New York Wants To Tax Internet Downloads

An anonymous reader writes "NY is considering taxing 'video and music' downloads to offset a burgeoning budget deficit." How long before we all have meters on our routers? This version is just a 4% tax on movies and songs downloaded from services like iTunes, but I'm sure if they could figure out a bit tax, they would.

Comments

The upside

[Warll]

The upside of them metering one's bandwidth use would be that many people would start taking action over their windows zombie box.

Re:The upside

[quanticle]

More likely, we'd see more computers going to the landfills, as users realize that its almost as cheap to purchase a new computer as to have the one you own serviced.

Re:The upside

[causality]

Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.

You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault ..... Does a pilot ridicule you when you fly on his plane but don't understand the aerodynamics?

It is their fault.

Users can always decide that compromised security is absolutely unacceptable. Deciding that means they'll do whatever they have to do to prevent it. With that mindset, poor documentation and UI problems are merely inconvenient obstacles to be overcome and are not showstoppers. There is more than one well-maintained, reasonably secure computer on the Internet and only one is needed to prove that this can be done. It's just a matter of whether the user is going to passively wait around for somebody else to do this for them, or whether perhaps there are things that are more important than that and worthy of some effort. The information needed to stop the vast, vast majority of automated malware attacks is quite easily obtained via Google and much of it is quite well-documented. Maintaining a computer is far, far easier than programming one and well within the reach of any literate adult. This is a matter of decision-making and priorities, not capability.

Or, to answer the question as you posed it: perhaps a pilot would not ridicule me because I don't know how to compute aerodynamics equations, especially if I am merely a passenger. I would certainly expect to catch flak from a pilot, however, if I tried to fly (not merely "fly on") his plane with no basic understanding of how to do so. Anyone who buys a computer and puts it on the public Internet is flying their own plane, by your analogy, and is not merely a passenger. It's just that when a pilot makes a serious mistake it's a matter of life and limb so we don't try to deny the need to know what you're doing and we don't try to make excuses for incompetence. If someone with absolutely no aviation knowledge tries to fly a plane and crashes it, no one suggests that he's a victim of poor documentation or that the real problem is that airplanes are too hard for the average person to fly. When computers are compromised, it practically never endangers life and limb so there arises the idea that this changes the dynamics of the situation or removes the need for personal responsibility and the excuses soon follow.

What you are saying boils down to a victim mentality. I'm not arguing against you so much as I am rejecting the victim mentality that you propound. To that I'll add that you appear to be hypersensitive to this issue. In a way you have to be, because the victim mentality is a message of hopelessness that does not stand up to examination. I say that because the GP did not assign blame at all. He said "Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on ..." but he did not attempt to explain why this is the case. Maybe he thinks that's the users' fault, or maybe he agrees with you that they are merely victims of things like poor UI and poor documentation with no hope of taking some initiative and improving their situation. He did not specify. That means that how he would explain it is open to speculation and therefore you chose to interpret that the way that you did. He may later explain his reasoning and maybe it'll turn out that your assumption was right and maybe it won't; either way, at the time of your reply you had no way of knowing.

Re:The upside

[Warll]

I'd love for that to become an issue.

The Tax Man Cometh

[mc1138]

New York taxes everything, a lot of it has to do with the maintenance of New York City. They get subsidies from all sorts of things, taxes, bus fares, chances are if you buy something in New York, some of that money goes to New York City. In fact, even living in New York City is taxed.

Re:The Tax Man Cometh

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

that's insane. renters already pay property taxes every month. do they think that because the property tax bill is addressed to the landlord that they won't pass it on the the renters?

Great for increasing piracy

[kseise]

No tax on torrents? Cool! Bye Bye iTunes.

Re:Great for increasing piracy

[sabs]

You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth.
Look at your internet bill.

I want to see a provision in the stimulus package

[PeeAitchPee]

. . . that forces states to pay back the money they receive from the Federal government, and puts a harsh salary and compensation cap on politicians in those states who elect to take Federal bailout funds. The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less," and current taxpayers are fleeing by the tens of thousands, causing them to create asinine taxes like the one in TFA and causing even more people and companies to head to more tax-friendly states. A government should be forced to plan its finances like a responsible household, taking into consideration risk, debt and spending just like the rest of us have to in reality land. After all, it's our money they're spending. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Grrrr

[LatencyKills]

I'm sick of the attitude "we've got stuff to pay for and we need to figure out how to raise revenue to do it" regardless of how they choose to raise it. Here's a novel approach to government: we've got X dollars, how can we spend it to maximize the quality of life of our citizens? I don't get to randomly pull in more money from secondary sources if I decide I want a bigger TV this year, so why should the government?

Re:Grrrr

[Ironchew]

Time to go after the pork. Scaling the military-industrial complex down to a defensive level instead of an imperial level suddenly frees up nearly half our federal revenue. Imagine all the social programs that would benefit.

Re:Grrrr

[twiddlingbits]

Troll..the defense budget is nowhere near half the Federal spending. The 2008 figures were around 18-20% of Federal spending and about 4.4% of Gross Domestic Product. If you want to find savings look at Mandated Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and those "pork" projects each Senator sticks in the various spening bills. The funding levels for Defense are projected to DROP in the next few years while entitlement spending zooms to the moon. Add in entitlements contained in the "bailout" and we are going to have significant issues funding just the BASIC military (payroll, facilities, maintenance) we need much less R&D and procurements needed to stay current with technology. Just because the USA doesnt'/won't/can't spend enough of our budget to keep up does not mean our enemies will ease up their spending. Or maybe you want the US to be lesser?????

Re:Grrrr

[CannonballHead]

Um. Defense is one of those few things in the US Constitution that is MANDATED of the federal government. Unemployment checks are not.

IMO, the way it should go is this: We have $X dollars. We are required to do $Y and $Z, so let's do those first. After that, with our leftover money, let's do the social programs not required of us.

Right now, the government and most Americans seem to think the other way around. Social programs are more important than the Constitutional mandated actions of the federal government. Until, of course, defense becomes a priority due to some event; then, suddenly, everyone is willing to spend money on it.

Am I saying to WASTE money on the mandated obligations of the federal government? No. But we should definitely get the priorities straight before we spend... not spend (somewhere, somehow) and hope it works. Which is apparently the current administration and Congress majority's ideas.

Re:Grrrr

[Neoprofin]

Who determines who the "truly needy" are? That's always been the root of the argument. There are very few people who honestly support a complete tooth and claw society where any who fall behind for any reason are left to die, just as there are very few people who support a state that hands everything to anyone regardless of their social context.

In the middle are all the shades of gray, and each and everyone one of those shades has social programs they'd cut as unnecessary, so it's a little pretentious to argue that there aren't some pork barreled social programs out there.

Re:Grrrr

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Says somebody who obviously never needed social programs. It's everybody's responsibility to uphold a civil society by helping the truly needy, because they would expect the same if they needed it.

I'm only speaking for myself. I would love to see my tax dollars go out and help people out, but only if it meant that those that are being helped would eventually become productive members of society. It does them no good if they only collected a cheque but were never in a position to help themselves. I've always felt that the point of having any social program was to send people assistance so that they could help themselves get back on their feet. Once they get back on their feet, they are then able to contribute so that other people can be helped. Obviously, such a system has the potential to be highly abused.

I have never conducted or read about any scientific studies to show how many people actually just sit at home and collect welfare cheques while never working, so I cannot really say whether that point of view is a myth or not.

That's my take. Some people would not want to see a single dime go out in such a manner, and that's their right, as it's their hard-earned money. I'm interested in helping the needy, but even more interested in helping them actually get into a position to help themselves.

I'm not calling all welfare recipients lazy, but was more going along the lines of the old Chinese proverb of "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Anyway, there are non-welfare based social programs as well, and I honestly believe that the biggest problems are the excess pork that politicians promise to special interest groups. I can stomach a homeless guy getting my money, but not a multi-million dollar special interest group, unless they are actually producing jobs and giving back.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of excessive taxing to begin with. I would like to see the money that people earn to stay in their pockets as much as possible.

Re:Old news is old

[Smidge207]

*sigh* I agree...BUT: Why should there be a tax on Internet traffic for any reason? I mean a true, cogent reason? New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to? Secondly it offers no protectionism. This is taxation without representation. Thirdly how much tax dollars is wasted in New York and given to the rich? Fourth what is the purpose of a Federal Tax deduction if it's going to be added to state and local taxes? Fifth if New York is going to raise taxes then it shouldn't get any bailout money because it contradicts what the Federal Government is doing?

There needs to be correspondence between what the Fed does and State and Local Governments are doing in order for the stimulus to work. We can't pull two different directions. Taxing downloads is an invasion of privacy anyway. It's not about pr0n it's about taxation without representation. The reality is tax money as well as tax deductions are given to corporations for the purposes of conventions centers and etc... which does nothing for the areas except deplete taxes for the purpose of benefiting rich corporations. They claim to make jobs, however the jobs do not pay a living wage and further taxes the economy through social programs.

Enough is enough!

=Smidge=

Porn Taxation

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

fee on all music and video downloads â" including pornography. ... But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.

Evidently, giving porn a tax exemption wouldn't legitimize it at all.

NYS wants to encourage piracy

[Vandil X]

So what they're really saying is to hit the torrent store for our online "purchases" rather then stay legit and send more tax revenue to a bunch of $100K/yr earning public servants who got NYS into this budget problem in the first place.

I'm sure this was proposed over a $1000/plate fund-raiser dinner.

Out of Control Spending

[BoRegardless]

State, Local & Federal governments have been as irresponsible as the financial sector they set the rules for and then didn't oversee, probably because of donations and revolving door employment between government and the companies in that sector.

They have never admitted that taxes can be too large and stifle investment and productivity.

Reagan showed that it was possible to stimulate activity by lowering taxes, but now all we are hearing is raising taxes. Nowhere have I yet heard anything about reducing government spending programs.

The mega-push for Socialism has reached steam-roller stage.

Re:Out of Control Spending

[Anonymous Coward]

Ill take my freedom over your definition of quality of life

Taxation is not a solution for budget shortfalls

[sircastor]

I understand the need for Taxes. I'm willing to pay taxes. There is a benefit of the state providing some services.

Your problem is that you've run out of money. Yes, you can ask the citizenry to give you more money, but then what happens when you erroneously spend that money?

Budget shortfalls are a symptom of poor budget expenditure. Yes, New York state likely is receiving less funding than it was previously, but that also means that services are not being used to the extent that they were previously. Make the adjustments, rather than piling your spending problems on someone else.

Re:No shit, sherlock.

[KyleTheDarkOne]

The main reason for taxes on good is the use of the infrastructure, the roads and the like for the movement of goods, as well as to get money, but downloads don't actually provide any wear on the infrastructure.

Federal Law

[SheldonLinker]

NY and you are ignoring three very basic points:

1) The US Constitution prohibits states from taxing anything crossing state lines.
2) A server can be located anywhere.
3) People will minimize their tax paid.

If NY puts this law into effect, then the affected servers will be moved out of state, and no tax will be due or collected.

As a side-note, we produce and sell packaged software. We're in California. We get sales-tax returns mailed to us from Louisiana. We throw them out, unopened.

Hate to Say it.

[ticklemeozmo]

I hate to be that curmudgeon old fart, but once they get something, they don't give it back.  And once they start taxing something, it's easier for you to accept new taxes.

But just read and grasp what the whole concept of this is here.  NY wants to TAX you for NOT shopping in their state.  You want to save money by buying online, they want to TAX you for saving money.

I'm not going to get into any Republican vs Democrat ideals here; I just want everyone in NY to understand what is fundamentally happening.  You exercised your right as a consumer to not shop somewhere, and you are being charged for it.

I believe that provision is in the bill

[Shivetya]

right next to the part where Congress holds themselves to account.

Honestly, everything you attributed to NY and California is attributable to the Federal Government. Worse, they Feds have no restraint whereas states do. The Feds aren't even bothering to try and balance the budget.

Face it, through years of manipulation Congressmen have managed to lay the blame for all things at the feet of people who have money while themselves spending money they don't have.

Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime. Congress chides the business for laying off people, losing money, or asking for money, all the while doing the same thing.

Look, the majority has spoken, they want all they can get from those who make money while there is still some to get.
 

Re:I believe that provision is in the bill

[nomadic]

Face it, through years of manipulation Congressmen have managed to lay the blame for all things at the feet of people who have money while themselves spending money they don't have.

Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime.

Uhh....huh? I have never understood the divorce from reality on slashdot when it comes to politics. We have had EIGHT YEARS of congressmen in control who think being wealthy is a sign of supreme virtue. Anyone who points out that extreme disparity in wealth might not be a good thing is instantly vilified as a communist. Your point of view has been the majority one for years, and it has run this country into the ground. How dare you suddenly pretend to be a persecuted minority.

Re:I believe that provision is in the bill

[dietdew7]

Your post is ironic.

Re:I believe that provision is in the bill

[BlueStrat]

I suppose you're somehow showing the the poor old rich guys are getting beaten over the head with high taxation and the such, but you fail to explain or elaborate on how this hurts society as a whole?

It (raising taxes to punitive levels on the wealthy & corporations) hurts society on myriad levels.

The corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. Tax, like any business expense, is rolled into the price charged for products and services. This hurts the people who depend on the corporations' products and services.

If taxes & regulations rise to where the corporation must raise prices to the point where they become uncompetitive in the world economy, they simply leave the country in question for less-costly locations, taking all their jobs and tax revenue with them. This is why so many US corporations are either outright leaving, or moving operations out of the country and outsourcing jobs.

Individual rich people have even less reason to stay in a country where they must pay high tax rates. They simply move their money and then themselves away.

Eventually there is not enough of a tax base left able to pay taxes, the country finds itself with nobody willing to buy treasury notes to finance more debt, and the countries' economy collapses and the government soon follows. The US is currently in the run-up stage for the economic collapse portion as politicians continue to spend more money to buy votes to get re-elected, more and more rich people and US corporations flee to remain competitive and protect what they've worked hard for, and the available tax base shrinks.

Politicians, rather than attempting to correct the problems, borrow huge sums against future generations' livelihood in an attempt to prop up the house of cards long enough for them to extract their share of wealth, after which they simply don't care. Meanwhile they keep the population distracted with political sideshows, meaningless wedge issues, drugs, and bread & circuses. When it all comes crashing down, they'll be residing in mansions in a warmer clime, sipping drinks and enjoying the wealth they stole.

Unless people wake up, stop listening to the politicians' empty promises, storm the capitols with force of numbers, and take back their country. Being that most are too lazy, disconnected, cowardly, and distracted I have little faith this will happen.

Strat

Not a tax.

[jonaskoelker]

You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth. Look at your internet bill.

Really? Because I thought it all just went to the ISP, which used it to upgrade their infrastructure^W^W^W hand out golden parachutes.

Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed.

[kent_eh]

the tax is repealed.

Uh huh.
Just like every other "temporary" tax has been repealed.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[PeeAitchPee]

That's funny . . . California lost 144,000 people between July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008, and New York lost 126,000 during the same period. Both states' populations are shrinking, not growing. According to you, state spending should be falling, but both states are tens of billions in the hole and scrambling to come up with new taxes to make up for the revenue they're losing from the people who left and continue to leave for more tax-friendly states. You can spin it all you want, but people and companies are getting the hell out of CA and the Northeast, and the primary reasons are high taxes and high cost of living. Increasing spending (which requires higher taxes on the poor souls who choose to stay when you have a negative population growth) will only make people leave faster.

Obvious Answer

[jchawk]

And I'll probably get marked troll for this...

But spend less money. Stop trying to tax us to death.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[FireIron]

Did you even read the article you linked? They buried it, but these are total losses not net losses; both CA and NY populations continue to grow overall due to births and immigrations greatly outnumbering tax fliers.

Re:Old news is old

[cmdr_tofu]

and Connecticut too. I list untaxed internet purchases when I do my tax returns. Sales tax keeps our states running!

Re:Old news is old

[ADRA]

Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.

If this keeps up, you'll simply speed up the death of all brick and mortar stores and further kill your dwindling retail markets. It may not be SOOO bad for the consumer (besides the ability to walk into a store and purchase something), but It'll mean a hell of a lot less jobs for those retail peeps.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[FireIron]

Wow, that's racist. I didn't say "illegal" immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are legal workers with visas.

Per census bureau data:
Population Growth 2000-2008
CA 8.5%
NY 2.7%

Re:Old news is old

[qbzzt]

Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.

Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.

Besides, it's reasonable for a local retailer to support one taxing jurisdiction. It isn't reasonable for an internet retailer to support thousands of us.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[DustyShadow]

What part of "illegal immigrant" implies a certain race? I think you are the racist one for suggesting that only certain races come here illegally. They come from all countries/backgrounds/races btw.

Re:Old news is old

[andymadigan]

Mechanization of manufacturing meant a lot of lost jobs. The progress of technology will always mean some jobs are lost. Our overall efficiency increases, however.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[DustyShadow]

Census is only done every 10 years and I highly doubt it could accurately count illegal immigrants.

Re:Old news is old

[Hordeking]

and Connecticut too. I list untaxed internet purchases when I do my tax returns. Sales tax keeps our states running!

Then give me a complete refund on my income taxes.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[Trojan35]

The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less,"

Yes, the above tax is stupid, but your comment is pretty silly too. I've loved living in California, where a salary that pays cost of living automatically puts me in a Jumbo mortgage and a high federal income tax bracket. I didn't hear anyone complaining about CA and NY when the economy was booming and people were using my tax dollars to pay for Nebraska farmers to NOT farm their land. Wait, they still are. How about we stop that?

Frankly....

[NormAtHome]

I'm just G** D***** taxed more than enough already, taxed, fee'ed, surcharged and I'm fed up. The government has to learn to downsize, layoff, force paycuts to the highest paid workers, furloughs whatever it takes but I'm tired of the "government" constantly reaching into my pocket whenever they say "Oh revenue is down"!

Re:Old news is old

[commodore64_love]

>>>if NewEgg (which appears to operate out of California) really did experience "issues" then I have a solution to that. Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident
>>>

I have a better solution. As a PA ebay seller I'm supposed to file sales tax forms with New York State. I continue selling to NY residents, but to the NY Legislature I say, "Fuck off. No taxation without representation in your legislature."

I also welcome New York to come arrest me. I have my doubts Pennsylvania militia will just sit idly while New York sends an invasion force 200 miles into PA territory. Sovereign states don't like foreign invaders.

Re:Old news is old

[commodore64_love]

>>>Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts.
>>>

Based upon your answer I'm going to assume you are non-American. For the New York Legislature to force a California or other state business to file taxes with New York, is equivalent to the British parliament collecting taxes from a German business. Just as a German citizen is not subject to foreign British taxation, neither is a Californian citizen subject to foreign New York taxation.

Clear?

Re:Old news is old

[Dreadneck]

New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to?

This amounts to nothing more than a sales tax on internet commerce. Don't act so surprised. You didn't honestly think government was going to sit idly by, forever passing up yet another opportunity to milk taxpayers for all they're worth, did you?

On a different note, I found the following excerpt from TFA quite hilarious.

But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.

The National Republican Congressional Committee had no problem taking money from the porn industry at a 2005 fundraiser attended by President Bush.

Christian evangelical leaders called for an explanation. The only one they got, at least in public, was from a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who said: "We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans."

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like... politics.

Re:Old news is old

[Anonymous Coward]

Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.

Tosh. How you think goods ordered online make it to the consumer?

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[Trailer Trash]

California has almost 3 million illegals. That's almost 8% of the state's population who are not paying taxes,

You know, I hear this all the time here in TN, where we have a 9.25% sales tax and no state income tax. Maybe you can answer the question that your intellectual kinsmen here never can seem to answer.

Where is it that these illegals are buying groceries? And gasoline? Where do they live that there isn't a property tax? I'm serious when I ask this. I have to pay taxes on most stuff that I buy, but then I find out that illegals don't. Are they simply shopping at the same places as me, and producing an "illegal alien" identification card that lets them skip paying the taxes? Does the gas pump knock off the 18 cent federal tax and 21 cent state tax on gasoline if a car pulls up with an unlicensed driver? I've looked closely many times when Mexicans were getting gas and the pump shows the same $/gallon as my pump, but maybe that's to fool me and when they go to pay the cashier knocks the tax off?

Let me know, if you can. The mouthbreathing racists around here seem to turn into stroke victims when I ask them such questions.

Re:Old news is old

[NIckGorton]

For several reasons:

1. Money spent on cyber-crap takes away from irl-crap purchased in NY state. Who would pay $107 for your books at a brick and mortar bookstore when you can get them for $100 for them (with free shipping) on amazon.com?
2. Poor people don't have the wherewithal to purchase things on the internet. So taxing goods purchased irl while not taxing cyperspace transactions becomes a very regressive tax.

Re:Old news is old

[Shakrai]

Now, whether or not the entire NY State Congress should be first against the wall when the revolution comes is another matter entirely *grin*.

If you want to put the New York State Legislature up against the wall after the revolution you'd have a lot of New Yorkers volunteering to serve on the firing squad. Can we start with Sheldon Silver?

Re:Old news is old

[BoberFett]

It's worse than that. Once states get their piece, counties and cities will want to get in on it as well.

I work for a company which does direct sales all over the US, and we collect taxes on all of it to any jurisdiction. Between tracking and remitting taxes to every potential entity we spend A LOT of money just keeping up with taxes at numerous levels. And that's when we're not being audited. Add a tax audit and the work involved becomes insane.

Compliance costs would completely drive small web shops out of business. As with most things government does "for the good of the people" the unintended consequences of online taxes would help out massive corporations everywhere who could easily eat the costs involved while punishing the small business.

Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa

[Rycross]

I don't know who you're debating with, but most of the people I talk with who are against "illegal immigrants" actually want loosened immigration restrictions so that a lot of these people who are here illegally can enter legally. I've heard calls for migrant visas and working holiday visas. Some of the most conservative guys I know also want a program to give green cards to foreign students studying science and engineering in the states.

I'm sorry that you live around a bunch of racist fucks, but a lot of people, including myself, want more immigration and less illegal immigration. Hell, at the very least, I'd like to avoid having to wait 200+ days just to bring my fiance in to get married.