax. And of course they could do it for the children... because not supporting new taxes lets the terrorists win.

Tax teh intarweb?

[Lookin4Trouble]

When this country _still_ has the lowest percentage of its population on broadband of any developed nation (and its users pay more per kb/s of bandwidth than any other country's)? That'd be like paying a toll to ford a river when everyone else in the free world is using a 10-lane highway free of charge! The original bill was implemented to speed the proliferation of connectivity, and has failed miserably (compared to other country's efforts). What lessons can we learn from, let's say, the UK - where 94% of the population at least has the OPTION of broadband connectivity? Has a similar tax / tax exemption been in effect there? Seems we're only getting half of the question side of this equation, making it impossible to really come up with an answer...

Re:Tax teh intarweb?

[Lookin4Trouble]

You're missing the point here. Demographically and Topographically speaking, 87% of Americans live within a 20 mile radius of a major urban hub. I think 87% is a good number to shoot for as far as broadband access goes, but it's not going to happen out of the goodness of the hearts of the ISP. I'm also not saying that the government should be the ISP. You can twist statistics any way you wish, but the point still remains - availability of broadband access is still the lowest in America of any _DEVELOPED_ nation (sorry Patagonia), and its users already pay more per unit of bandwidth than any other. Why stack more taxes on top of that? A different user posted that they're paying $100/month for 8Mbit/sec. I'll even take that as a combined number (say, 1.5up, 6.5 down). The same service here (IF it's available to you) would range between $350-$1,200/month just for the subscription, not to mention getting the ISP to run line to you. I absolutely do think that the farmer 20 miles from nowhere in the middle of a cornfield should either pay for line run, or be happy with (abunchofwifirepeaters). It's one of many downsides to living in the middle of nowhere, but that option is not available to said farmer, and that's a sad state of affairs for residents of America.

Re:Tax teh intarweb?

[ScentCone]

but it's not going to happen out of the goodness of the hearts of the ISP

And why should it? So, out of whose hearts/pockets to you suggest that it SHOULD happen?

87% of Americans live within a 20 mile radius of a major urban hub

And it still costs a fortune to run fiber more than a few hundred yards. And the laws of physics mean that DSL doesn't get you anywhere close to that 20-miles-away guy. So there is a MUCH larger layer of infrastructure that has to flow out, mile by mile, all the way through those hundreds of square miles around that "hub." The guy who is 15 miles away from an urban center might as well be 1000 miles away, infrastructure-wise. If you can't make a compelling case for someone who is only going to be able to charge $40/month to string up service that it will cost them many thousands to deploy, and you don't want to have the government do it, then there really aren't many options.

Why stack more taxes on top of that?

We're not disagreeing about that. I'm trying to point out that unless someone personally pays for it, or a company finds it worth investing in, only taxes will get it done... or, it can just WAIT. Which is exactly the current situation. Can't have it both (or all three) ways.

It's one of many downsides to living in the middle of nowhere, but that option is not available to said farmer, and that's a sad state of affairs for residents of America.

Of course the option is available. Right now. Today. Someone just needs to write the check. The repeaters are off-the-shelf, fiber can be pulled, microwaves work... it's only money. So: whose money? You can't lament that he doesn't have a cheap option while pretending that a rural user in Korea got the same service without paying so much. SOMEONE paid so much. We just don't socialize it as much here, and so the costs are clearer, and you have to make more of a commitment if you want it. Or, be patient while more easily deployed solutions evolve. It's not a condemnation of the US that it's hard to get broadband to show up in a sparsely populated fringe suburb when the suburb itself is bigger than many of the entire countries that are contributing to your statistics.

Necessities...

[terrence.donnelly]

That's like taxing my shower. Or my microwave. I quit.

Re:Necessities...

[geeknado]

You don't pay taxes on your water or electricity bills?

it's the same for EVERYONE

[ScentCone]

If you fight to keep the special treatment of internet companies over brick-and-mortar companies, you are no better than the vested special interests that you often criticize.

Yeesh. As has already been pointed out to you, this isn't about sales taxes on the goods that happen to be ordered online. This is about taxing the service you're buying which connects you to the internet. Much like your cable and phone services are already being taxed.

That being said: A small mom-and-pop retailer that takes an order over the phone, or through the mail, or by fax, or off of an auction site, or from their own web site is - JUST LIKE AMAZON - not obligated to collect and remit sales tax if they happen to ship out of state. Conversely, companies like Amazon DO have to collect and remit sales tax if they're shipping into a state where they have a business presence. So, if Amazon operates a warehouse/distribution center in Maryland, then they're on the hook to remit Maryland sales tax on any orders they ship to Maryland addresses.

Very large companies, increasingly, DO have offices, operations, or other "nexus" in more than one state, and are increasingly on the hook to collect such taxes for those state governments. Further, you've got places like California, which has been known to lean on out-of-state retailers to remit CA sales tax whether they have a presence there or not. Their leverage? The tell retailers that if they don't, they'll be blacklisted from any purchasing done by any agency of the CA state government. And while that may not matter to Uncle-Jim's-Fly-Rods-dot-com in Idaho, it definitely matters to retailers that sell office supplies, truck fleet parts, computer hardware, etc. It hits big companies, and the mom-and-pops the same way.

Your example of the diner is a particularly bad one. There is no un-taxed competition shipping competing omlettes and cups of hot coffee in from out of state. If your point is that there are large businesses (in other lines of work) making money by doing business with the residents of a given state, and not collecting sales tax... remember that it's the CONSUMER'S responsibility to pay sales and use taxes on stuff they buy from out of state. Don't like that the sale isn't taxed up front? Don't sweat it... it's the people who live in YOUR state that are then supposed to pay those taxes on the goods they buy from out of state. Otherwise, you've got businesses that aren't even IN your state having to do insane amounts of paperwork with your state government. Some states have sales tax rates that vary by zip code, and which depend on the type of goods being purchased, and which change seasonally. Should every retailer in every state have to keep track of, and remit all of that nonsense to every other state government around the country? Or should your fellow state citizens simply pay up when they buy something big ticket from out of state?

And lastly: how about simply making your state a more attractive place from which to OPERATE a large retailer? That way you get WAY more cash flow into the state coffers... income taxes on the employees, corporate incomes and real-estate taxes, taxes on all of the services and utilities that the company uses in the state, taxes on all of the services and items that the employees consume in that state, taxes on the incomes of all of the third-party vendors and service providers that support the company in your state. What you SHOULD be doing is asking your legislators to find ways to make your local infrastructure and circumstances very attractive to the next Amazon.

Re:it's the same for EVERYONE

[bradykp]

it's not all that difficult to keep track of the taxes. there are applications out there that do it pretty easily, and they get updates from the government periodically with any changes in the tax codes. telecomm companies have to do this for federal, state, county, and down to the city level of taxes. many states have one set sales tax, some states it differs by county or city.

it;s pretty easy actually, and i don't think it's too far out that the governments push more for enforcement of this.

USA, welcome to the rest of the world!

[monktus]

Here in UK, government taxes you! But seriously, we've always been taxed on Interweb access just like we get taxed 17.5% on everything else. Obviously the situation is a little different for you guys as sales tax varies by state, however our telcoms (and pretty much everything else) are poorer value for money than in the US and even our European friends. Until I managed to negotiate a massive discount from them recently, I paid around $100 a month to my ISP for my 8mbit ADSL and landline (inc. VAT and free calls to geographic numbers).

Internet Tax Freedom Act

[va3atc]

Appears this might just be a United States thing.
Wikipedia article regarding the tax-free Internet act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

Re:Why?

[Attila Dimedici]

If the moratorium ends you will be paying tax on your internet connection to your local township (borough, city), the state and the federal government (that is assuming that the county doesn't dip in for a bite as well). Each of these will be some "reasonable" percentage of the bill, adding up to increase the cost of internet by 1/3 to 1/2 of what you are paying now. Oh btw, when this moratorium was originally passed, there were municipalities and states talking about taxes such as a couple cents on each email. So, it could possibly be more than a my estimates above. Oh yeah, some municipalities were talking about taxing (or trying to)all internet communication that passed through them.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with everything you say, but it's your last point that really sells me.

Re:Why?

[stranger_to_himself]

Why on earth would you want to pay more tax? middle class guilt?

There is no such thing as a "free" gov. service

[thesandbender]

How do you think they pay for those "free" services? Through taxes. There is no such thing as a "free" government service. Your Wi-Fi may be "free" but you'll end up paying more at the store, or on your property taxes, etc. Government is supposed to be a zero sum game. If you add something you have to taking something from somewhere else. And honestly, having done contract IT work for State and Federal agencies for almost seven years, I'm not sure I'd want to use a municipal WiFi service (not a knock on all government agencies... some have really impressed me).

Re:There is no such thing as a "free" gov. service

[Bearhouse]

What's wrong with that? Should the poor be made to pay for street lighting?

I'm no fan of big gov. or taxes, (as a self-employed consultant living in a high-tax country - believe me, I'm REALLY not!)
Like you, I've worked with gov. agencies and I'm pretty sure I'd still have my own ISP - like my kids go to private schools.

Yet I accept that some of my tax dollars are and should be used to help people less fortunate than I am. Plus, I'm sick of having to re-buy access, at exorbitant rates and with indifferent security, every time I want to use a hotspot in a cafe, hotel, airport...I want wifi everywhere for ME too - for starters, my GSM bill would shrink if I could use VOIP even 1/2 the time. Tell me I have to pay 50 bucks per year more on my property tax to have free wifi everywhere in my town and I'll pay like a shot, (and I HATE paying taxes). Why? I would SAVE money and help people. Sounds like a win-win to me.

As for library access, (another poster), c'mon...that's a cop out. My kids are on the net day and night, for both work and play. Me too. Also, some people are handicapped, don't have a library nearby...

Re:Why?

[morgan_greywolf]

Don't worry about middle class guilt. If things keep going the way they are, neither you nor i will be middle class anyway.

Re:Why?

[fotbr]

I don't pay tax on my cable internet service.

Of course, thats because the local cable company is HAPPY to sell you cable internet without requiring you to pay for cable tv.

Re:Shot in the arm for failed municipal wifi, etc.

[Capt James McCarthy]

"many of which originally intended to help the poor who - as often - were missing out on an important part of modern society."

Because we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.

Re:Back to 'normal'

[l4m3z0r]

They modded you "offtopic" because mod "stupid" is not available.

What is the tax for?

[foniksonik]

Taxes are typically set in order for the government (State or Federal or City) to aggregate some money to DO SOMETHING. What will they DO with this money? If they will build out Municipal networks with the money, extend fibre to neighborhoods that don't currently get it because it's not profitable enough for the private company to invest, then I am FOR the taxes. If it's just going to go into a slush fund that will pay bonuses or something then I am AGAINST the taxes.

Does anyone know what these taxes are for?

Re:What is the tax for?

[moeinvt]

"Does anyone know what these taxes are for?"

They cover the cost of the government agencies monitoring all Internet traffic.

Re:What is the tax for?

[macman2k]

Why should one person subsidize services of another? Is internet fibre a right? If the free market (not the government controlled "free" market) cannot make a profit by extending fibre to a neighborhood then perhaps some new startup would have an opportunity to make a difference. Instead big companies get PAID to extend then monopolies to areas that they will operate at a LOSS on MY dime.

If you want to donate money to a "fibre" charity then go ahead, but don't point a gun at me (via the government) to make me pay for it.

More to the bigger aspect of why they tax everything under the sun. Government likes to apply a tax on everything so that it can assert its authority over the item being taxed. They claim authority over all of our labor, our homes (property tax), cars, your body (draft, SSN), gold, food, and just about everything. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxes are to government as pee is to dogs, they use it to mark territory. My dog has killed many a plant by peeing on it over and over.

Re:What is the tax for?

[ducomputergeek]

More likely is they would say that the taxes are used for providing networks to those folks, maybe provide them, then 20 years from now when the taxes are STILL on the book, take the money and borrow against it to fund "Pet Project of the term" stuff. Or they skip the 20 years, place an IOU in that tax account and use the money for general funds.

I remember the argument when the gaming boats came to Missouri that their funds would create "300 Million in new revenue a year for education in the state". (Not sure what the exact numbers were.) Well before the state was funding about 1Billion a year in education. After the gaming boats came the state continued to fund education at 1Billion a year. What they did was used the 300M from the boats to offset 300M they were funding in education and used elsewhere for other things.

It's because of stunts like that I believe that they should place a ban on the taxes (even a permanant ban can be made unpermanent at a later date with a new law), but every new tax law should have a sunshine date no longer than 7 years when it takes effect. Then at least we can debate whether or how taxes are spent on a regular basis...but I know that's just wishful thinking.

Re:What is the tax for?

[falconwolf]

Instead big companies get PAID to extend then monopolies to areas that they will operate at a LOSS on MY dime.

What's really bad is that the telcos and cablecos were paid to buildout but didn't. And now they're crying because they can't afford to.

Falcon

Re:What is the tax for?

[foniksonik]

I agree that accountability is needed. Who are these people who are abusing the legislation that the people have passed? Vote them out. I'd say that taxes should have a 1 year date on them.... with maybe a 2 year ramp up period to collect enough money to get something done... if they aren't being used for the intended purpose then they go away or are reduced or expanded as needed. That's how corporate budgets work (yes that also gets abused but in a different way), if you don't accomplish something useful with the budget given to you, you lose it and often lose your job at the same time.

Clinton was a better Republican than Bush

[tjstork]

Yes, especially since the original bill was passed under Bill Clinton's presidency. Oh, good old Bill such a republican, wasn't he?
            Sigh. Yes I am being sarcastic.

Fiscally, the only thing that Bush has done that could be considered Republican was to lower the capital gains tax. However, Clinton himself lowered the capital gains tax, but also kept spending in check, balanced the budget, promoted a sound dollar. If Hillary would actually be as good fiscally as her husband was, I'd say the budget would be in pretty good shape.

On the other hand, Bush is afflicted with LBJ syndrome. He's spends more than a drunk in a whorehouse.

Re:Clinton was a better Republican than Bush

[Ajehals]

Assuming yo are correct the situation would end up being something like this;

Currently the US is in a bit of a financial mess, taxes need to be raised and spending cut to deal with it, the dollar needs to be stabilised and inflationary pressures reduced. To do these things will harm the economy and increase the real cost of living *and* the tax burden, so you do that for 4 years, US finances look OK again but the voters will hate it. So after 4/8 years of hard work and belt tightening they will vote for the 'other' lot, because they would like to slacken their belts and pay less tax. So basically if the Democrats came in and repaired the damage done to the US economy and government budget, then they will be seen as a party of high taxation and economic downturn, the Republicans will point this out and promise to fix it, they will use the gains achieved and then squander the long term benefits for short term popularity and in another 4/8 years you will need someone to come in and do the unpopular fixing again. I wish I had a job where I could *always* blame the last incumbent, or even the last incumbent I didn't like, for the issues I have to face, and get away with it.

I should say that the words Democrat and Republican can be used interchangeably in the above, if I were allowed to I wouldn't vote for either, two party states, especially those where a politically motivated and elected individual has the power of veto don't provide real choice, nor do they promote long term policy or policies that are unpopular.

Re:Clinton was a better Republican than Bush

[operagost]

Fiscally, the only thing that Bush has done that could be considered Republican was to lower the capital gains tax.

And lower the income tax, which every major Democratic presidential candidate has pledged to raise.

Hey idiots and non-readers

[GarfBond]

This is a ban on Internet SERVICE taxes, not state sales taxes. This would prevent a collection of sales and other taxes on your monthly ISP bill, such as what occurs with your cell phone and usual cable bill.

Farmer Joe's Daughter

[EgoWumpus]

First of all, 'Farmer Joe' should pay more, because it's harder per capita to get access feeds to him than to 'City Jake'. Secondly, who are we kidding? Farmer Joe's teenage daughter is *so* on Myspace 24/7, if you know what I mean. I bet you'll see that, as with house sizes, you tend to fill up the space you have, rather than get the space you need. If Farmer Joe is paying for a highspeed connection, chances are he's using it within an order of magnitude of 'City Jake'. But on the other end of that axis; City Jake isn't on it twelve hours a day. If you live in a city, you don't stay in your house all day - it's too expensive. Housing in cities are at a premium because they're close to things to do - so you tend to do them. City Jake is getting his 'live feed' on.

No, the actual heaviest users are probably the suburbs - where most people live anyway - and businesses. Suburbs because you're too far from anywhere interesting to go there, and yet can get all your amenities delivered to you, and businesses because it's an essential service these days, like having a telephone. I don't particularly have a problem taxing businesses, because so much government infrastructure is built to support them exclusively. But for that reason it's unlikely - look at Google and Verizon, in this case. I'm sure no dot com or computer manufacturer is thrilled either. I bet the Wall Street types aren't going to be thrilled that their uber-fast up-to-the-phemto-second T1000 line is being taxed, either.

In short, I don't think this is a problem of politicians being stupid. (And I'll refrain from commenting on your 'e-quip' (-pedness to pass judgment.)) This ban was placed to encourage use - it's been encouraged. The government would be within it's rights to tax it - as much as it ever is, anyway.

There is a case for it, too; the government needs money, badly. We are loaned one billion dollars a day by other countries, and our dollar is tanking as a result. We'll be paying higher costs on these things anyway if we don't get that under control. But I think it would be a poorly targeted tax; we want to encourage internet commerce because we're strong in it. We want to discourage oil use because we do it too much, and it's costing us untold money - and arguably lives. The reason not to pass the tax is because, needing to be hobbled, it's best to hobble the economy in an area where we can afford to be less competitive.

Drug Dealers

[nurb432]

Get people hooked, ( by getting it into everyday mainstream business as nearly a necessity ) then raise the costs incrementally until people balk. Then back down just enough so people can keep buying the drugs..

Internet tax

[atomsmasher01]

Well isn't that just like the world tax tax tax. What will this revenue be used for if I may ask? surely not anything good ofcourse.

Doesn't make sense

[Pinky3]

I have cable service for internet and digital tv. If I watch "Heros" from the tv feed, I pay a tax on the tv service. If I watch the same show after downloading it from nbc.com, I don't have to pay a tax on the internet service. Both downloads come over the same cable in digital form. Please explain why one should be taxed and the other not.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[kb7oeb]

Watch it with an antenna and avoid paying anything. If I buy what is needed to make a hamburger I am not charged any tax (In my city anyway) but if I order it from McDonalds I have to pay sales tax.

Re:Why?

[stranger_to_himself]

Personally I am never in favor of MORE tax - there comes a point where the government has to try make do with what it gets and try to prioritize and budget accordingly instead of finding new and creative ways to squeeze us for more cash. However I guess that the above is an argument that could be put forward in favor of the tax. And of course they could do it for the children... because not supporting new taxes lets the terrorists win.

I agree with this. The government needs a certain amount of money to pay for stuff - quite how much money that should be is another argument. The issue here is who should be paying, how should the money be collected and whether taxes should be used as a way to encourage or discourage certain behaviour.

Does /. need a copy editor?

[ucla74]

It's "moratorium."

Re:Why?

[birdboy2000]

Because more taxes offer the government the ability to provide more services. :)

(If they're tying the new tax to expanding broadband nationwide, I'm fine with it; I'll pay more if it means getting others online. If they're doing the kind of crap they usually do with taxes, my general view is "hands off the internet."

Re:Why?

[morgan_greywolf]

Because more taxes offer the government the ability to provide more services. :) The day the government stops spending $5 million on a toilet seat and $10 million on a screwdriver, a day awaited eagerly by the members of the Porcine Aviation Association, that's the day I'll agree that we need to pay more taxes.

If they're tying the new tax to expanding broadband nationwide, I'm fine with it; It isn't the government's place to expand broadband. That's up to the market. While you might think of broadband as a necessity, the rest of the world views things like food, clothing, shelter, education, and public health to be necessities. Let's take care of those things, after that, we can tackle universal broadband or whatever.

Make it a 'ban', not a 'ban on new taxes'

[BBandCMKRNL]

My guess is that the people in Texas will continue to get BOHICAed since Texas' ISP tax is grandfathered in the existing law.

Re:Why?

[BBandCMKRNL]

This is incorrect. When I lived in Texas, I paid an ISP tax because Texas' tax is grandfathered. When I lived in Florida, I didn't pay an ISP tax because the law that is about to expire, prohibits such a tax.

tax?

[__aahlyu4518]

you pay for internetaccess but no tax on that???

and now maybe americans may have to pay taxes for their internetaccess ???? you mean... like for every other service/product ?

crybabies

Re:Why?

[lenester]

If you use a dislup, DSL, ISDN or FiOS connection, you are paying into the Universal Service Fund
Actually, no you aren't, as of sometime last year. You're paying the "FUSF recovery fee." I work for a small ISP which resells DSL, and we got the memo that FUSF was going away, but if you change the name of the line item just slightly you can keep charging it, at least on existing installations. Customers won't complain, their bill isn't going up... but the ISP's bill went down, so there's more profit. We didn't toe the line on this one, but many did.

Your ISP has a business presence in your state (state sales tax)
Pretty sure we don't do that either (in California)... I'd have to ask the accountant to be sure, but it's definitely not itemized on our bills, nor is there a "tax included" statement anywhere.

Just fact-checking, mind. I'm in complete agreement with your core message (as well as your choice of candidates).

Re:Moritorium?

[lenester]

Come on, this is hilarious! ...oh, but you have to read above a 5th-grade level to get the joke.

Re:Why?

[birdboy2000]

Was not the government involved in expanding electrification and other similar projects? We've left it up to the market for a decade and its proven woefully inadequate in many areas(and not exactly expanding there, either) so I say we give the public sector a chance. It'd promote the general welfare, IMO.

Re:You can't spell. YOU CAN'T SPELL!!!

[Panthar37]

Don't post if you can't spell CORRECTLY. Don't post is you can't compose a proper sentence properly. I can spell just fine. I just can't type well.

Re:Why?

[poopdeville]

Does... not... compute...

Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet.

[falconwolf]

A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.

The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.

Because the money grubbing politicians want to tax anything and everything they can.

Falcon

does government need the money?

[falconwolf]

There is a case for it, too; the government needs money, badly.

The government wouldn't need anymore revenue if it stayed small. If the feds hadn't got so big federal income wouldn't be needed so much. The 4% income tax President Lincoln had would be plenty. And btw when Lincoln raised the income tax to $4 to pay for the Civil War people didn't like it, I wonder what they'd think of the tax now. With low federal income tax cities, counties, and states could raise property tax. Then between property tax and a consumption tax there should be quite enough revenue to run local and state government.

Falcon

property

[falconwolf]

I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).

You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.

What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided.

Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it. There should be no need for any taxing of services.

Falcon

Re:property

[Red Flayer]

You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.

I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rural) might cost 425,000. Yes, schools etc are better in High Bridge, it's safer, etc -- but it is literally impossible to find a house there for under $325,000, whereas I could find a house in Irvington for $250,000.

As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas? It's not. The tax rate is usally lower in urban areas, with more paid by commercial enterpirses than residents, except for horribly mismanaged ones like Detroit or Elizabeth.

Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it.

What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.

Re:property

[falconwolf]

I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rural) might cost 425,000. Yes, schools etc are better in High Bridge, it's safer, etc -- but it is literally impossible to find a house there for under $325,000, whereas I could find a house in Irvington for $250,000.

That may be true in NJ, but I can go, if I had the money, to the middle of nowhere Montana and buy an acre for under $10,000. Try that in NJ or NY. Well it might be possible in central or upstate NY.

As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas?

What rate, property tax rate? State property tax rates should be uniform, the city or county sets it's own tax rate. Which is based on the value of the property, two properties of the same value in the same tax district will pay the same tax. A ten acre lot worth $100,000 will pay the same as a half acre lot with a home also worth $100,000 in the same district. Actually the half acre lot may pay less, simply because the owner can file a homestead exemption where the 10 acre lot may not be able to. Or it might be the opposite.

Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it.

What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.

The only reason I'd support a tax on cigarettes is for paying for the healthcare costs related to smoking. However that should be left to health insurance issuers, to have higher premiums for smokers, actually the government shouldn't tax tobacco. Automobiles use public roads, however it should be a use tax on fuel that pays for building and maintaining them. And unless your point is life should be taxed, I fail to understand your point.

Falcon

Re:property

[Red Flayer]

That may be true in NJ, but I can go, if I had the money, to the middle of nowhere Montana and buy an acre for under $10,000.

Well, then you're in an entirely different market... and comparing prices across different markets get very tricky...

the city or county sets it's own tax rate. Which is based on the value of the property, two properties of the same value in the same tax district will pay the same tax.

I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors. Furthermore, municipalities tend to be small in NJ, so you get wildly varying property tax rates in a very small geographical area. Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.

And unless your point is life should be taxed, I fail to understand your point.

My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed. I see now that you mean only goods and services for which government services were used to make useful (like roads with autos). However, there are a lot of services the government provides that are so borad in scope that a sales tax on all goods makes sense to me. Then again, sales tax is regressive, so I'd prefer a progressive income tax and no sales tax... but that's just my view.

Re:property

[falconwolf]

I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors.

The state of New Jersey doesn't tax property? Nor do the counties, or the equivalent? I didn't know that.

Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.

What other factors do they use? It seems property value would be the best seeing as how the value depends on many other things. Such as whether the schools are good, how the road are, and such. This can have the adverse affect of driving out poorer people though, as happens with Gentrification.

My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed.

Ok, yes that's what I believe. If government isn't providing anything why tax it? It costs the government nothing so it shouldn't be taxed. Anything else is simply wealth redistribution by government fiat.

Falcon

Re:property

[Red Flayer]

The state of New Jersey doesn't tax property?

Nope. State taxes are sales and income (for individuals. not sure for corps, as I'm not incorporated in NJ). No county property tax either.

As for other factors, I believe dwelling type makes a difference -- condos will get a different rate than detached homes. Also, some municipalities may vary rate based upon what % of the property is built on (independent of land value, a house that is 40% covered by buildings will be assessed higher than a lot that is 5% covered).

As for "wealth redistribution by government fiat", that's a tough pill to swallow, and I'm sure we'll never see eye-to-eye. IMO, there are lots of services best provided by government that are worth doing, but whose cost cannot be recouped by taqxation of related services (emergency services in less-densely populated areas, for example -- and in which case, what would you tax? Dangerous items? Foods that cause heart disease? Kids who play sports?)

infrasctructure

[falconwolf]

to the extent that the government is responsible for building and maintaining that network

The government is NOT responsible for building and maintaining the network. It is the responsibility of the providers to build and maintain their own part of it. Of course this hasn't stopped the government from giving these businesses billions of taxpayer dollars to buildout the network. Since this is the case it should be the corporations that received money who should be taxed. They should also be made to have open access, net neutrality.

Falcon

the poor

[falconwolf]

Because we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.

Hell YES!, The poor can get just as much use out of the internet as someone who can afford net access. Heck they can even use the net to find a job, or a better paying job, just like those who can afford it. I knew homeless people who had a cellphone just for this reason. Sure some may be able to use the library, but if you're looking for work it's a good idea to have email as well and some libraries block web based email. Years ago I talked with one librarian about why they blocked email and they said it was because people were taking too long using the computers to check email. With only a set number of computers and a line of people waiting to use the computers they didn't want users to take too long.

Falcon

Re:Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet

[suv4x4]

A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.

That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.

Sure, they might not be able to play HD DVD over the Internet at that speed, but I hardly consider waiting a bit more to download your movie something that can wreck society... Or ... wait... maybe this can wreck society... Man, what sad, sad things humans have turned into :P

Turning Point of Federalism

[EgoWumpus]

But not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B. I'm not saying this is right, or I agree with it, but it is the case; and saying "Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help. We're in the hole - time to get out. You know, if you have the ability to make the sacrifices necessary.

It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, though; that is generally regarded at the point in our history wherein the 'federalism' so espoused by the Founding Fathers stopped being a predominant policy, and we started to assert Federal rights over States rights. The other major jump was WWII.

Re:Turning Point of Federalism

[falconwolf]

But not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B.

Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.

"Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help.

Ignoring history won't help either.

It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, though; that is generally regarded at the point in our history wherein the 'federalism' so espoused by the Founding Fathers stopped being a predominant policy, and we started to assert Federal rights over States rights. The other major jump was WWII.

Yeap, Lincoln certainly strengthened the federal government. However WWII didn't have much to do with it, FDR started the ball rolling in the early '30s, before WWII, with the New Deal. WWII did help make the US what it it today though. After the war because of the GI Bill of 1944 a lot of GIs were able to go to college. There was a pretty big shift in demographics from low class to the middle class.

Falcon

Re:Turning Point of Federalism

[EgoWumpus]

Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.

Everyone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed. Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance. Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or whatever else does not help.

Ignoring history won't help either.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring history. On the contrary; I'm embracing the idea that these things happened, and cannot be magically ignored. A government smaller - at least in many ways - than the one we have now is a good idea, because it's been demonstrated adequately that the other direction does not help.

However WWII didn't have much to do with it

Until you study the history of American debt, and it's strong correlation to maintaining the very large armed force developed by it in WWII in order to win that war. That development spurred America's economy, and our subsequent taking on of debt was to keep that economic stimulant in the system, producing an ever larger military.

Take, for instance, the page on the New Deal you cited; at what point did debt soar? (Hint; there is a helpful graph.) FDR was never a fan of deficit spending, and most of the programs he created were repealed once the Depression ended. (Unless you're calling out either Social Security or the SEC?) You cannot trace the idea of 'tax and spend' back to him. I think the numbers in that situation are pretty clear; Hoover before him and the War after him were the primary factors of American debt, which fueled the larger government we have.

Re:Turning Point of Federalism

[falconwolf]

Everyone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed.

That's the problem, a lot of people won't take the responsibility.

Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance.

Although people still make wrong choices when they know a lot of the facts, it makes it harder to make a wise decision when you don't have the pertinent facts.

Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or whatever else does not help.

Neither does it help denying the media has the responsibility to furnish all relevant details.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring history.

Sorry for implying you were ignoring history.

However WWII didn't have much to do with it

Until you study the history of American debt, and it's strong correlation to maintaining the very large armed force developed by it in WWII in order to win that war.

While keeping a large standing army does have an effect, the Great Depression was over before the US entered WWII. Economic indicators had recovered to pre-depression levels by 1936 in the US, before the Recession of 1937. The war boom in late 1940 did increase employment, however by mid 1938 the recovery was underway. Of course Korea kept defense spending up as did Viet Nam then Reagan.

What I find ironic is the same person who warned against Military Industrial Complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the same one who had the US enter the conflict in Viet Nam. By 1955 North Viet Nam and France had agreed to hold a vote in both Viet Nams on reunification, Vietnamese were to vote on whether North and South would unite. However Ike was against the vote. He sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to South Vietnam to start a campaign against the vote in 1955. The colonel armed and trained those opposed to democracy.

Take, for instance, the page on the New Deal you cited; at what point did debt soar? (Hint; there is a helpful graph.)

Thanks for pointing that out. If I'm looking at the right graph, it show the national debt skyrocketing in 1943 before peaking in 1946. I'd like to see it past 1950, when it was more than twice as high as the debt was in the '30s. I'd bet it skyrockets again in the mid to late '50s, when Ike starts arming some Vietnamese.

FDR was never a fan of deficit spending, and most of the programs he created were repealed once the Depression ended. (Unless you're calling out either Social Security or the SEC?)

I'd keep but reform the SEC, however one of the very few things I agree with Bush on is privatizing Social Security. I don't know what to do about those who have or are close to retirement, but at least to start with I'll allow people to use part of what they pay into SS to invest instead and increase the amount, as a percentage, yearly. Perhaps what could be done for those who have or are close to retirement is to have immigrants pay into SS with the understanding they won't collect any themselves. So called illegal immigrants have already paid more than $50 billion into SS.

Falcon

Re:Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet

[falconwolf]

A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.

That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.

Some can most certainly lose their internet connection it they have to pay more for it. I guess you've never heard of the poor.

Falcon

I think this is a no-brainer

[TheCreditMaster]

The Internet works because it is substantially free of regulation/taxation. As with anything, as government encroaches, freedom diminishes. A move in this direction is a move against the free exchange of thoughts and ideas and a move counter to the principles of capitalism and the free marketplace.