Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes

Posted by Soulskill on from the potholes-on-the-information-superhighway dept.

jfruh writes: In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a law that temporarily banned all taxes imposed by federal, state, and local governments on Internet access and Internet-only services, a ban that has been faithfully renewed every year since. Now the U.S. House has passed a passed a permanent version of the ban, which also applies to several states that had passed Internet taxes before 1998 and were grandfathered in under the temporary law. The Senate must pass the bill as well by November 1 or the temporary ban will lapse.

9 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. This will die in the senate by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They'll never pass up an opportunity to squeeze more money to fund pet projects back home. Hell, they're already talking about tapping the untouched potential of my 401(k).

    1. Re:This will die in the senate by Sowelu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In truth, this is also why Social Security has its problems. When it was established, it was "You likely won't live to use it, but if you do, you will be well taken care of". It was insurance against an uncommon and, in a way, kind of negative thing happening to you: Living to an age such that you could no longer support yourself. It was a luxury that not many people had, and it could absolutely be hard on your family. Of course, now almost everyone lives long enough to collect it.

      No, it wasn't meant to be a replacement for savings, and you weren't supposed to get out what you put in. A small portion of the population was supposed to collect it, because most of them didn't live long enough to.

    2. Re:This will die in the senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Social security was absolutely meant as a replacement for savings. It just didn't mandate away the ability to save money independently from paying social security. Savings is personal financial security with sole benefit, Social security is community financial security with a shared benefit.

    3. Re:This will die in the senate by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      no, it wasn't. If you live through your tax paying year to 60, it was very likely you would live just as long as you would now.

      Male - 1940 would live 13 years after turning 60
      Male - Now live 15.5 years after turning 60.

      So it a couple of years, easily adjusted for and planned for. Don't by into the pub/libertarians lies. SS is fine.
      In fact, with a minor change, we could lower the age of retirement, I know, it's counter intuitive and requires math.

      Really we nee congress to stop stealing the money from SS the we pay into.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This will die in the senate by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a Ponzi scheme. I suggest you do some research instead of letting fox think for you.

      THE problem is congress keeps taking money from it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Re:So then no public funded internet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Using taxes for internet is something completely different than taxing for using the internet. This law bans the latter. You're describing the former.

  3. the other way around by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    The bill says that your internet bill won't be used to pay for government, not that government can't pay for internet. Concrete examples - you can't tax voting. Governments can and do pay for voting machines. You don't get taxed on sending your kids to school. The government does pay for government schools. You don't pay a tax on researching solar panels, the government does pay for solar panel research.

  4. Re:November? by Dins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seperation of power results in loss of power for all!

    As it should be. We need fewer laws, not more of them.

  5. Re:a bit of legislative history by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As was previously pointed out, there is nothing in this bill to prevent PAYING FOR Internet services out of tax revenues, only that services can't be arbitrarily made more expensive by local governments, states, and the Federal government itself. There's also nothing preventing municipalities from building networks and Internet services - and they can charge for that service just like anyone else. They just can't charge a service fee AND a tax.

    So your rant is based on a false premise.

    To use your phrasing, it says we don't want governments shitting on the idea of having Internet access without paying a tax for the privilege.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia