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.
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
Yes, but expiring laws force congress to re-address the issue, while it is much harder to get support for changing a non-expiry law on the books.
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.
Not to mention that in four years they (Congress) get to show their support for the ban all over again. Thus ensuring votes from the soundbite voters. It would be very poor politics to make the ban permanent.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
Marvin the Martian
Sudden outbreak of election year politics. Notice that the ban is set to expire in 4 years, just prior to another big election year.
If you consider that taxation is an encroachment on your (monetary) freedom, then taxation is a limit on freedom. As such, there should need to be a justification in exchange for the limitation of your freedom. Paying the police and fire department? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people can agree reasonable taxation to provide for that is fair. Sin taxes to try to control someone else's behavior? Not so good, IMO. Everything in between is subjective and, as such, should be left to states and local communities to prevent 218 Representatives + 51 Senators + 1 President from imposing burdensome ideologies on the tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of people who don't support those ideologies.
For every bit of power you cede to the government, you also cede an equivalent amount of freedom. Don't complain when the other guy taxes you to fund his pet project that you disagree with if you're a proponent of your guy taxing people to fund your pet project. Sooner or later, each of your guys will eventually take everything.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Party above friends.
Party above family.
Party above nation.
Party above God.
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.
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.
Taxes are bad for many, many reasons. Not least of which is that they empower the government. The government should have sufficient power to keep the peace, and that's all. Any more power than that always winds up finding the wrong hands (of course people will disagree on whose hands those are) and making us all worse off.
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)
Paying the police and fire department? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people can agree reasonable taxation to provide for that is fair. Sin taxes to try to control someone else's behavior? Not so good, IMO.
Does paying the police/defense department include supporting the War on Drugs, secret wiretaps "to catch terrorists". Because you know what, those are all about trying to control someone's behaviour too (as, fundamentally, is all of police/justice work).
A lot of people would disagree and think that sin taxes funding detoxification programs would be a hell of a better way to modify behaviour than the War on Drugs. One destroys lives and provides opportunities for organized crime whereas the other approach can help rebuild them.
But, hey, don't let results and observations conflict with your ideology.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
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
If you want to do anything other than live in a hut in the woods, growing your own food and jogging for recreation, negative effects of your behavior can be found. Crap, you said anti-social behavior behavior is lumped in with the sins so I guess we have to sin tax your hut too.
My point is that there will always be (more or less valid) reasons to modify other people's behaviours. If you don't like my behavior, ignore it! Nobody is forcing you to consume a big mac with me. Nobody is forcing you to be gay just because that couple over there is. What, you don't want to pay for the long term effects of my (not really) smoking habit? How about the government not be responsible for my health care to begin with? Problem solved... you don't need to worry about what I'm doing to my body then. As long as I'm not harming you, walk away and mind your own business. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose and all that.
If police and criminal law is the only tool people have, that's the tool they'll use, with possibly unintended consequences (see prohibition in the 30's and how it fostered the rise of organized crime). So saying you only want to pay for police and FD doesn't fix the underlying problem of excessive government intervention. Prohibition... ah yes, the ultimate ideology behind the sin tax. It's so bad for you that you flat out can't have it at all. You know what, people from NY drive to VA to buy cigarettes, people from PA come to NY to get booze, people from the US go to Canada to get booze with higher alcohol content, etc. Sin taxes just help drive the business underground. Sin taxes, excess taxation, big government and thwarting of your civil liberties all go hand and hand.
I would rather that the government have a range of tools at its disposal. I wouldn't impose on a contractor that the only tools he's allowed to use to build a house is a hammer and a chisel. I would be a lot more concerned about enough oversight to make sure he's honest and sufficiently experienced to use power tools and cranes if appropriate instead of charging me for doing everything with a hammer and chisel. Why is it the government's job to fix you? What's wrong with charities, church groups, 12 step programs, etc? What you advocate is saying the government should be the one contractor that you can hire to build your house (because he'll work for no extra charge) and he can use any tools as he wants but there's no guarantee that he won't do a crap job because the funding will never dry up even if he sucks at it (see the farce known as public schools).
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
It's not common sense. Over half the members of congress co-signed the bill to make the moratorium permanent, but they STILL couldn't get it out to the floor for a vote. That's nuts.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!