Slashdot Mirror
US Lawmakers Push For a Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
adjective
1. lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.
indefinite
adjective
lasting for an unknown or unstated length of time.
"Oh no... he found the
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.
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.
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.