Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Lawmakers Push For a Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes

Posted by timothy on from the special-exceptions dept.

jfruh (300774) writes Since 1998, U.S. law has forbidden states from taxing Internet access — but the law has an expiration date that's been extended five times now. The new Congress is attempting to make the ban permanent, but some members are objecting to the fact that the proposed bill leaves in place grandfather clauses for states like Texas and Ohio that already had taxes in place in 1998.

65 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Meaningless drivel by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1, Troll

    Later law automagically overrides, so a law cannot make anything permanent.

    All it'll take is a new law allowing/mandating internet access taxes to make this "permanent" ban vanish.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Meaningless drivel by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Later law automagically overrides, so a law cannot make anything permanent.

      It is obvious that by "permanent" they mean a law without an automatic expiration date. It is much easier to let a law expire than to pass a new law, especially with the 60 vote threshold in the Senate. There is a huge bias toward inertia.

      Although I agree in principle that Internet access is a dumb thing to tax, I disagree even more with the Feds telling the states what to do. If people want to elect legislators that tax their Internet access, that should be their right.

    2. Re:Meaningless drivel by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Later law automagically overrides, so a law cannot make anything permanent.

      All it'll take is a new law allowing/mandating internet access taxes to make this "permanent" ban vanish.

      So they have a temporary law, and they want to make it into a permanent law, and you're saying that's meaningless because they could make another law overriding it? Other events that could render this law meaningless: Civil war, Alien invasion, Meteor strike, Solar flare that destroys all electronics overnight.

      eegads, this entire endeavor is meaningless.

    3. Re:Meaningless drivel by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is that the current law has a "sunset provision" that says it's void after a certain date. This is the 6th time renewing this ban has come up for debate because of this. A "permanent law" is a misnomer, because as you state even the Constitution can be edited.

    4. Re: Meaningless drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with that is the internet is a major avenue of interstate, and even international trade, making it well within the federal bailiwick. Thus the federal government is within its authority to regulate commerce by forbidding or allowing taxation.

    5. Re:Meaningless drivel by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The distinction here is the same as between discretionary and mandatory spending. The former needs to be reauthorized (every year since the budget is renewed every year). The latter continues until/unless the law is changed.

      The tax prohibition is currently the former type - renewed every few years or it would disappear. Those opposed to the ban have to do nothing but use procedural tricks to block the renewal bill from ever getting to the floor to get the ban revoked. This proposal would make it the latter type - the ban continues until/unless the law is changed. More importantly, those opposed to the ban would have to specifically go on the record as drafting, submitting, and voting for legislation revoking the ban. And face the wrath of internet-using citizens come re-election.

      It's hardly meaningless drivel.

    6. Re:Meaningless drivel by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily drivel. A "permanent" ban means that it will not have to be renewed periodically. It's permanent unless overridden.

    7. Re:Meaningless drivel by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Later law automagically overrides, so a law cannot make anything permanent.

      All it'll take is a new law allowing/mandating internet access taxes to make this "permanent" ban vanish.

      Thank you. It must totally rile you up that permanent magic marker can be removed with rubbing alcohol or the heat-death of the universe.

      permanent

      /prmnnt/
      adjective
      1. lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.

      indefinite
      /indef()nt/
      adjective
      lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    8. Re:Meaningless drivel by bosef1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I second that it doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to have the Federal government telling State governments how to tax Internet access. I also agree that it would be a dumb idea for the states to tax the Internet as a money-making device (there's not that much money in it unless you do some ridiculous tax like by the megabyte; it would be easier just to raise the income tax by 0.25% or something like that). I could see some states wanting to set up state-levied universal access fees, but then it would at the state level and better aligned with the individual needs of the states (yay laboratories of Democracy).

      I also agree the AC that it is probably within the Fed's power to tell the States they can or cannot tax the Internet under the Commerce clause. But the Commerce clause is so abused it lets anyone do just about anything; and that's a whole other argument.

    9. Re:Meaningless drivel by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Normally I'm in favor of states rights, but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of the commerce clause taking precedent. The internet is all about interstate commerce. I mean how often do most people access resources located within their own state? Rarely ever, and practically none of them ONLY use resources in their own state while on the internet. But yeah, other than that, the commerce clause is WAY overused (such as the national 21 year old drinking law.)

    10. Re:Meaningless drivel by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      I'm in N Central Florida and I've regularly seen traceroutes leaving local residential/commericial access, go up to Atlanta, and back down to a local college.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:Meaningless drivel by McGruber · · Score: 2

      I'm in N Central Florida and I've regularly seen traceroutes leaving local residential/commericial access, go up to a NSA-enabled router in Atlanta, and back down to a local college.

      Fixed that for you.

    12. Re: Meaningless drivel by quenda · · Score: 2

      The problem with that is the internet is a major avenue of interstate, and even international trade,

      That doesn't make any sense. The states are not taxing passing traffic - they're not building toll-gates on the interstate.
      The tax they want to ban is an access tax - more like a local car registration tax to pay for local road building.

      Dumb idea, but none of the fed's business.

    13. Re: Meaningless drivel by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait a minute! You mean this is just about exempting ISP fees from normal sales tax ? Why?
      I thought it must have been some kind of special levy. Most of the developed world has moved away from sales tax to a broad-based "good and services" tax (GST or VAT), as goods have become a much smaller part of our spending than in the past.

          Any exemption (almost) is a dumb idea from an economics view, as it distorts the market and increases the cost of compliance and collection.
      Even exempting food is a bad idea. (Better to increase benefits etc to compensate the poor.)

      The US tax system is a shambles with so many of these special-interest exemptions that wealthy individuals and corporations can end up contributing very little tax.

    14. Re: Meaningless drivel by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's a tax on a system that profoundly affects interstate commerce, and a great deal of "Internet traffic" and "Internat commerce" are interstate.

    15. Re:Meaningless drivel by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      The only permanent things in the world are death, taxes, and internet pedantry.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    16. Re: Meaningless drivel by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Even exempting food is a bad idea. (Better to increase benefits etc to compensate the poor.)

      Taking money and then handing it back to them costs more money than just not taking it at all. Money handeling involves losses, both honest and dishonest.

    17. Re:Meaningless drivel by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I also agree that it would be a dumb idea for the states to tax the Internet as a money-making device (there's not that much money in it unless you do some ridiculous tax like by the megabyte; it would be easier just to raise the income tax by 0.25% or something like that).

      Texas, one of the states that taxes Internet access, does not have a state income tax. All state revinue comes from sales tax. (However it includes services as well) We also like it that way, and any politicinas that mention state income tax are shown the door very quickly.

    18. Re:Meaningless drivel by stalky14 · · Score: 1

      I thought the 21 year old drinking law was leveraged on states by the threat of withholding federal highway funds from any state that didn't raise their drinking age. IIRC, they did the same thing with the 55mph speed limit back in the 70's.

    19. Re: Meaningless drivel by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The funniest thing about your comment is that you don't see the left-wingers doing the exact same thing for a different set of rich people (Hollywood and Wall Street).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re: Meaningless drivel by quenda · · Score: 1

      Taking money [VAT] and then handing it back to them costs more money than just not taking it at all.

      Not if it simplifies the tax system and uses existing mechanisms to compensate the poor. (Everyone else is compensated by lower income tax.)

      both honest and dishonest.

      The argument is that partially shifting from income to consumption tax reduces incentive and opportunity for tax-dodging. Too many papers to cite :)

    21. Re:Meaningless drivel by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The states could theoretically sue to gain that funding anyways, but because federal highways are theoretically about interstate commerce (because they facilitate interstate travel for commercial trucks,) the federal government can just use the commerce clause as its basis anyways.

  2. Two Sides (of the mouth) by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I SUPPORT THIS! (as long as you OK my personal exception) Why is it that we all agree that politicians suck, but we keep getting more suckage? If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you keep getting evil.

    1. Re:Two Sides (of the mouth) by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      Well, but if you don't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard might get elected.

    2. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ethical people cannot win elections. Psychopaths and lucky idiots do OK. Good people (not evil) do not seek power over others.

      Perhaps it's you who does not understand how politics works.

    3. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

      The sad part is a tolerable federal government depends on the majority of the people being made of sterner stuff than we have become. The framers knew current events would eventually occur, just not how well the Constitution would stay the hand of those in power The worm turns.

    4. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "The only solution I see is if someone made a political website to educate the people..."

      Here comes another solution: let's have a government duty, like that for jury, and at the very least you won't promote psycopaths into power.

    5. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      been saying this for years. random people can't possibly do a worse job. or at least we could use a new branch of government made of actual normal citizens to balance out the power a bit.

    6. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Ethical people cannot win elections. Psychopaths and lucky idiots do OK. Good people (not evil) do not seek power over others.

      Some people seek office in order to reign in those who've been doing the over-reaching. Not everybody wants to be the Nanny in the Nanny State, but some people sure do. That wouldn't matter, of course, if so many people didn't want a Nanny in the first place.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by dryeo · · Score: 1

      That would be great, free hookers and blow and a good job doing nothing to replace the job/business that is now gone after having too spend too much time in Washington, and all I'd have to do is vote a certain way.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Two Sides (of the mouth) by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Well, but if you don't vote for a lizard, then the wrong lizard might get elected.

      My point is that the wrong lizard keeps getting elected anyway.

    9. Re: Two Sides (of the mouth) by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The public needs better education and thinking skills before they can collectively govern the country."

      But they don't need such better education and thinking skills before they can collectively choose their representatives?

      Remember that nobody insures democracy to be the best government but the most deserved and at least we get rid of the (corrupt) middleman.

  3. What if it's not the Internet. by dicobalt · · Score: 1

    Start calling it the Information Superhighway.

    1. Re:What if it's not the Internet. by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      They'll then tax the information superhighway even more.

      Early network services like Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL, had to deal with changing taxes that led to price changes almost monthly. Internet services were given tax breaks (they would have been taxed under normal law, but this law stood up against that) because the government wanted them to grow. Now that the growth is almost complete, it could be time to go back to normal law.

  4. No special cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although I personally don't want to pay internet access tax and believe that such taxes make it tougher less advantaged folks, by making it permanent we legitimize loopholes for all kind of special interests. Instead, we've got to get rid of the loopholes. We need to be driving towards a simpler system, with a basic income or similar to deal with inequality / poverty. Anything more is up to you.

    1. Re: No special cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Economists have worked out that the cost of regulations in the US drives the median income down from $113K to $42K, in equivalent purchasing power (ever wonder where the productivity goes?) With all that wealth and the tendency towards charity, you don't need a centrally-planned minimum income (sorry, monetarists) you need way less central planning. It ain't free by a long shot.

    2. Re: No special cases by endoboy · · Score: 2

      >>Economists have worked out that the cost of regulations in the US drives the median income down from $113K to $42K

      wow..... "citation needed", as they say in wiki-land

    3. Re: No special cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First: Citation absolutely required.

      Second: How much would the deaths of 1000s of people from E-Coli bacteria drive down the median income for those families? Can I start my own nuclear plant in your unregulated economy?

      Why is it that these 'regulations cost' people never present the costs of the alternative? Ie, what is the cost of completely unregulated markets?

      What is the median income in Somalia? They have a pretty unregulated economy.

    4. Re: No special cases by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Wait a second... There are still "respected, peer-reviewed journals?"

    5. Re:No special cases by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Instead, we've got to get rid of the loopholes.

      One of those loopholes is for states with no income tax, but a VAT on all spending. (This is known to subsidise inventment and saving) From that point of view, the desire is to eliminate the loophole allowing that spending to be untaxed.

  5. Re:Can you be more specific? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

    Horrible troll is horrible. First sentence of TFA says "bipartisan group".

  6. Conumdrum by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2
    Ohio and especially Texas, will complain that the federal guvmnt is interfering in their rights.

    To tax people.

    Texas taxing internet access? Wat is that?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. the other states... by jonpz · · Score: 5, Informative

    it's not in tfa, so from another source: "Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wisconsin currently tax Internet access under ITFA's 1998 grandfather clause. Tennessee, Washington, and New Hampshire are permitted to collect Internet access taxes but do not currently do so." source: http://www.governing.com/news/... just in case anyone else was curious.

  8. standard sales tax, exempt. No income tax in Texas by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Texas doesn't specifically tax ISPs, it just doesn't give them a 100% exemption from the standard sales tax paid on all purchases. Texas DOES exempt the first $25/month, so low-end internet is tax free. Above $25, buying fast internet is just like buying anything else.

    Texas has no income tax, so exemptions to the sales tax are necessarily limited - food, and school supplies and clothes during back-to-school season, and not much else.

  9. Oh, the hypocrisy! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Man, the B.S. is getting deep in here.

  10. Re:standard sales tax, exempt. No income tax in Te by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Texas doesn't specifically tax ISPs, it just doesn't give them a 100% exemption from the standard sales tax paid on all purchases. Texas DOES exempt the first $25/month, so low-end internet is tax free.

    A progressive tax? this just gets worse and worse.

    Above $25, buying fast internet is just like buying anything else.

    Texas has no income tax, so exemptions to the sales tax are necessarily limited - food, and school supplies and clothes during back-to-school season, and not much else.

    Remember though, I'm just being a smartass here. Every state has to fund itself, until we drown the government in the bathtub. Texas is no exception.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  11. Conumdrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Texas has no income tax, so taxing internet access (service fees) just like any other purchase is reasonable.

    There are loads of taxes (state and federal) on phone bills, why is that? To help fund the infrastructure - oh, wait, the Telcos pay for that themselves...

  12. Re:standard sales tax, exempt. No income tax in Te by Bengie · · Score: 2

    I pay sales tax on my internet. Not a huge issue. As long as they don't start adding new specific taxes.

  13. Re:wait... by dryeo · · Score: 1

    You guys don't pay taxes on internet access in the US!? I feel even more angry at our Canadian ISPs now..

    Blame our ant-tax federal government. If you want to win votes by cutting (income) taxes, you have to raise (all other) taxes (and fees). Notice how gas is still almost $5 a gallon? That is so the feds can fund things like sports. Shit we even get taxed on the taxes thanks to our wonderful anti-tax government.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  14. Geez, that was scary by mysidia · · Score: 2
    "US Lawmakers Push For a Permanent Ban On Internet Access




    Taxes"

    Don't you think you could have used a shorter headline, so Taxes would be on the same line ? you know.. like "US Lawmakers push to make internet tax moratorium permanent"

    1. Re:Geez, that was scary by Imrik · · Score: 2

      It's not their fault you have a small browser window and/or low resolution display.

    2. Re:Geez, that was scary by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Note: Not OP.

      It's not their fault you have a small browser window and/or low resolution display.

      What's small and/or low resolution about my browser/display?

      [Screenshot]

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:Geez, that was scary by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's not their fault you have a small browser window and/or low resolution display.

      My resolution is 1440 x 900, and the browser window is maximized.

      http://screencloud.net/v/9qFv

  15. Re:Paying taxes over internet is normal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Proof you dont understand what youre talking about.

  16. For those not from here by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    "Permanent" means "until the next congress sees fit to rewrite the law, which could be tomorrow, really, but likely means at least 2 years or more likely until the next party takes control of congress".

    It's like when your mom says "you are permanently banned from X"...it really just means until some time passes and she changes her mind.

    --
    -Styopa
  17. Re:Paying taxes over internet is normal. by operagost · · Score: 1

    Assuming high taxes result in fast internet is like assuming German cars are the fastest in the world because the Autobahn has no speed limit.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  18. Re:Oh yes they could. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    What makes you think they know what they are doing? http://www.dumbocratquotes.com...

  19. Re:standard sales tax, exempt. No income tax in Te by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    Texas doesn't specifically tax ISPs, it just doesn't give them a 100% exemption from the standard sales tax paid on all purchases.

    I don't specifically murder people. I just don't give people a 100% exemption from the standard shoot them dead if they're in front of me.

    If all the people you are shooting voted for that, more power to ya. But Texas sales tax vs income tax is one thing both parties OVERWHELMINGLY support.

  20. Re:standard sales tax, exempt. No income tax in Te by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

    If your tax model is to tax SPENDING, then you have to tax all spending. Anything not taxed is subsidised. If you tax all income, that is money that can not be used for spending. (For example, on Internet) Texas does subsidise unprepared food and other basic necessities, but it does tax goods, and services. It even taxes me selling my services as a consultant. (In specific cases)

  21. Re:wait... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Where do you live? Hawaii? Gas here in MD is like $2.30, it looks like Costco even has it down to $1.99 right now.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  22. Re:What would the tax pay for? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Except oil companies are taxed quite heavily on their output, which is the reason for the tax breaks....

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  23. Re:wait... by dryeo · · Score: 1

    West coast of Canada. Last week, it was still $1.10 or so a liter with 4.54 liters to an imperial gallon. This week it dropped to $1.03 in Vancouver. I'm just outside the metro area where the tax is 15 cents a litre less (no transit tax) and gas is 98.9 cents a litre.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  24. Re:wait... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Recently while visiting the Dominican Republic, I calculated their gas prices. It came out to $16 a gallon, at least they have an excuse though, being an island and all.

    Why the hell is your gas so expensive?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  25. Re:wait... by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Some of it is taxes, right wing governments, both Provincial and Federal campaigning on low taxes who cut income taxes and then raise other taxes to make up for the shortfall but mostly because the oil companies can get away with it and our governments don't want to do anything about it including building refineries so we don't have to import our gasoline from Texas. They're business types who believe in maximum short term profits rather then sustainable profits that also employ more people.
     

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  26. Re:Oh yes they could. by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Study the history of Athens, in which random people were routinely called into government service, and a lot of chaos and harm (including unjust violence) was the result."

    You surely didn't expect me to offer a full essay on how exactly to implement it on a Slashdot comment, do you?

    So, OK, let's study the History of Athens, in fact, let's study History if only to avoid past mistakes and build from that.

    Some ideas:
    1) Have a stronger public service so the bulk of the "boring things" are just managed professionally.
    2) Don't throw away the baby with the bath water: don't refill the whole congress out of new people but allow the people to re-elect those that seemed capable.
    3) Overlap the people so the new ones can learn the basics before they start their mandate
    4) Don't make the lists fully open but stablish a modicum of criteria to be there that a big percentage of population can still meet i.e.: you can make a positive action to delete yourself from the election; some study level is requiered like a Bachelor's degree.

    "Evil people who know what they are doing are still better governors than benevolent people who don't have a clue."

    Still those benevolent but clueless citizens are nevertheless good enough to tell if somebody is guilty of a crime or not?