Slashdot Mirror
Internet Connection Tax Held Off for A Few More Years
Christopher Blanc writes "The ban on taxing Internet connections was set to expire at the end of October, but thankfully the US Congress has acted. Last night, a Senate bill was passed that extends the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act for seven more years. There are still some details to work out (the House's bill only extends it for four years), but it's clear both houses of Congress are looking to keep taxes out of the picture for the near future. 'Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) is excited at the prospect that Americans will be able to continue filing the tubes of the Internet tax-free. "The Internet has provided a powerful economic boost to our nation, and has become an important everyday tool for millions of Americans," said the senator. "By keeping Internet access tax-free and affordable, Congress can encourage Internet use for distance learning, telemedicine, commerce and other important services."'"
Now if they could just get the ISPs to charge reasonable prices for those connections...
I'm waiting for a "-1 somepeoplejustshouldn'tgetmodprivileges" meta-moderation.
I hear he's going to make up the shortfall with his own bribe money!
The internet has made lots of money for shipping companies and employed a lot of delivery/logistics people. UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc. All those online shops have to get the product to the buyer somehow.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Meanwhile, food is taxed, energy is taxed, clothing is taxed, health is taxed, labor is taxed, trade is taxed, wealth is taxed, inflation hedging is taxed, mail is taxed, building is taxed, savings are taxed.
Fortunately sex and the internet are still untaxed. Cool.
\u262D = \u5350
Congress can encourage ...
I almost spit out my coffee. By putting off yet another expansion of government power and revenue for a bit longer, congress actively helps us all!
Seriously, can you hear the applause?
If Congress really wanted to assure affordable internet access, they'd set about removing the "Universal Access Fee" (a/k/a "e-Rate" or the "Gore Tax") which has long since fulfilled it's stated purpose of subsidizing internet access to rural schools. (According to the FCC, 99% of public schools are connected to the Internet). And while they're at it, they can shut down the Universal Service Administrative Company, which is a bureaucracy set up to administer these funds.
It should be easy, right? A school asks for funds to help establish internet access, an application is reviewed and funds transferred... well, here's a little link to a flowchart showing how out-of-control a government agency can become in only a few years:
http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/application-process-flow-chart.pdf
Nobody likes paying more money for anything, so the first instinct is to say HOORAY! I'm not going to be taxed!
But I have to wonder. What kind of inequities are being created that aren't solved by the "free market" because of what economists call externalities, or put simply benefits/costs not given to the party who produces the service?
Access to high speed internet at reasonable prices in rural, or outlying areas is certainly a concern. I don't really know if that's still a problem or not. But if it is, one solution is a.. yes, that dirty word, a... tax on internet service to support paying for "rural internetification" (to bastardize the program in the 30s, "rural electrification".
AccountKiller
This is a little misleading - the part that we often think of as "Internet access" is not taxable, several important services which are not provided by your ISP will now be explicitly taxable. This includes VoIP, Internet radio and Internet-delivered television services that don't come over email and aren't provided by your ISP as part of your account. See this thread.
more of the same on Twitter.
When reality sets in. Sure, great that internet tax is held off for a few more years, god knows the cable companies and telcos don't need any help. This is an election year-ish, so taxes will be a big issue soon. The trouble is that the wars of choice for Bush are going to have to be paid for some how. I'm reasonably certain that the Bill Gates of the world are not going to donate their personal fortunes to pay for it, so that means that you and I (if you live in the US) will end up having to pay for it. Any guesses as to how? yes, that's right, in the form of taxes.
... Telcos or cable companies. If it gets taxed, one of them will make out terribly well as it will open the gates to applying taxes to VoIP and other such services. We'll have monthly bills that even Enron accountants couldn't figure out.
We could legalize/regulate/tax the sale of pot... no, that won't happen.
We could tax the monetization of religions... no, that won't happen, Xenu won't let it.
We could tax gasoline... that will happen
We could tax food stuffs... that will happen
The list continues with all the stuff that you cannot live without
So be wary of any politician that promises to reduce taxes, even if they manage to not tax internet access.
Truthfully, the only reason that this has worked is that they are still trying to figure out who will give the best backhanders
If that sounds cynical, think about it for awhile, the truthiness of it will settle in.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
hehe only halfway there....
;)
My DSL LINE is currently taxed and will remain so (unless there is big dif between house and senate version)
The ISP part only is not taxed.
That would be $66.00 taxed (office, home is like 38.00)
The 9.99 ISP charge is taxfree...woohoo ?
$10 a year more to spend, I am going to save the economy
Lucky you, no tax for a first post. ;-)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Good point. The part of the bill that the title is named after really delivers a trivial return whereas the things it makes explicitly taxable are much more lucrative. Typical political double-talk.
more of the same on Twitter.
The trouble is that the wars of choice for Bush are going to have to be paid for some how.
Yes they are, so reducing government income by raising taxes seems like a particularly poor idea.
The measured effect is very simple and has repeated itself enough by now that people should know better - lower taxes increase government revenue. Raising taxes freezes up money going into the government.
The government isn't the group that creates wealth so giveing them more money only lowers what the rest of us can do with the amount we have remaining.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In the UK everything is taxed (including condoms) at the point of supply
When this was brought up weeks ago. Not that I'm trying to say I'm that smart, but I have my moments.
Basically they're operating on a sort of "sell you the printer/razor for cheap, then nickle & dime you for the cartridges/blades" model.
Here is my question, I thought there were rules or guidelines, if not actual laws, that required the government to tax businesses entities equally (with rates, not dollar values). For example, let's say you have small biz owners A and B who are competitors. Now, and this is over simplified, they would have to tax both guys the same rate. That way A can't get his buddy in Congress to help his business succeed by unfairly lowering his tax burden (ya I know this happens, but simple thought experiement time), thereby having an operating advantage over B.
How can they then tax streaming video/audio, VoIP, etc and not other online services. On the simplest level, ALL of them use the same methods to deliver their goods (protocols, equipment). As "online" service providers, aren't they then put at a disadvantage compared to other online service providers who are not taxed? Because one business employs an extra protocol another may not (VoIP for example), that means VoIP carriers have an extra burden simply to exist. Why would you want to be a VoIP carrier?
Oh wait. Taxing streaming video/audio, VoIP. Who has interest in those? The MAFIAA, Bells... Are they trying to keep the lil guy out? Fuckin' A. Raise the barrier to entry and only the big guys with deep pockets can succeed. God I hate this country even more now.
No sig for you!!
Congress could just let the tax issue drop. But by putting the it off for seven years, they keep the cash flowing. Same as "Medicare Reform" and "Farm Bill Reform"; give the biggest donors what they want, then reset the timer so it goes off again in a few years.
So if there is a federal law prohibiting Internet access taxing, why do so many states actually have the tax? I know for a fact that at least Texas has a tax on it. It is only supposed to be collected on monthly amounts over $25, but the ISPs generally collect it on the whole thing (or at least Time Warner Cable does). This would probably be grounds for a class action suit against any ISP that does the same.
Here is the link to the tax code for Texas.When I talked to a tax representative there a few years ago, she bluntly stated that "We don't care what tax laws Congress passes; we have an Internet tax here. You can try to not pay it and see what happens." Gotta love Texas pride!
It is technically illegal. I don't know if the judge ruled on it officially yet, but the court is expected to kill the tax. It a shame that we have to wait for that. In the mean time, we still have it.
The local tax was attached to the federal tax, it should have been done away with at the same time. Instead, we are now being illegally taxed. Furthermore, the Mayor of Los Angeles is proposing a 9% tax measure on all telephones, next election. It is being sold as a 1% tax decrease instead of a 9% increase on something that should not be currently exist. To makes things worse, the Los Angeles Times actually reported the Mayor's spin on this! No wonder the Los Angeles Times is loosing subscribers.
So far, no world on any of this money being refunded to the taxpayers.
Funny how Congress attaches expirations to the things that protect us from taxation but you don't see these things on the ugly stuff like the DMCA or PATRIOT Act.
> said the senator. "By keeping Internet access tax-free and affordable, Congress can
> encourage Internet use for distance learning, telemedicine, commerce and other important services."
Gosh! He sounds like he's doing us a favor, not heaving the bon-bon eating lardass that is government on yet another thing.
I think what he meant to say was, "By keeping Internet access tax-free and affordable, Congress can avoid getting our asses handed to ourselves at the next election."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And misleading. This isn't a law until the President signs it. And he's been vetoing a lot lately, with the Democrats unable to get votes for an override.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.