Slashdot Mirror
US House Votes To Renew Internet Tax Ban
Talen317 writes with news that the US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to renew the ban on taxing Internet access — but only for 4 years, not permanently. A majority of House members (238) co-signed the bill to make the moratorium permanent. Republicans blamed the House leadership for refusing to bring this latter bill to a vote, charging that the Democrats wanted to leave the door open for future taxation. Not so, countered Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), one of the sponsors of the 4-year bill. The Senate must act on the moratorium before Nov. 1 if taxation is to be avoided, and Watt claimed that a permanent ban would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
Especially regular old Congressional laws. Even a Constitutional amendment is amendable.
It would seem so.
that is. 2012. i wonder if house members know shit that we dont.
Read radical news here
Even if they do, wouldn't that make it a bit hard for them to collect taxes?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
...is like worrying about "vulnerabilities" exploitable only by root. It's cosmetics. They can revoke this law and bring a new one that taxes the net if they wish so. Banning themselves from doing something at a later time is totally futile when they can just change their mind.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Sounds like you are making excuses by parsing words......
Huh? It says exactly that!
I was just going to mod you flame bait, but I figured I'd do the more appropriate thing and ask you to provide a site of your statement. If you fail to provide one, I'll just flame you myself. What's a little karma in exchange for proper moderating?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
... I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access. It is a service and is very similar to many other goods or services on which a tax is charged. I just don't see how this would be news whether or not it passed. If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service. Instead, I continue to save about 12 bucks annually. Sure, I wouldn't be in LOVE with the idea, but I wouldn't be surprised or outrageously put-off by the idea.
I think for this to be newsworthy, an internet tax would need to be proposed based off of the amount of network traffic produced (Like I could see some uninformed politicians proposing in order to keep the "tubes" cleaner). In doing so, anyone dealing with high volume transfer (e.g. Walmart Photo Center, Video and flash developers, youtube) would be forced to grind to a halt, however this is not the case.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
I can't turn on the news without hearing about how computers are the devil, videogames cause violence, homosexuality is a disease, and how people are getting jumped in alleyways by roving bands of immigrants and having their jobs pulled right out of their pockets.
Ever consider that maybe the real problem is that the only way for a (normal) news outlet to get decent ratings is to pander to trolls that use words like "dumocrap" or "republicrap" and think of themselves as a republican/democrat first and an American second?
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
they're taxes. Where does the money go, that's the question.
Help with a national health care plan? sure. Help with alternative fuel and carbon extraction RnD? sure. 2 bucks to give Wal-mart a tax break? not so much.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Yea, cuz taxes==bad. Don't want to get any more complicated than that.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Do you just refuse to look at actual voting records and just repeat whatever Rush Limbaugh says?
Republicans have raised taxes far more then democrats, historically. It was a Republican that lead the effort to make it a 4 year limitations. Yes democrats to.
Why ban it permanently, when they can ensure that they'll be "lobbied" again 4 years from now.
Party above friends.
Party above family.
Party above nation.
Party above God.
Well, the caption certainly tries its liberal damnedest to obfuscate the facts, but make no mistake, the only reason this ban isn't a perma-ban is because of Democrats in the house and senate.
As a registered democrat I'm happy they are. A permanent ban is idiotic.
I am pretty sure your internet access is already taxed as a sales tax in your local state (unless you live in Alaska, Delware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon but your local city could still have sales tax). This law will ban taxes by on goods and services bought over the internet and between states.
The world won't end in 2012. *please mod informative, please mod informative*
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I thought we already "paid" for the internet, in the form of giving a very limited subset of companies a government granted monopoly on the infrastructure to provide said internet.
Now why would a permanent ban be idiotic? I hate seeing tax dollars wasted... until the gov can stop hemorrhaging money (and work with a balanced budget like we all have to) I think their source of money should dry up.
I'm not modding you anything until i'm sure your right... See you in 2012!
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Why yes they are. If they were good they wouldn't need be compulsory would they...
\u262D = \u5350
I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access
Fine, take $5 each month and flush it down your toilet.
Its the equivalent of giving the federal government your tax payment -- same end result. You're out $5, and the money's been wasted on accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
there is no point in collecting taxes after world ends anyway. more profits to be reaped through nasdaq by tech sector's expansion.
Read radical news here
it'll end in 2011
Read radical news here
the amount of network traffic produced
Why should the tax man be calculating my internet bandwidth? The differences in bandwidth will usually be so small as to be irrelevant.
Tax on internet access should be treated the same as any other sales tax. Internet access tax should be based off the dollar amount of the service. In most cases, the dollar amount of the service will be based on the amount of network bandwidth used-- usually in a tiered system (100Gb/month for $20. 200Gb/month for $30, etc). But really, the price of the internet service is up to the provider.
If I buy a hammer at the hardware store, the weight of the hammer is irrelevant. I can buy one sledgehammer for $10, or buy 5 small hammers for $2 a piece. Each purchase is for $10, and the taxes should be the same. The sales tax is based on the price of the product, not the weight.
Primary education is also clearly bad by your "compulsory" logic. Obviously, a poorly educated society is a productive one. See third world for examples of the runaway success of this theory.
What poppycock. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here. The suggestion that congress couldn't undo a tax ban that has no sunset date later is just laughable - particularly when it involves the prospect of further picking the taxpayer's pockets (which we know politicians have no qualms about doing).
FTFA:
The House on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a four-year extension of a moratorium on state and local taxes on Internet access.
a permanent ban would ensure that businesses would continue to invest in the Internet and keep access affordable for users.
Let's drop the income tax and make a GST, which would be applicable to all purchases.... ahh.
Let's see... /gets out bill
RoadRunner: $44.95
Total: $44.95
Several years ago, they removed the franchise fee off the bill for people who just have internet access as well. This is from NY, btw... bastion of spend, tax and spend some more.
How about a tax on people in the city to make sure people out in the 'burbs and rural areas can get their internet service without having to pay the extra cost of wiring low-density areas? We could just add it to the list of covert subsidies for unfair, environmentally-destructive low-density living.
I am the one true god. However, as an atheist, I don't believe in myself. I guess I have a self-esteem problem.
I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access.
I dunno. I see a problem with all taxes until we have a balance budget again by decreasing government spending.
Of course this might involve ending a war that costs $400 billion dollars a year.
I pay a little over 1/4 of my income now for state, city, and federal taxes as it is so even though it wouldn't kill me to pay a few more dollars a month for internet taxes, it is salt in the wounds for a government that has no control over its spending habits.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I looked at my phone bill last weekend. The phone service costs $35 and the voice mail costs $8. The total bill, after adding the "taxes": $63. You figure it.
Cell phone bill? Same sort of silliness.
An internet bill would likely work the same way as regards taxes.
Because that would go contrary to the Democrat party principles:
If something moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it!
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
So what you're saying is that we can take as much of your salary away for the "public good" as we want, and you don't really care what the money is used for, as long as it's done in $2/month line items?
The first difference is that when revoking a law, they have to take responsibility - someone would have to propose a new law, and than they'd have to vote for it and have their names on the record. The second difference is that a filibuster or a veto could prevent revoking, while now an ordainary majority can just refuse to pass it again (it's harder to pass legislation than to prevent it from passing).
Now, they can just let it lapse four years from now, and pass the hot potato around ("I wanted to ban the tax, but Congressman Y wouldn't let me" - Congressman X D(state). s/Y/X/ and you get what Congressman Y will say).
Wait, since when did Americans work within a balanced budget?
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Oh my god you are so right, the countries in the third world have so low taxes... oh wait they don't ! They have kleptocratic government. And they don't have education as well... What ? Many do have efficient cheap private schools ? My my my... But your are right, I am stupid, according to my logic food would be bad since it is well known food can only be provided by the state through compulsory taxation. I'm glad the government taught you government's taxation is good in its government run public school.
\u262D = \u5350
CaptainPatent posting as AC:
I find it quite laughable the assumptions made about GPP. Of course I care what the money is used for and I completely agree that the government itself spends money inefficiently. With that said, we're talking about a completely different issue now. No, you can't take "as much of my salary away" as you want because there is a point of ridiculousness. The point I'm making is exactly as GPP states: It would suck to have to pay more, but I wouldn't be surprised or outrageously put out by a tax solely on "internet access" (unless, as I said, it was based on something ridiculous like usage.)
If there were 17 new taxes passed today, or if I directly claimed "I'll surrender my entire wealth to the government for public use" then you may have a point (and there would be something wrong with me.) Until then, you need to take the grandparent post at face value and stop making outlandish assumptions.
And even if they theoretically could, wouldn't a permanent ban be useless anyway since they could just repeal later?
Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but it's not "taxes==bad", it's "too much taxes==bad". One line of reasoning is within the questions, are we taxed too little, just about right, or too much. Only if you think we're taxed too little does adding Yet Another Tax seem reasonable. Don't need to get any more complicated than that.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Of course the Democrats are always our heroes on Slashdot, since they selflessly swoop in and save the day from those eeeEEEvil Republicans. Isn't it just wicked cool that on Slashdot Democrats never say or do anywhing wrong?
Sounds like you turned your TV to Fox News and then broke the knob off, sticking it there.
I could simulate the equivalent for me by programming my TV to repeatedly cycle through all the remaining channels.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Clearly you have never been audited.
Hell hath no fury like a government accountant making $13/hour.
None.
I have not yet been audited... and I will now go offer a ritual animal sacrifice of some sort to ensure it stays that way...
If you did it fast enough to induce a siezure and some hallucinations, maybe.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
no, I just want higher taxes on people who shop at walmart while I get most everything I need online ;)
Yes I notice that a lot, especially when I've read the same story on an Australian or European news source like the ABC(http://www.abc.net.au/news) or BBC. As an Australian, I often wonder why your news is so heavily politicised and why it seems Americans need to politicise every part of their lives.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Because that would go contrary to the Democrat party principles:
There is no such thing as the "Democrat party."
If something moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it!
And Republicans have been doing such a wonderful job of keeping government limited.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Don't forget that we also paid for a lot of that infrastructure, which makes your point even more valid.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Of course they're not doing it permanently, that way there would be no fund raising on this issue in four years.
The House leaders are deliberately blocking amendments, backed by a majority vote, that would guarantee a permanent ban on Internet taxes. This is not in tune with the strive for bi-partisanship that Nancy Pelosi promised us as a House Leader - this is procedural abuse!
This is not true. Even the linked article seems to refute this. There's in fact overwhelming support for amending a bill to make the ban permanent. How this factual error got past the editors is beyond me.
Party Up in Here. (ain't no party like a slashdot party)
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
No, no they haven't. But it is the mystique that Democrats want *big* government to pay for everything the people could ever need and to do that they need to *tax* the people. They haven't broken that mystique yet.
In theory, a sales tax on Internet service would go to your state (or city, if it has a local sales tax), so it wouldn't be part of that wasted $400 billion. Whether or not your state does anything useful with the money depends on your state, but the budgetary disaster of the federal government isn't really a valid argument against local taxes.
Way back when, I decided to downgrade my landline to the lowest possible cost. After all, my wife and I both have cellphones for outgoing calls. What do we need to pay $50/mo for a landline for? I called Verizon and asked what their cheapest possible plan was. Unless you are low-income, the cheapest plan was $7. I am not low income, so I oped for $7/mo.
Time goes by and I get my first phone bill under the new rate. I figured it'd be about $9 or $10 with taxes and whatnot. I opened it, and to my shock and horror, it was just over $20! I called Verizon to have them correct this obvious mistake. It turns out it was not a mistake. I don't still have the bill (this was several years ago), but it was a few bucks to the county, a few bucks to the state, a few bucks to the feds, 911 charge, universal service fee, etc., etc., etc. All of this nickel and diming added up quickly, practically tripling my bill!
So this is why I am against taxation on internet access. I don't want $20 charges for $7 service. I don't mind paying taxes, but can't we just keep it simple? Property taxes for local gov't, income and/or sales taxes for state, and income for federal. What's wrong with that?
All of these taxes and surcharges really hack me off. They make it impossible to budget and plan, since you never know what something is going to cost before you buy it. Want that $39.99/mo cellphone plan you saw advertised? Well, tough noogies, because it isn't available. Want to know what it really costs? Tough noogies, nobody really knows. You can only find out after committing to pay an unknown amount for 24 months.
Really, you're ok with this? If so, I think you're nuts. No offense.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
While people who haven't read any of the REAL news sources on this bill are saying yay! Free no taxation! There is a new element in the works that's pretty evil.
The Teleco lobbyists have pushed (with the backing of the FBI) for VOIP to be taxable, so they'll still have to examine your packets and have funding/access to your conversations over the net.
I wish some politicians or news agencies in the U.S. would put up stronger resistence to this kind of backdoor shenanigans... but what do I know.
Ummm Primary public education is not compulosry you can send your kids to a private school or home school (well unless your in Germany then the state owns your kid).
Obviously, a poorly educated society is a productive one.
I know its a straw man but Ill smack him anyways: Productivity and education are not very related, the US has by most measures a much poorer educational system than most of Europe and Asia and about the most productive workers in the world..
As a conservative republican I agree... I think sales taxes are far superior to income taxes as they tax consumption and not production. For now leave the ban in place but why should an online sotre *permanently* have that advantage over brick and mortar?
Every time a new tax is proposes, all the supporters come out and say it's no big deal if it's only a buck or two. But it never, ever stays at those levels. Income tax was suppose to only be a 1% tax for the richest and look how out of control that's gotten. The George Washington bride in NY started off with a 25 cent toll that was suppose to go away once it was payed off. Well it's been paid off and now it's a $6 toll. Do much traveling? 25% to 50% of those tickets just go to taxes. You add up all the taxes, deductions and regulatory fees and over half of what you make is going to the government. This puts us on par with Roman slaves yet people still call themselves free. And what have we gotten for all these extorted funds? A world that hates us, a collapsing economy and a complete evisceration of the constitution. But hey, it's only a couple of bucks!
Well, I was trying to be polite and leave the hallucinating out of it, but if you really think, for example, that you can't turn on the news without hearing about how homosexuality is a disease, you've either reprogrammed your TV to pick up some weird Jerry Falwell network or something on all channels, or you were dropped more than a few times on your head as a child.
Don't worry tho -- just stick with Slashdot, DailyKos, etc., where you're perfectly normal. I'll admit that between us I'm the odd one, here.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Our news is politicized because people here go into the news business specifically to politicize it. Why do Islamic extremists blow people up? Because it's a religion to them.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
I'm not the one making assertions. You are.
And sorry, but you fail.
You're nothing but an asshole flame baiter looking to get scorched by posting your NeoCon Bush-centric head-up-your-own-ass Republican bullshit. Not only that, but you are a lazy sack of shit who can't even defend his own view. Hell, you're probably one of those asshole who pushed for war, sending hundreds of thousands of our troops to risk their lives for your buddies profit margins. Way to 'support the troops' asshole! For quite a while now, I've thought the problem was Bush. But I think I may have been wrong. The problem is the mindless fucktards like you who follow along bahhing the White House issued talking points you heard some hate monger spew on Fox news. For fuck sake, open your eyes, the shit you preach and the crap your leaders pull do not match up.
You sir are a tool, and a dull one at that.
I can't believe you cited a fucking convicted felon/cult leader and a graphics artist with a blog as reputable sources for the going ons in Washington. WTF is wrong with you? Is this the caliber of debate artist that Fox News is producing these days?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Actually, I believe you are thinking of the 'Socialist Party'. The Democrats are a little more conservative then you are giving them credit for.
:) thanks to those damn Democrats and their socialist farm subsidies.
The funny thing though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are *big* government spenders. Republican's may claim to be pro-small government, but it's BS, just look at their actual voting records as to whether or not to increase the governments involvement in any number of scenarios. And hiring 'consultants' to do the governments work, while paid for by the government is included in government activities.
And given the choice between the Democrats 'Tax and Spend' policy, and the Republican 'Borrow and Spend' policy... I'd much rather go with the Democrats. Tax and Spend may be a bit more of a pain in the ass to the citizens (who could then vote for more fiscally conservative people), but the Borrow and Spend approach is crushing the US dollar, giving our international competitors leverage over the US, and does nothing to motivate people to push for fiscal conservation.
Heck, where do you think the $12+ billion we're spending each month in Iraq is coming from? Have your taxes gone up recently? Did the government have 1/2 a trillion dollars just sitting around waiting to be spent on a war? Nah, this is all being funded at a deficit, but where is the cash coming from? The answer? Japan and China. Yup, two of our major competitors in science and technology are funding our government through purchasing our debt.
Gives ya a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that the Republican party mantra of Borrow and Spend is slowly selling our country out to foreign nations. And just wait, some day China might demand payment on the half a trillion dollars we owe them. And if we reneg on that debt, guess how that will make all of the other foreign investors with another trillion dollars of interest in our debt feel? Yup, the dollar would plummet in value world wide, the US economy would crumble, and life in the US would go down the crapper because we depend on imports for damn near everything in this country. At least we would still have food
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
And if I were to suggest that every channel has an absurd liberal slant you would probably praise me for seeing the world as it really is. I'm not perfectly normal ANYWHERE. I gave that one up when I started thinking instead of relying on excuses like media bias and outsourcing my free will to politics.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
And if I were to suggest that every channel has an absurd liberal slant you would probably praise me for seeing the world as it really is.
Nah, but if you were to suggest that most channels have an absurd liberal slant, and a single one has a distinct right slant, but nothing even close to what you were referring to earlier, I would praise you for seeing the world as it really is, and for how far you've come from your earlier wacky "oppo-view" of reality where most news channels are somehow filled with Pat Robertson material.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
Congress or anyone else for that matter should not have any control over the internet. In Estonia, WiFi is available in gas stations, and they seem to have advanced technologically and economically since the Singing Revolution, (I just saw a website about Estonia's Singing Revolution - http://singingrevolution.com./ Estonia's government does not impose any restrictions on the internet, and if congress decides to tax users it will hurt progress.