Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax
modemac writes "Sacramento, California Assemblyman Charles Calderon wants to expand a 75-year-old sales tax on 'tangible personal property' to include music downloads from iTunes and other music-download sites. The tax would specifically apply to music downloads, but the estimate used in this article for revenue generated by 'Net downloading also "includes pornography downloads." The measure, AB 1956, will be considered on Monday, April 14th."
If music, etc is "tangible property" now, does that mean we get the same kind of fair use we expect from the other kinds of "tangible property" we own?
That should read: "Idiot Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax" but that may be redundant. Besides the obvious fact that it would be very hard to police (esp. the pr0n) this would lead to more piracy. Only legitimate outlets would be effected.
"But his measure is being soundly criticized by Republicans, who are opposed to any tax increases to solve the deficit problem."
So if you're not FOR the tax, you don't want to lower the deficit!
" His bill, AB 1956, comes as Apple reports that its iTunes store has leap-frogged over Wal-Mart to become the top music retailer in the United States with more than 4 billion downloads sold."
Odds are this bill comes AS A RESULT of iTunes leapfrogging Wal-Mart.
Or, it encourages digital publishers to re-locate out of state.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
On a related note: If I was in California, I'd ask this congressman what benefit I as an individual and California as a whole would receive for the increased revenue. Would I get more use of my product? Would the money be used to increase pay for congressmen? Would it offset some other tax? Without knowing those things, and also having compensation in the language of the bill for what happens if those funds are not used for the approved task, the increase should be disallowed. On behalf of everyone who wishes to avoid California setting precedent, please write your representatives!
I personally don't mind taxes as long as there is a clear benefit for the additional cost. When taxes increase with no increase in benefit, there's a problem.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
You get what you pay for.
Buyer beware.
No kidding... I thought the whole point of sales tax was SUPPOSED to be that it supported the infrastructure (roads, etc.) needed to actually sell the product, which is why sales tax makes sense as far as ordering off of, for example, Amazon.com goes (stuff still needs shipping). As far as I am aware, the government doesn't actually have an infrastructure to support regarding just downloads. The entire cost is borne by ISPs and the site you download from (thus, by extension, the consumers themselves).
I see no need for a sales tax on downloads other than padding pockets and paying for totally unrelated projects.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
"Hopefully, someone can slap some sense into him."
What the hell are you thinking, man? He a freaking politician.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
According to TFA, it would be a tax on the sale price:
So, presumably, free porn wouldn't be taxed at all--but you would have to pay tax on any porn you purchase online.
This is interesting because if it's a sales tax, it won't apply to freely distributed intellectual works, like creative commons music. So if all my music downloads are free, I don't have to pay any tax. Presuming that they don't start taxing donations, this would actually make the creative commons business model (release for free, capitalize on donations, concerts, merchandise, etc.) even more compelling (for artist and consumer).
That having been said, this overall sounds like a terrible idea. We need less monetization of intellectual works, not more.
only the rich have computers anyway
they need to pay their fair share those dirty rotten music down loaders
we are taxing perverts, you want to tax them, right?
it is for the children.
the revenue will go towards reducing our impact on the environment!
which statements can we queue up to support this? I expect the bulk of them to show up at one time or the other
Sorry, it never ceases to amaze me that when facing a spending problem their first reaction is to increase taxes.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So looking at this guy's legislative website, he claims to be a 'first Latino to do this and that'. He's most proud of getting legislation passed to 'force drug dealers pay for the damage that they cause their community'. So it would appear that he specializes in vague undefined pseudo-laws primarily designed to shake down anyone without the resources to prevent this from happening (lawyers in the USA, private armies in Mexico). Basically another fine-and-upstanding slimeball politician. Wasn't Ahnaald going crunch up all this little schmucks into little balls and turn them into shiny new barbells?
Check out the shape of his legislative district (California #58). It's a true octopus. Precisely gerrymandered (an American term meaning the drawing of political boundaries to ensure permanent re-election of the people drawing the boundaries) down to the household to ensure that this bozo can never be voted away.
In the not-too-distant future, bozos like this will avoid tangling with the technicians in order to avoid having their slimy little scams and fiefdoms exposed on the web like this.
To sum it up, he wants to tax everything. Such is the nature of the bureaucrat.
What?
"The government has no authority to take a cut of anything they wish" and "0% of zero & all that"
... Plus over time, they can then add new forms of data to the taxable list. Plus once its taxed, they can then choose to change the taxes over time.
... As they will then be leaking money away in more taxes, which other countries don't need to pay for the same information.
... http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=465072&cid=22544268
They make the rules. They choose what to tax and they choose what rules to change. But this is a far bigger issue that just music downloading. They are saying they want to add a tax on downloading specific data. That would create a hell of a precedent. It opens a situation that in the long term, is far wider than just music downloads.
Up until now, countries already have tax on downloading arbitrary data, as that's effectively part of the cost of using an ISP etc... But taxing specific data, thats very different. For a start, its going to need literally a Big Brother system to monitor it all. As they need to log and then workout a charge for each and every form of data.
Also who then works out how much to charge for each form of data?
Also what competitive disadvantage does that create for Californians against other countries not using such a system?
In a global economy, such short sighted state imposed profiteering for extra tax money, is going to create a competitive disadvantage for even being based in California.
Then to appear to counter this competitive disadvantage, they can then waste millions more setting up schemes where small businesses and students get some of their data at reduced tax rates etc.. But it will fail to cover all costs incurred, as they cannot create tax breaks of sufficient detail, to cover every new startup or student situation. Plus at the same time, other government departments undermine them, as they are working on dreaming up new forms of data tax, they want to add to the list of taxable forms of data.
While some countries most likely will follow America into this new hole they are trying to dig for themselves, they will open up yet another competitive advantage for other countries who don't adopt such a system.
It shows incredible shortsightedness. They are focused on short term profits from taxes with ignorance of the wider extra costs and implications and disadvantages and on top of that, will need to spend a fortune on building a Big Brother system to manage it all.
And if they choose to build Big Brother, so much for Land Of The Free?
The more I hear, the more I am sadly convinced that Big Brother is becoming inevitable, given the kinds of personalities involved in corporations and some positions of power.
For example
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.