Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Considers Digital Download Tax
SonicSpike writes in with a story about the latest state contemplating raising revenues by taxing the net. "Downloading music, movies, e-books and Apps could soon cost Connecticut residents more as lawmakers consider a tax on digital downloads. The bill, proposed by the General Assembly's Finance, Review and Bonding Committee, would have consumers pay the 6.35% sales tax on any electronic transfer. Supporters say the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in the state who are already required to charge Connecticut sales tax to consumers who purchase these products in their stores. About 25 states around the country have already begun taxing digital downloads."
Probably won't garner much support.
6.whatever% of zero is still zero.
1) The article is pretty much the summary? 2) "About" 25 other states? They can't even do the research to see exactly how many states already do this? 3) Half the states ("about" anyway) already do this, yet it is news on Slashdot now? Yes, I must be new here.
http://blog.ctnews.com/takeonlife/2011/01/22/forget-nickels-the-%E2%80%98use-tax%E2%80%99-could-generate-millions/
Some exemptions are mentioned in that blog, but it misses the "single purchase under $25 is exempt" written on the form itself.
I ALWAYS pay my use tax when it is due (which is rarely due to exeptions, but I have paid it twice) and this sounds like double taxation to me, unless they also change their laws on the books.
if they thought they could tax the air we breath they'd do it....
It is simply a online sales tax, downloading doe not sound like it enters into it.
How do they actually make these online taxes work? force every single online payment gateway to tax every transaction from your state and send you the money?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
in Bitcoin and Quatloos
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"We steal from these guys over here. So we should steal from you, too."
Naturally the brick-and-mortar stores are going to favor fairness in the application of the tax laws. But why do we never see them saying, "You don't tax all these business, so stop taxing us?" Or, "Taxing these businesses is going to double your tax base, so how about cutting the tax rate in half?"
No, instead, the government wants more money and more control over a greater number of people and businesses. So they sell it to local businesses as "levelling the playing field" and these businesses eat it right up and support the ever-increasing growth of government.
Liberty in your lifetime
Here in NJ I already pay state sales tax on "digital downloads" I buy from the app store so are they going to try to tax people twice? Sounds like a bunch of fucking bullshit to me. Maybe "brick and mortar" stores need to set up a online presence and sell to people in other states then? Fuck this bullshit. I don't mind paying some taxes because that pays for "civilization" but there's a certain point where it just becomes a rip off.
Apple aleady does this in the App Store when I purchase in Texas. If I purchase an app in another state, Apple still charges me for Texas sales tax. I guess it is a shipment to my home, not to my device.
"Supporters say the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in the state who are already required to charge Connecticut sales tax to consumers who purchase these products in their stores."
An argument could easily be made that the playing field is already level. The advantage of ordering online is one of cost, with typically lower prices and less of a drain on local infrastructure (it costs the state / local government more to provide fire / police protection / emergency medical services / roads / etc. to a few dozen brick-and-mortar stores than to a single warehouse), and possibly hard to get items (ones which cannot be carried locally, for lack of space in a store; commercial space being at a premium). The advantage to brick-and-mortar stores is time, with the more popular items you are typically looking for already in stock, hence the price premium ("I need this item today").
As such, the advantages on both sides balance each other out fairly well.
This tax, of course, is then a simple cash grab. Going off a stereotype of legislatures, we will assume that the state coffers are beginning to, if not already are, empty. As such, someone took a look at things that are considered popular enough to tax (demand is unlikely to change, so it's *free* money they can skim off the top, without impacting the industry; this is also an economics-FAIL, but the people in charge love to hear things that confirm their bias), and barfed up a semi-palatable reason for this new tax.
I am John Hurt.
Drop the sales tax entirely and raise income taxes. Problem solved
You are already paying a tax on the ISP servcie and the electrical power used, along with sales taxes on the equipment that will play the downloaded media. Time again for some tea-dumping.
I realize the world doesn't work like this. But in my opinion if they're going to tax the purchase it should then fall under all the rules of buying from a Brick and Mortar store too, such as the First-sale doctrine. After all, if I buy a book from a brick and mortar I'm legally allowed to sell that book to someone else. On the other hand, when I download from iTunes I have no way to sell that item, because I didn't purchase it, I "licensed" it. Which the businesses love to remind us. If I'm then being taxed as if I'd purchased it, then the states should require the companies by law to treat it like any physical purchase and allow me to transfer the ownership of it.
every time there is news about 'some new internet idea', whether from companies or government it just makes the pirate bay option that much more appealing.
cost vs no cost
drm vs no drm
taxes vs no taxes
ect
government and business won't work online until they make a product that can compete with pirate bay
This is NOT a matter of "leveling the playing field" -- this is a state with a budget deficit that needs to create more streams in income instead of spending less.
Normal citizens like you and I need to cut back on expenses and get rid of unnecessary things like cable TV or a lawn service, but a local, state or federal government instead just increases it's income instead of cutting back.
It would be sweet if you decided to buy that fancy new German sports car but find the monthly payments are more than make from work so you call up the payroll department and have them add a few hundred more dollars into your paycheck to cover things.
Where are these stores that sell digital goods? Do you hook up a usb drive to a station, pay and download? How does this work with iTunes cards? You pay tax to buy one and then pay tax again? Double dipping aren't we?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If the web site is operated in CT, then of course they should pay sales tax on digital downloads. If not, then CT doesn't deserve a penny.
In CT, we have the highest state tax on gasoline and among the highest in tax per capita. We probably have the most underfunded state pension fund in the country. The state enacted a tax credit last year that it can't afford, and is being blamed, in part, for the budget deficit we now have. CT has had a spending problem for years, and the answer isn't raising taxes.
Net income is easy to fudge and modify. Gross receipts is whatever you receive. Without deductions, it becomes a "flat fee" for any transaction, paid by the recipient.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
not to buy a digital song or movie online. Do these asshats want everyone using piratebay?
Maybe they should look at removing taxes on Brick and Mortar stores completely, and get together with the entertainment industry and find a new way to finance their overspending and greed. Oops, if I hadn't put "greed" in there, it might have actually sounded plausible.
Greedy government's out to tax everything. Digital downloads aren't costing them anything, are no burden, but they see it as one more way they can steal from people.
I'd think a better solution would be to simply eliminate sales tax all together, in all its forms. Make up the revenue with income or property taxes.
Aside from the obvious benefit of eliminating this issue of taxing interstate (and internet) commerce and non-physical things, there are some subtle advantages. For example: part of the reason that certain services (telecommunications) are able to get away with tacking on un-advertised fees is because Americans are accustomed to paying more than the price tag indicates. Someone who knows exactly how much a thing costs is a better informed consumer, can make better decisions, and this will ultimately lead to a better functioning marketplace.
How is this even constitutional? Unless the vendor has a state presence, this is a matter of interstate commerce, which is the sole domain of the Federal government. Why the fuck does government have to tax every fucking thing that exists? We really need to clean house at all levels of govenment because spending is out of control, and the we're demanded to pay in taxes is absurd.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Tax everything! I'm surprised they haven't figured out a way to tax the air we breathe, to help combat "global warming".
Rather than TAXING the good guys (who preclude the need for trips to a Bricks & Morter shop), governments should -really- be REWARDING their carbon-saving efforts... at least where the products are shipped electronically, as downloads are.
Triple Bottom Line accounting is LONG overdue, and it's crazy to support Bricks & Morter business that are -less- efficient in terms of their -customers'- carbon footprint, ie, when shopping for & buying products.
On the other hand, I'd be -happy- to endorse such a tax, but ONLY after we're all driving 100% Electric Vehicles (EVs), which so significantly reduce our carbon footprints, that shopping trips would be easier on the environment.
If you tax my ISP, I will drop my ISP like a cheap whore.
Stop fucking the people.
Arrest the fucking banksters already.
Restore the US Constitution.
The roots of where this zionist crap comes from.
Just stop participating in transactions, period. Use your imagination. Crystalize who you are, and get out of their control grid bullshit.
What a patently moronic policy - carte blanche. It doesn't assist anyone, it only draws a tax on internet use, such that will ultimately have a desultory effect on the market.
Until of course it dawns on you that poor people breathe and use the internet too. Then it's a war crime.
It seems like CT just wants more money. CT used to have no sales tax, and the stores did very well. Why not go back to that policy?
It would really suck if I actually paid for any of those things.
States are constitutionality prohibited from taxing interstate commerce. Use taxes are thinly veiled interstate sales taxes -- calling them use taxes rather than sales taxes doesn't change this fact. All of this applies to trying to tax online download from servers in other states.
so what about folks that have no income? or in-state income? Are you sure you still don't want to tax in-state spending in some way? some folks believe instead in a "wealth tax", which gets around the no-income problem...
not according to the Constitution... You order something from Amazon, your state wants you to pay a "use" tax. Your friend sends you the same thing from another state. Do you owe a "use" tax? or is the "use" tax just for out-of-state SALES, i.e. it really *is* a sales tax, which is unconstitutional...
If you take something from someone without their permission, it's theft. This is a rather simple concept. Calling yourself "the State" doesn't change the simple meanings of simple words.
With all due respect, it is you who are attempting to change the meaning of the word 'theft'.
The word 'theft' in English has from it's very inception ('eofðe' and 'ðiefðe' being first recorded in the Laws of Ine and in the Laws of Wihtraed at the end of the C7th) been bound to its legal usage. Throughout the intervening 1,300 years, taxation has never been understood as falling within the legal definition of 'theft.'
Were you to be honest with yourself, you would admit that your use of the word 'theft' in relation to taxation is a deliberately unusual and provocative move aimed at educating your interlocutor to re-examine their familiar assumptions. The very fact that, outside the circle of true believers, you are so often called, as here, to defend this perverse useage shows that it runs counter, not only to accepted legal, but also popular use.
Behind your application of this "simple" meaning lies what can only be called a propagandistic attempt to contaminate what is, almost by definition, a non-criminal activity of state with the connotations of the crime. The most generous interpretation of this misuse of 'theft' is as shorthand for a question along the lines of "if one individual takes property from another non-consensually we call it a crime, why is it alright for the state, which is really only a collection of individuals, to do the same and indeed to predicate its very existence on the practice?" I put it to you that it is much more respectful to the individual honestly to put this kind of question, than to attempt psychological manipulation through emotive misuse of language.
I mean, are you a friend of liberty, or are you not?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
There are values that are more important than carbon footprint reduction, otherwise we would all be living in a big dormitory with lots of roommates. So sure, small B&M business may be less "efficient" in some ways, but economic or carbon-reduction efficiency is not necessarily of the highest priority. Small B&M's their own set of valuable contributions to our society. I'm not that keen on Amazon taking over everything online anymore than I like to see Walmart taking over local retail.
I thought the one thing that made the internet such a great place to sell things was that the "playing field" was always level.Can't these people open their own online sites and join in the fun? What the heck is so special about them that they get to have the government pass a law to collect money from the citizens just because they're lazy?
Theories are well and good, but they have to be supported by observations to be useful. What does empirical data say?
Economists will fight over the interpretation of the empirical data all day long, and they have been arguing bitterly about it for a *very* long time now.
The fundamental issue is the underlying complexity of economies, coupled with the inability to perform any controlled experiments on an economy. As a bonus, no economic theory adequately describes even a simplistic version of the historical data. Furthermore, the predictive value of these theories is negligible—ask yourself how the downturn of 2008 caught nearly every economist by surprise. Even Greenspan and Bernanke were caught off guard; one would hope they would be paying attention to the state of the economy, right?
Effectively, all that's left is for economists to:
1) Argue about whose model is least grotesquely inadequate to describe the historical data.
2) Offer conjecture about what's actually inside the black box that is the economy. (given the situation, this is about as practically useful as philosophical musings on ontology)
3) Contrive excuses about why they didn't actually perceive (and their model didn't predict) the latest bubble in the economy that just burst and caused a major recession. Once the public opprobrium from their latest failure has blown over they can get back to 1), which is their "real job". Usually, they do this by squinting at the burst bubble and then shoehorning the empirical data into their preconceived notions. At this point, they claim that their model actually *did* predict the bubble burst. In hindsight. Every time, of course.
Here are two very amusing EconStories videos to illustrate the point:
"Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two
It sure seems to me like we need a better system overall not just for taxes. Our technology is fighting against our economic system and eventually it will destroy it due to that conflict. I think we could fix the problem without eliminating the current economic system or limiting technology but it would take pretty major societal changes.
What I would like to see is for us to build arcologies. They would be cheaper then a traditional city, require no carbon fuels to get around, have much healthier air, and represent a much better concentration of resources. You would need less police, fire, medical if you could get anywhere in a city of millions in a few minutes and you also need less funding for them. You don't need a road system of any kind since a public transport system would work in an arcology.
Right now a major problem I see is people want to live away from others but they want all the advantages of modern civilization but also don't want to actually pay to have all the infrastructure provided in their small towns. Cities already subsidize all the areas around them. Arcologies just seem like a much better model to move forward with.
If this conflict keeps up eventually it will destroy the economic system which will cause a lot of problems. No system lasts forever and there is no reason to believe capitalism is in any way exempt from that but it would be nice to have a graceful transition to something else instead of a collapse and rebuild cycle. Humans should be smart enough by now to see the need for change and adapt ahead of time, not after the system has burned to the ground. It won't be long before tens of millions are put out of work by self driving vehicles, fully automated factories, medicine that no longer requires doctors, self repairing roads and many other advances.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
This is a sales tax. Not a download tax. It will be on the money paid for the service, if no money is paid for a download, there is no tax.
A Sales tax on a financial transaction is not unreasonable, since people would pay such a tax anyway with buying things locally, the way sales taxes have been have been severely imbalanced against local retailers.
Get cancer, Dannel.
This may be turned into a weapon against piracy.
I see constant ads on TV warning about "illegal" cigarettes (i.e. for which the proper taxes/fees/levies haven't been paid). This has directly to do with revenue streams not hitting governmental coffers.
What do you think is going to happen next? RIAA/MPAA types will sit with state legislators, hand them nice big reports, where it says that in the state x million "illegal" downloads = n million in lost tax revenue. And then it's getting close to home.
They cost us more in terms of:
Roads and traffic, water and utilities
Security (police presence)
Urban sprawl issues
Pollution
No one should be trying to "level the field" if they do not undertand the field. And they should not be trying to make money off of something they had no hand in producing or enabling.
If they start enforcing this I'll either find a work-around or simply not download things I don't NEED for school/work. I think this is another case where these 95 year old officials are trying to do it their way, when they barely understand the concept of "downloading". Good luck with that.
If people are "spending" in your state then that is a good thing isn't it? It's when people are using services and aren't paying for it that's a problem.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond