Slashdot Mirror
UN To Debate Taxing Internet Data
Wowsers writes "In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing, the United Nations will consider a European proposal to tax the internet based on data that gets sent. The proposal is designed to get money from large bandwidth users like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix. Smaller companies that have high bandwidth requirements could be forced off the internet due to the taxes. 'The sender-pays framework would likely prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco's vice president for global technology policy.'"
Could politicians be more daft?
One would hope that all US political parties can come together against this idea....
Ever feel like you are driving the getaway car?
What??? The UN wants to impose yet another tax on red-blooded, patriotic 'muricans? Just like all the others they...
Oh. Never mind.
Taxes on services will just shut out the small guys. The internet isn't just for commerce (or just porn), it's for a ton of other things. The principle of Net Neutrality ensures equal bandwidth for all. This tax would just require profitability, when many sites barely run even.
WTF?
"In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing"
That is the most insightful summary...ever
no comment
Believe it or not, they can.
[cnet]
The reason Google, Netflix, and the like don't already pay enormous amounts of taxes is because old tax laws have been riddled with loopholes. Legislators try to fix this by adding new taxes, because it's easier to make new laws than revise old ones.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I pay for my connection. Facebook, et al pay for their connection. Shouldn't be anything besides this.
The UN don't get their money from (directly) taxing companies or people. The member states pay.
All of these are needed more than ever and certianly not the other way around.
http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-InnovationUnderAusterityf2c2012Keynote
Fund your failed economy some other way.
Austerity and bailouts only prolong the suffering.
LOL! If only they could put aside all their differences!
the majority of the real economy is small and medium business.
taxes, regulations, and bureaucratic nonsense destroy small and medium business, while giving government and large corporations total advantage, in fact they are working together. in this way, the big dogs get to buy up, or remove all the small fish.
and what do democrats and republicans do? they keep doing the same thing.
regulate and tax the real economy to death.
while ensuring their own survival and their corporate owners.
and if you think voting Democrat is going to address this, you're a fucking moron.
if you think MORE regulation, and more taxes, is going to fix this, you're a fucking moron.
Would a knock-on effect be to cause great harm to web proxies used by people to circumvent state and corporate censorship, as well a download pirated stuff?
. . . and anchor it in Boston Harbor. Your Internet taxes can be loaded the next morning, after your tea has been delivered.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Each and every one of those sites can claim that the amount of generated traffic is relative (and it actually is!) to the end user, they would have to scrap net neutrality and be able to individualize each users amount of data or the like!!?? I don't think it can be done, I just comes to show how useless this organizations really can be
I wish the Unnnn would get back to doing the things that it was good at, like defeating Charlie Chaplin and the Nazis with dinosaurs.
Because otherwise, with all these recent "ideas" they've been coming up with, they just look idiocratic. And I honestly believe we have no need for any more morons on the planet.
I often find internet data taxing
While unlikely (hopefully) to pass, this sort if thing is exactly the reason the United States has been so reluctant to give up its nominal control of the Internet's architecture, nevermind why so many technologists are tacitly OK with the US's continued dominance.
The nations of the world, given equal weight, err toward censorship, and many regimes with UN votes have deeply vested interests in clamping down on the extraordinary free-for-all of information exchange that the current Internet provides. I for one want the United Nations to have no role at this level, and both hope and expect the US to refuse ratification should it actually come to pass.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Let's assign everyone a unique ID number required for all internet activity. Let's also monitor everyone's entire browsing history, every social engineering website, every email & tweet & blog posting. Then finally, let's tax everyone for the bandwidth they consume, above and beyond ISP charges & state & local taxes. Don't worry that the people that your on-line freedoms are being destroyed by, and have contrived to destroy economies by way of carbon credit taxes, want another revenue stream based upon the bandwidth you consume.
Let's kill the internet. It's being used way too much by alternative media that speaks truth to power, and is used to organize resistance to the globalists' authoritarian agendas. And while we are busy killing the internet, let's bleed away the users' limited funds to the international banksters.
Still think that Cloud-based applications & Cloud-based data storage is such a great idea? Suckers!
Crush it like a republican tax hunter.
Does anyone have a non US-biased source about this UN proposal? I couldn't find anything on a European Google News.
The sensationalistic headline of TFA, without any actual numbers regarding this potential tax leaves me puzzled.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for net neutrality, but jumping from an article with two "work in progress" leaked documents to companies running out of business is a big leap!
I actually read the linked article and also skimmed through the leaked documents. I really can't find the things that the article is claiming are in there. From what I can make out, the leaked documents talk about taxes when billing telecommunication across borders (e.g., to prevent taxing services twice), like mobile phone roaming. How the article claims that this is about taxing large companies like Google and stuff is really beyond me. Can anybody point me to the part where it says that?
The whole article just seems inflammatory and some kind of anti-UN, anti-European reflex. I suppose mission accomplished, the knee-jerk reactions are already pouring in...
I'm just amazed they found a situation where the conservative canard "If you want less of something, tax it" is actually accurate and relevant. The internet should be subsidized, not taxed. You'll get it all back from an improved economy.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is what the US thinks of the UN: "The U what? Go fuck yourselves."
If the tax were at a very low rate (say a 1/10 penny per megabyte) it wouldn't affect most users much. Suppose though that you taxed email at 1 cent per addressee? That wouldn't affect normal users much but would cost junk emailers enough that many untargeted junk emails would be stopped. But administering a monitoring and collection system for internet usage taxes would be expensive. I don't think I wanted the government in the middle of every transaction.
you live 30 km from brussels but you have to read that shit here first, this looks like its evil beyond soapy anc acta, especially the part where , like, EVERYTHING gets throttled
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
The US is no longer the bastion of freedom it was.
This isn't the first time that a U.N. agency will consider the idea of Internet taxes. In 1999, a report from the United Nations Development Program proposed Internet e-mail taxes to help developing nations, suggesting that an appropriate amount would be the equivalent of one penny on every 100 e-mails that an individual might send. But the agency backed away from the idea a few days later.
They've tried once and failed, lets hope they fail again.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
The only possible good outcome i could see if this actually happened would be.... All my online games wouldn't be filled with LAGGY ASS FORIGENERS!
Which would be very fucking nice for a change.
Even when they have their own servers in their own geographic areas. They still come to usa servers to cheat, exploit, and lag. And they don't give up or take no for an answer.
I recall blocking 90% of the world to keep the damm russians and their cheats out of my unreal server.
So i ALMOST want the UN to win this one.
If you tax someone, it should be the consumers of data. Google sends no data unless the consumer requests it. Of course, the consumers already pay for their bandwidth. (which is why I think charging for tethering is a complete ripoff. That is double charging for the bandwidth already paid for)
Actually with Spain now saying there needs to be tighter Eurozone integration, it looks like Germany will finally take over Europe.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The end result of this is that US websites would just block EU users entirely, and US ISPs would stop allowing their users to connect to EU sites (the ISP would have to pay the taxes)
This might be prove to be a form of censorship even more effective than the great firewall of china. Companies WANT to break through the Chinese firewall, but will do absolutely anything just to avoid taxes.
All of these left leaning people cry out for more gov't regulations and taxes for corporations and are now yelling bloody murder about this. Now why are THEY so pissed off? Perhaps if these taxes come to life the corporations are just going to pass this cost to the end-users AND NOW THEY CAN PERCEIVE THE ACTUAL COST OF TAXES AND SEE IT ON THEIR BILL. PEOPLE - CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY TAXES OR THE COST OF REGULATION. THEY JUST PASS THE COST TO THE CUSTOMER, REDUCE THEIR MARGINS(if they can), CUT EXPENSES(jobs) OR THEY GO OUT OF BUSINESS.
The irony is fantastic.
All one of them?
The UN is deeply flawed.
Even deeply flawed, the world is a better place for it.
If you don't understand that, you don't understand enough of international affairs to comment intelligently on the subject matter.
Really.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is it April Fool's already?
While I understand that telcos are money-grubbing little fuckers who would sell their own family for a plug nickel, I am honestly baffled at how frequently this 'zOMG high-bandwidth sites are terrifying parasites who are getting a free ride!!!' comes up, and even seems to be treated as reasonable.
It's not hard: For Company A and Customer B to exchange data across the magic intertubes, Company A is paying(probably rather a lot, albeit at favorable per-megabyte rates) for upstream bandwidth and Customer B is paying (probably rather less; but at usurious per-megabyte rates) for downstream bandwidth. There isn't any magic free-riding going on. In fact, by offering attractive and data-heavy services, Company A is doing ISPs a favor; by making their otherwise rather unexciting product highly desirable to Customer B.
I can understand that there might be occasional spats about peering between the big backbone guys; but the claim that internet companies are somehow 'free-riding' on the poor, downtrodden ISPs is laughably absurd. They certainly don't get their upstream pipes for free, and their customers definitely pay for the connection that they use to download. I have to wonder what color the sky is in the world of ISPs who have the temerity to attack their greatest benefactors, the people who provide stuff that the public wants so much that they'll buy bandwidth to get it....
upside
An upside? You submit yourself to going along with this like cattle when there is no reason. All that it takes is for you to disagree. That is all. But you sit here, nod your head, and say, "Well, maybe it's not so bad," as you have your anus pummeled by politicians in every facet of life. YOU are the reason that stuff like this is ever passed.
Think twice...if you're even capable of that.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/education/public-money-finds-back-door-to-private-schools-637038/ describes one example of a current (and recently introduced) tax loophole.
Short summary: tax credit introduced to increase funding for scholarships to get needy students in to private schooles uses the word "enrolled" instead of "attending" ... and now wealthy families already sending their kids to a private school can "enroll" their kids in public schools so that the private school can reduce their own kids' tuition by the amount of the tax credit.
That is a tax loophole which was not intentionally created.
Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.
Life is not for the lazy.
And while we're at it, why stop with just data... sure it's tough to see it, but it can be measured so it can be taxed. Let's tax the air that we breathe too... I mean, that guy who lives next to me weighs about 350 pounds, I know he's using more air than the average person does... so he should pay.
I guess I can kill off any competing websites by sending them lots of bandwidth-heavy traffic.
By the way, all you "tax the internet vendors for fairness" people are all wrong.
For fairness, get rid of local sales taxes to help the brick and mortar guys and the rest of us. Quit looking for ways to jack up taxes.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
And yet it's still the best option. No seriously though...I'm not saying this as "I AM AN AMURICAN" but moreso as...look at the shit the rest of your countries do with it. We have certainly fallen a long way, but the freedom of speech is still the most sacred right here and that affects things in a way that is very beneficial to the internet...even if we do fuck up sometimes. The thing is...our fuck ups seem small in comparison to the things that the nations of the UN would want to do. As the GP said...they tend to err toward censorship and the one thing I can still be proud of my country for is that they have an almost mindlessly addicted devotion to free speech.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
The UN is no longer the bastion of freedom it never was anyhow.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Is that six degrees from Godwinning the thread?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Speaking of censorship, have you tried watching US television lately? That particular point does not stand well. Not only do they censor the 'bad' stuff, they will flat out butcher movies just so they can advertise even more, cutting parts they have no business touching. Nothing is sacred to them.
They should come together against the US.
Americans are "used to" the UN and don't realise that it's merely a corrupt money sink which does nothing good.
Membership is a renunciation of national sovereignty, which for the short bus crowd means "a renunciation of YOUR vote in favor of that of foreign governments".
Give it some thought to see if YOU are made FREER by this arrangement.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
IP and in Intellectual Property.
If the REcord companies claim that song is worth trillions in a law suit, ASK them where the Back taxes are on those Trillions. Software,Music,Movies,Books. Tax the stated "value" of them.
This fixes two things. 1 - Added revenue for the EU. 2 - stops ridiculousness in claims for Copyright Infringement. The company cant dare to claim $6500.00 per share of a song if they will be taxed at the new rate for it. Suddenly it fixes a legal and a financial problem overnight. They can stop paying Taxes on a piece of I.P. as soon as they release it as public domain. So old abandonware games, Old music music and old movies, will get released and not horded for no reason.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The UN is looking for a source of funding other than the US Government, because if the US Government pulled out of the UN it would go bankrupt and implode financially.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
where is it written in the 2 leaked document sourcing TFA that they're planning to ask for taxes on data ?? couldn't find it...
This is a great idea. It isn't fair that the Internet companies remain successful, employing millions of people and continuing to hire more in this bad economy. A pointless tax on a infrastructure usage is just what we need to bring them down to size.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
Americans are "used to" the UN and don't realise that it's merely a corrupt money sink which does nothing good.
So... you've never met any Americans I take it?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
This assumes an unlikely scenario in which subsidies don't come with government controls that more than undo every economic gain you hoped to make.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
This is a natural extension of age old agreements between tele- and mail organizations. Initially, one agreed that it was the sender of a letter who were to pay for the transportation of a letter. This was done by affixing a stamp. However, that stamp was both from the originating post office, but most of the work could be done by others (your local mailman did never travel overseas to delive a letter). With the mail system, the two parties would take turn writing letters, so there was no need to reimburse each other for the postal organizations, they would all get some of the revenue from the communication. When we got phones this model didn't work since one party (the one that placed the call) paid for communiaction in both directions. Therefore, phone companies agreed to reimburse each other for the cost of service delivery, locally collected fees for an international call was shared with the telco at the other end.
In the early days of Internet, before the commercial Internet, all agreed to the simpler postal model, email was the way of operation, not IP-telephone. Now that Internet is moving to take over all phone communication it is natural that the cost sharing agreement of the net moves from the postal model to the telephone model. That is from what I can see the purpose of this proposal, plus some other editorial changes, such as calling the parties 'states' rather than 'countries', also natural since the world is moving to 'states' in 'unions' rather than 'countries'.
As covered here a week ago, opposition to UN control of the Internet is one of the few areas where American politicians agree, and I expect that without them it's DOA.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Indeed. They'll come together under the common banner that the UN isn't doing enough. Some more mind trickery, in the form of the IRS's double-thinking on drug stamps (it's both taxed and illegal!).
I am John Hurt.
Indeed. The internet should be neither taxed nor subsidized.
Of course, if they do try and implement this bullsh*t, I imagine the IT network guys will be back in demand. Private networks = no taxation (unless they're dumb enough to think they'll make it inside my house to install a meter on my LAN), and you can extend private networks fairly far...
I am John Hurt.
Hmm. I thought the UN existed primarily to prevent wars. However, if it has put on conqueror boots, it may be time to review its financial arrangements.
I am John Hurt.
In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing
This is an ignorant remark. Compared with most governments and their institutes, the United Nations receive relatively little money compared with what they actually do. Read a few pages from http://www.dhf.uu.se/publications/development-dialogue/erskine-barton-childers-for-a-democratic-united-nations-and-the-rule-of-law/
But about the actual article: Of course it is a very bad idea to tax the Internet, certainly taxes on trafic since this can only affect net neutrality.
1) Who should control the design of the Internet.
The ITU was very helpful for telephone standards, but fumbled on the transition to packets. (remember OSI, ATM, X.25)
Darpa and IETF maybe didn't get it perfect, but at least is works.
The process that worked was an open process done by individuals and companies.
The WCIT ITU process is more closed and controlled by governments.
Hopefully the design will stay with the process and folks that actually made it work.
2) How should the Internet be paid for.
It does cost money to transport all this 'free' information.
The ITU standardized a somewhat bloated payment system for international telephone calls.
No doubt some of the returns from this does support the Internet.
The Internet certainly permits users to avoid this payment system with things like Skype.
Some push back from the folks accustomed to this cash flow is to be expected.
Perhaps accomodating them could be good if it doesn't break the Internet.
Unfortunately, such a payment system is likely to make major design changes to the Internet.
Having the ITU muck with the INternet design is is not encouraging. (See 1 above).
Which may say the the IETF should be (or is?) talking about Internet funding?
Perhaps this could get us back to the idea of user pays (through his ISP) for his packet traffic to and from an exchange point.
Which says that if a country wants to have tolls, it would not affect anybody outside the country.
( Assuming the exchange point was at a country's boundary.)
To make this work, traffic between exchange points would have to be cheap.
Subsidizing something means you are taxing A and giving the money to B.
Now it's easy to pick candidates for that, but in the long run governments generally do a bad job at picking targets to tax, and targets to subsidize.
Part of the problem is that once a subsidy is put in place a constituency is created making it difficult to remove. In the US for example we subsidize tobacco growers. The very idea is of course abhorrent, but the political system is just not efficient.
I don't think Germany wants it (any more). They are still dealing with rebuilding East Germany.
"isnt it time the europeans started another war with each other?" -> It appears that someone is trying to start a war, and bankrupting the whole of Europe is how they plan to do it. Economic wars being a variant of warfare, of course. The sad part being, its their own that are pissing away their money, but it's not them who will pay the price if / when a real war breaks out.
I am John Hurt.
Yes, after all the US political parties have such a strong record of standing against the big telecom companies, don't they?
Don't think Germany really wants that. It will probably happen, but again, probably wasn't on their todo list.
I mean, who wants half a continent with an enraged populace and millions of mouths to feed?
I am John Hurt.
Governments and agencies for a very long time now have been sitting around saying "Look, we want money for doing absolutely nothing and we want it now" taxes are just legalized forms of blackmail and extortion. They do legally what they criminalize others for doing.
The UN is a outdated, bloated, financial sinkhole and political waste. The UN has no purpose at all in our world right now and they dont do jack shit. There was a time maybe yes the UN had a place in the world but it doesnt anymore. Its a antiquated concept that has failed to change with the times for the good of everyone. This is yet another proven sign the UN needs to go because honestly here, why does the UN need internet tax money from google for? How could they honestly reason that they think google should owe them money? What does facebook have to do with the UN?
They are just another government begger demanding money for nothing and trying to nickel and dime people to death that are better off than they are.
Fuck the UN.
Kofi Annan can Kiss My Bits!
Pity that a physical way of displaying our displeasure with the idea of internet taxation doesn't immediately come to mind.
If we throw electrons overboard, I don't think they'd care. It just doesn't have the same oomph.
I am John Hurt.
"In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing, the United Nations will"
Could you possibly be more biased.
The United Nations is not a government and does not have the ability to levy taxes even if they wanted to. The debate about taxes happened in a U.N. forum, but the U.N. itself would have no role in collecting taxes. It would be the U.S. and European countries that would collect and keep the money.
every stain tells a story
on business that send ads through the internet?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Speaking of censorship, have you tried watching US television lately? That particular point does not stand well. Not only do they censor the 'bad' stuff, they will flat out butcher movies just so they can advertise even more, cutting parts they have no business touching. Nothing is sacred to them.
What you're talking about isn't even the same concept of "censorship". There's a ridiculously massive difference between bleeping out/removing offensive content when broadcasting a movie on TV, and the act of restricting the right of the public to speak out or eliminating something you don't like. The movie is still out there and available to you uncensored, a protester put in jail or a website shut down isn't. The movie is "censored" for the purpose of making that particular presentation of it meet decency standards or so that it fits into a schedule, criticism or competition is "censored" for the purpose of eliminating it. Offensive/vulgar/etc. material isn't protected by free speech in the first place. Plus, there are plenty of channels and timeslots in which those decency standards are wildly different. These usages of "censorship" are nowhere near the same thing - in spirit, function, importance or relevance.
I'm just amazed they found a situation where the conservative canard "If you want less of something, tax it" is actually accurate and relevant.
I assume you meant liberal?
The liberals hate Phillip Morris and want less cigarettes, so they tax them.
The liberals want less gas usage, so they tax it.
The liberals want less sugary sodas, so they tax them.
You could live in a different country than me, where liberal and conservative mean very different stuff, but here in the U.S. it's always the liberals wanting to levy taxes and the push the money where their interests are, and the conservatives are the ones trying to reduce taxes.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
If an article begins: "In an effort to get ever more taxes for doing absolutely nothing..." don't bother reading any further. It's just a screed.
Just remember there are 192 countries represented in the UN. "Free" countries (G20, G30) would never win these open votes because they are not close to a majority of governments.
What's your point?
Were you going somewhere with this.......?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Like Google, etc.?
Google uses no bandwidth*. Google's users use the bandwidth whenever they click on 'Search'. Get them to pay the taxes.
* Ignoring the amount Google's web crawlers use for the purpose of this argument.
Have gnu, will travel.
They will, but not for the right reason. They'll be much more concerned with the UN's perceived power-grab than about the affects of the tax.
The US government has quite a knack for giving money to B without taxing A, hence the huge deficits.
"Worrisome" doesn't even begin to cover this so far as I'm concerned. Not only is this a blatant attempt to essentially extort money out of the U.S. and other relatively rich countries, it's also an attack on net neutrality on a global scale. Crap like this needs to be immediately terminated with extreme prejudice.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
This is just stupid IMHO. The price of an internet connection is high as it is, and its not even all that fast, i pay 49$ for my basic 15D/2U connection, plus an extra 15$ to bump it to 60D/10U because i run a high traffic home hosted server. Im not about to shut down my websites and all my services just because i might have to start paying a tax because i want to run a server...
"The internet should be neither taxed nor subsidized." Just out of curiosity, how do you think the internet gets paid for? Does it just happen spontaneously?
Well, we could throw their photons in the sea by cutting the undersea cables. It would get their (and everyone else's) attention.
I'd imagine you'd get labelled a terrorist and shipped off somewhere nasty if you tried it, though.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
How about we throw electrons at the morons who came up with this idea? At, say, ten thousand volts.
"The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax..."
That would be the literal truth, a plain and open fact (just like that the predecessor to the UN, with much of the same politicians, considered implementing the holocaust as an international effort and, of course, did get a few yes votes on that, eugenics is the euphemism they used at the time). And they have -at least- one country advocating this tax, or it wouldn't even get mentioned.
Given that most of these telco's are state companies, with powerful unions who are feeling threatened (for good reason), I would be very surprised indeed if they didn't get any support for this. Of course, European countries will not really be supportive of this, but they will get a few votes. Outside of the west of course it's a different matter entirely, as usual muslims (the oic bloc) will be in favor of this, just like they're in favor of every potential internet-killer (despite the fact that internet is, of course, very popular amongst their populations, and allah ... well, is not nearly as popular), because they're trying to kill the internet entirely, as will most dictatorships for the same reason. That's a lot of potential votes. America will go against it, and fortunately, America holds all the keys.
This is where you run into problems. The very idea of "The Internet" is a combination of many networks, some privately financed, and others publicly financed. In some countries, their national network is funded by taxes, while in others, it is ALL done by private businesses. This is where those who want to tax "The Internet" will run into trouble, because there isn't a central "Internet" that can be taxed at this point.
Anyone who connects to the Internet becomes a part of it, and if you see a market, there is nothing stopping YOU from providing Internet access in that market. It may have been started as a government sponsored network, but it has evolved so far beyond that point, it can't be recognized as such anymore.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to tax a few things instead of everything? Why do governments find the need to create huge bureaucracies in multiple industries to raise money. Why not keep it simple, tax income and tax real estate. It gives you better control over who is paying your tax (progressive tax is then possible), unlike a tax attached to individual purchases, and then they wouldn't have to chase down retailers to make sure the tax is being enforced.
At the end of the day it is about the amount of revenue the government takes in, and it needs to be enough for the cost of the services they provide. If a government is short, adding a new kind of tax is not as efficient as simply raising an existing tax. Sure they can hide their real tax rate from the populous, but we all are already aware that we're being double taxed and aren't happy about it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If you pay attention, it's only Republicans who use that line as a talking point. Try searching the phrase. First hit is a Republican from Utah with a signed picture of Reagan. Second hit is the National Review.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Dick Morris has a book out called Screwed where he details a ton of these kind of proposals. For example, a new Law of the Sea conference would have the UN collecting a royalty on oil or anything else extracted from the sea that would be redistributed to every third-world and fourth-world dictatorship in the world. There's also been proposals for a world-wide 1% income tax that would go directly to the UN that would raise trillions. And of course a world-wide carbon "guilt" tax that would send money from industrialized nations to undeveloped nations. There's even island nations wanting to be paid for the seas rising, of course, blaming it on the US and Europe. All you need is for one of these loony propositions to pass, under the guise of some do-gooder cause, and we'll be paying off the rest of the world until the end of time.
Fortunately, I doubt they have much difference on this issue. And the US holds all the keys needed to make proposals like this a reality, and has massive economic motivation for preventing this to go through.
Besides, you should always keep in mind that the differences between the politicians you vote for are going to be massively magnified in your head. For a European, the difference between democrats and republicans is a difference between extreme-right-wing-corrupt-imperialists (democrats) and extreme-right-wing-ceo-as-a-sidejob-imperialists (republicans). They'll probably be in favor of democrats, believing them to be ever so slightly more left wing, but won't actually be able to name a single policy difference between them.
Just like you won't understand European political issues. Half of them center around language. You cannot imagine the fights that have taken place in Euro parliaments about which dialect of which language is to be spoken by government employees in tiny regions, often barely exceeding the size of a football field. Yet this has been the critical issue for tens of million of voters for decades. Other issues that are beyond obvious to Americans create massive divides, like the role of the king/queen of a country, issues that obviously never pop up in America.
I think it's pretty obvious that the internet is paid for mostly by profits of nationalized telcos.
You are totally wrong - this is a GOOD thing! This is just government responsibly appropriating some of those ill-gotten, evil profits from those nasty corporations and their vicious fat-cat CEOs who are parasites on the economy. Now we can finally return the money to where it belongs: in the hands of the people, not in the hands of slimy corporate CEOs.
(Or, without sarcasm: When you wish for something, sometimes you get it. Last time I checked, the government and people of European countries tend to be pretty hostile to the Republican-style "conservative" philosophy, and that's where the proposal originated. I know you're trying hard to spin this like it's some malicious overreach by conservatives, and probably Dubya's fault, somehow, but the blame for this rests squarely with your socialist heroes on the Continent. And I don't mean "socialist" as a pejorative - this is a logical, and natural, consequence of socialist economic policies: redistribute wealth by taxing one group, and giving it to another. This has NOTHING to do with conservatism.)
And of course Europe, which is where this proposal originated, is well known for it's embrace of the Republican party and all it stands for.
Oh, that's right. You're just talking out your ass, trying to find a way to blame "conservatives" for this.
No, actually. If you read my original post I'm conceding that the conservative position on at least this issue is correct. Take the olive branch for once.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This is a good place and time for the debate. Thank you U.N.!
Simply having the debate is not a problem and given the UN will not get anywhere with such a proposal if they did seriously try it. I'd prefer they do it than somebody who can actually implement it... Some kind of similar measure probably will happen in the future but it'll be the WTO or international banks who pull it off... and probably get people on their side-- "free internet? that sounds like communism!"
Such a debate may end up stifling future debates in countries because it can lay the groundwork. This could end up influencing resolutions and treaties in the future PROTECTING people from such taxes. Sometimes topics are brought up for debate by the opposition for strategic reasons (besides just political posturing; but often that is what it is.)
I wouldn't mind if the threat of taxes on one of the few products of America could get them to back off from sabotaging all the climate negotiations.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What a beautiful way to oppress more people. I already block a lot of countries from my web sites because they are the source of too much spam. If the politicians, add taxes and I'll block their countries too. This will result in lost opportunity to their citizens, depress their knowledge base and crush their economies. Brilliant.
Who would Germany purchase Nuclear power from if they took over France? Germany needs a baseline power to work with their renewable energy.
I read "UN To Tax Internet Debate", which may actually work well toward containing the flame war epidemic...
As far as I've been able to make out, there's no actual proposal for taxation. The source documents the article links to mention tax, but doesn't propose a tax, only that governments can tax if they want but shouldn't allow double taxation. Instead, the article appears to liken a proposed change from current peering arrangements to a telephone-style 'sender pays' arrangement to a tax, and then refers to it as a tax from then on.
Didn't we Americans start a revolution over the bloody Stamp Tax? What makes those dickheads think this new one is going to be a more popular, less destructive idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Act_1765
The UN has no authority or say in the matter of taxes. This is nothing more that their testing the waters to see if they can seize control over world activities, and it will not be tolerated by us, nor will the people tolerate any corporation or local government going along with it.
The tentacles of the global commercial conglomerates are at it again...the aim is to continue to define what we have the right to observe...the ethics of seeing...especially as it pertains to Others. The Internet is undoubtedly a democratizing technology and our current hope for providing a platform for a credible system of journalism. With the emergence of the blogosphere and self reporters, particularly in Arab world and Sub-Saharan Africa, the Internet and digital technologies has been critical for eroding the control of the lenses by which we see Others and interact with them. The traditional mass media is owned by large corporations and this appears to me to be the development of monopolistic arrangements making it easier to charge for content online and once again take control over what we can and should know.
since when did the U.N. gain authority over sovereign nations to tax anyone for anything? Is this one small step for the NWO? or a giant leap backwards for mankind?
> The US government has quite a knack for giving money to B without taxing A, hence the huge deficits.
No, you just don't understand the implications of running a deficit.
When you run a deficit and accumulate a debt as a government one of two things happens:
1. You pay back the debt some time in the future with tax revenues. To do this you must collect taxes.
2. You print more money to pay back the debt. This causes the value of the rest of the money to go down, which is effectively a tax on everyone holding your money.
The fundamental fact to keep in mind is that in aggregate your taxes are what government spends. What you pay as taxes is just an illusion which is manipulated for politcal purposes.
World Government, you may tax the Internet after you implement this. Which I know you will never do.
If YouTube is taxed for being evil by responding to the helpless European telco customers' requests, what should happen?
1) YouTube deducts the tax from what they pay their network partners for their bandwidth, angering those telcos
2) YouTube compensates the tax by charging for the telco customers' access, angering them
3) YouTube starts blocking the loss-inducing European visitors en masse, making it less interesting to have a private internet subscription at all, thus decimating the number of customers.
Pick any option. Or don't make such a stupid tax.
I'll keep this comment short.
I wonder when they are going to tax TCP/IP discovery packet broadcast
Dear European Countries,
Go fuck yourselves. well some of you anyways. The internet was designed to be the ultimate way to transfer information, ideas, and just to communicate. It was not made to bail your broke asses out of bankruptcy because you have outrage-sly fucked up debts you can't even start to pay off and are starting to go the way of Greece.
Your own god damned fault, not ours (internet).
Put it this way, if for some outragoues turn of events this somehow magically managed to pass. Whoever was responsible or party to this passing can basically kiss their career in politics goodbye. No one will ever vote for you again, ever.
Have fun
Yes, because free speech allows you to hunt down and eliminate the wrongthinkers?
The UN at least has a very clear and open agenda, making it easy for people to steer clear of any trouble.
When did we give those ignorant savages the power to vote on taxes at all?
The UN can decide whatever it wants, it doesn't have the power to tax squat.
You can, obviously, keep trolling your own "news" blog by publishing bullshit like this:
But you'll have one less reader, in short order.
We the people to Rent Seekers at the UN and World Wide, C-A-GW failed,
you are idiots
We have had enough
FSCK
John Bolton for SecState, Charge UN 1T pa rent
MFG, omb
Hmm. A particle accelerator...you know what, that might work.
Cancer for everyone!
I am John Hurt.
The internet is made up of Tier 1 providers linked together (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network). All it is is a bunch of networks, the vast majority private, meshed together. Tier 1 providers handle the big pipe stuff, and have agreements with each other, that allow them to send and receive data on each others' networks for free. They, in turn, sell access to the lower Tiers, and so on, and so on, until you get to the consumer. Tier 1 providers usually have names that no one has heard of before; yes, you have 'regional Tier 1s' like Verizon or AT&T, but they are small fish in comparison to others. And they are all insanely profitable while constantly dropping prices / increasing network speed / upgrading equipment, assuming the company's finances aren't being mishandled (a common hazard these days).
Which part do you not understand? The lack of taxation as a business model, or that with the exception of Arpanet & the internet's very beginnings as a DoD project, there really hasn't been anything that qualifies as subsidization?
I am John Hurt.
Tier 1 providers (aka the Internet, so far as anyone is concerned), typically are not nationalized telecos. I am reading on Wikipedia about 'regional Tier 1s', of which a number are made up of local telecoms, but they are, as I have stated elsewhere, the smaller of fish in the pond.
I am John Hurt.
Exactly. They seem painfully unaware of the obtuseness of their ideas. Or how trivial it is to create a new network that, as it grows, can become a new Internet; completely private, and completely untouchable.
But I digress, since they probably think the Internet is some kind of fad, held together by magic, and is somewhat unique, they think they can control things. Things they do not understand.
I am John Hurt.
This story just does not look like it could be true. The writer appears to not have a clue what he is talking about, or else he is running a scare campaign for some political reason. The UN has no taxation powers, and it has no mandate to ever become involved in such matters. At best it could consider proposals by member nations that recommend technical telecommunications standards that allow for such taxation in those countries that want it. Even then it would have to go through the torturous ITU processes.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.