Pennsylvania To Apply 6% 'Netflix Tax' (allflicks.net)

An anonymous reader writes: Governor Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania has signed into law a new revenue package that will require residents to pay a 6% sales tax on their streaming subscriptions. AllFlicks reports: "Though the term 'Netflix tax' has become popular, laws like this don't just affect Netflix -- they also affect competitors like Hulu and HBO Now. App purchases and ebooks are also affected. They recently decided on a hefty $31.5 billion budget, and they came up $1.3 billion short of paying for it. The government is trying to close that funding gap, and streaming subscribers are being stuck with the bill." Magazine and newspaper subscriptions, as well as digital versions of the Bible, will be exempt from the digital downloads tax, reports CBS Local News in Pittsburgh.

Comments

WAR MACHINE NEEDS MONEY

[For a Free Internet]

more money for prisons, cops, spies and bombs!

The tiny, parasitical capitalist ruling class must maintain its grip! Remember, you live in a democracy!

Worship the invisible hand!

HUMAN NATURE, it must be so, because!!!!!!!!

Re:WAR MACHINE NEEDS MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

Worship the invisible hand!

You don't know where it's been.

Re:WAR MACHINE NEEDS MONEY

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the government taking money. It's the opposite of capitalism. You think internet companies want these taxes any more than normal citizens do?

No, this is creeping socialism.

any proxy sales soar

[itzdandy]

...get your vpn proxy now

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

It is taxed if your billing address is in Pennsylvania, not if you are streaming in Pennsylvania.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax is based on the billing address of the subscriber. A VPN won't protect you from that, and you'd know that if you read the damn article. Perhaps the real problem is the overreach of big government by the jackass liberals. You'll get more of this shit if you vote for Hillary.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess torrents then.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

So buy a prepaid card in New York. That's how I paid for Netflix the first time.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'll get critics being sued for libel if you vote for Trump. It's a lose-lose situation.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[UdoKeir]

The PA legislature has a Republican majority in both houses. So... Nice try?

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

PA: "Hey Netflix, who is subscribing with a PA address?"
Netflix: "Fuck off, we're not in your taxing jurisdiction."

Re:any proxy sales soar

[OrangeTide]

Netflix needs to accept Bitcoins.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[jedidiah]

So then... the PA GOP doesn't swear loyalty to that talking head that's against any kind of tax increase what so ever. (Norquist)

As I financial conservative, I find that terribly moronic (the Norquist BS).

Re:any proxy sales soar

[rworne]

Watch that...

Not only can you get sued for pirating digital content, but now pirating can be considered a form of tax evasion too.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no, you can't.

You can download whatever, you just can't upload it. Torrenting is uploading. No one seems to get this.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

How so? If you pirate content, you clearly didn't make a purchase, so why would sales tax be involved?

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

Torrenting is not uploading. Torrenting is a combination of uploading and downloading, and the upload portion can be disabled by the client. Idiots don't seem to get this.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, and everybody overlooks it. I've never seen or heard of anyone being prosecuted for downloading a movie. Torrenters are charged because they're distributing copyrighted material.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[IcyWolfy]

Then change your billing address to out of state. It doesn't even have to be a real address.
That's the joy of electronic statements.
And the CC companies don't care.
You can change your billing address out of country if you want. Don't have to live there.
"Why?" "Making a purchase that needs to match billing address.", though most don't even ask that; just "temporary or permanent?"

Re: any proxy sales soar

[IcyWolfy]

But you can change your billing address to anything you want. Out of state, out of country. The address doesn't even need to really exist.
Just set up electronic statements, and call to change your address as often as you want.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the the PA Dept of Revenue going to 'see' that address?

How will they know if a subscriber is in PA unless Netflix rats them out? And why would Netflix alienate a customer buy ratting them out for a small bit of revenue (PA Sales tax is 6% but businesses get to keep 1% of the revenue as a collection fee).

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax is based on the billing address of the subscriber. A VPN won't protect you from that, and you'd know that if you read the damn article. Perhaps the real problem is the overreach of big government by the jackass liberals. You'll get more of this shit if you vote for Hillary.

Americans have been fed the fable that a country can work without paying taxes just using trickle down economics.
Over 3 decades of this indoctrination has given you the Tea party, most Republicans assholes and of course decaying infrastructure, collapsable bridges, roads in varying states of disrepair, water lead poisoning, public utilities sold to private equity firms that manage them a lot less efficiently than when the services were public etc...

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, which I know you will not be, (so this is for the benefit of others who might right your bullshit and take it as truth), that pledge was for Federal legislators and was in support of the concept that many/most things done by the Federal government can be done better by State and local governments. So if they got their way, Federal taxes would decrease and State/local taxes would increase (though possibly not by as much).

Re: any proxy sales soar

[RevDisk]

This was a 'compromise' between Republicans (specifically the House Republicans) and Governor Wolf (Dem). So, yay for bipartisanship.

Same tax bill also includes a substantial hike on tobacco products (except for cigars). And a 40% on all vaping products. Plus a 40% inventory tax on all vaping products in vaping stores. Payable within 90 days, or fines/prison. Which is scheduled to drive at least 300 small businesses out of business. Criminal fines and up to 30 days or 5 years in prison if you buy out of state or off the internet, and then don't pay the 40% tax.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

That is factually incorrect based on the law. You absolutely are breaking the law by downloading a movie you did not pay for. Just because they aren't prosecuting those people does not mean it's not against the law. Would you rather take out a drug dealer or a user, a pimp or a prostitute. Just because they focus the effort on one over the other does not make the action okay or legal.

That being said if you torrent, don't upload a full copy, and you will probably be good.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

That's called tax evasion, you know the same shit people like you complain huge companies do and then when hit with a tax you try doing yourself, you people fucking amaze me!

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time a Republican has tried to reduce the size of government or reduce taxes... He said liberal, not Democrat. Those republicans controlled house and senate in the state should all be ousted for doing exactly what they aren't supposed to do.

Less government
Less taxes
Personal responsibility

These are the principles of a conservative. Too bad the republicans aren't conservative anymore.

The "Republicans" we have in office now are a bunch of liberals branded red. Nothing more, kick them out.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[The-Ixian]

Huge companies do it because it is not illegal. So why should it be illegal for us?

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

I 3 PA mafia.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[nitehawk214]

Verizon and Comcast will be more than happy to provide spyware to the state to make sure people pay.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[nitehawk214]

For the most part, old people don't vape, and old people don't use Netflix. So it is a tax on younger people. Easy to get through in the increasingly geriatric Pennsylvania.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Rob Y.]

I imagine they co-locate content on the premises of cable operators in PA. And, barring that, they'll probably be absorbed someday by Comcast - headquartered in Philadelphia - if Comcast has anything to say about it.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[rworne]

It's simple.

The MPAA and RIAA consider a pirated copy a "lost sale". This is how they come up with those incredible numbers of dollars lost due to piracy.

So, downloading a film not only cost the distributors money (putting arguments over whether the downloader would have otherwise paid for it aside) - but also the government, which lost out on what would have been a taxable sale. So if you live in Pennsylvania, downloading a copy of "Batman vs. Superman" is not only is a lost sale, but you are evading paying any taxes due on the now-lost purchase. In other words: even though you downloaded it for "free", it does have a dollar value attached to it. So, to the government, you owe taxes on that download.

Consider the IRS and Al Capone and Aldrich Ames as a precedent, where criminally obtained income is still considered taxable income.

This is quite dangerous, because it gets government directly involved in copyright enforcement to protect their tax revenues. Now we are looking at criminal charges instead of civil ones, forfeiture of money and property, liens, etc.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Fnord666]

So, downloading a film not only cost the distributors money (putting arguments over whether the downloader would have otherwise paid for it aside) - but also the government, which lost out on what would have been a taxable sale. So if you live in Pennsylvania, downloading a copy of "Batman vs. Superman" is not only is a lost sale, but you are evading paying any taxes due on the now-lost purchase. In other words: even though you downloaded it for "free", it does have a dollar value attached to it. So, to the government, you owe taxes on that download.

Didn't the FBI get Dillinger the same way?

Re: any proxy sales soar

[internerdj]

Because you aren't a huge company that can fund a campaign.

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

The GOP isn't against tax increases. The GOP is against obvious tax increases and Democratic tax increases: property tax, income tax, ACA tax. They are mostly fine with sales taxes, lotteries, vice taxes, taxes that target environmentally conscious things...

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

(sarcasm) because laws don't apply to large companies (/sarcasm)

Re: any proxy sales soar

[MooseTick]

"But you can change your billing address to anything you want."

Yes, you can commit fraud Virginia.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

god forbit they cut the budget, or their own paychecks that are likely well over the average income as they are...

Re:any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a distribution center in Harrisburg, so they are in PA's taxing jurisdiction.

Re:any proxy sales soar

[david_thornley]

I don't know about Dillinger, but the Feds got Al Capone on income tax evasion charges. Turns out he wasn't reporting his illegal income, or not all of it, and they found proof. However, this was actual dollars coming in, not simply not paying for things. (My income tax forms have always had a line where I should enter illegal income. They don't ask for details.)

Similarly, sales tax is collected on, um, sales. If you find someone to give you a big discount on something, you don't owe sales tax on the list price. If you make something, you don't pay sales tax (you might be taxed on the materials). If you steal something, you don't owe sales tax on it (which doesn't absolve you of other charges that may be appropriate).

Re: any proxy sales soar

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even better, change your actual address. Get out of states that budget so poorly that they have to continually increase taxes....

Start taxing religions

[Anonymous Coward]

Start taxing religions with their mega churches, it is nothing but a business.

Re:Start taxing religions

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just mega churches. All churches are in fact businesses. They want their members... err... customers to tithe, which is income. It has become competitive and the head folks are paid well.

Re:Start taxing religions

[david_thornley]

Religious institutions tend to do a lot of charitable work, and churches very often function like tax-exempt organizations. Therefore, they're normally considered tax-exempt, although they may face audits (in my area, a preacher told his people to vote for a certain candidate by name, which is a no-no).

Unfortunately, this makes it easy to create something that should be taxed as a for-profit but is legally a church.

Re:Start taxing religions

[Anonymous Coward]

Start taxing religions with their mega churches, it is nothing but a business.

If we tax churches, mega or otherwise, then we have to start taxing *all* non-profit organizations and donation-based entities. Even as an atheist, who strongly opposes religion personally, I recognize how short-sighted this notion is.

Re:Start taxing religions

[Anonymous Coward]

NOT taxing churches is unconstitutional.

Religious Exemption

[BitZtream]

I watch Netflix religiously, surely that is cause for an exemption if the Bible gets one.

Re:Religious Exemption

[monkeyzoo]

No one should've modded you down!

This law is a flagrant F.U. to the separation of church and state...
"Digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."

If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, thye should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."

Re:Religious Exemption

[R3d M3rcury]

I was just going to say, that doesn't sound fair. What about digital versions of the Talmud or the Koran or the Bhagavad-Vita?

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

You also shouldn't have to pay tax on streaming Puella Magi Madoka Magica or The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya!

Re:Religious Exemption

[bws111]

Except there does not appear to actually be such an exemption. It appears to have been made up, probably to generate outrage and hence clicks.

Here is what the state says the new changes are. It includes 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed matter'. It does not mention bibles anywhere.

So, bibles must not be 'otherwise taxable printed matter', right? Nope. Here is the list of what is taxable. The list starts on page 14. First item on the list is 'Books', and right under the heading is this statement. "Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups."

Oh, and further down the list we find that textbooks are NON-TAXABLE.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just going to say, that doesn't sound fair. What about digital versions of the Talmud or the Koran or the Bhagavad-Vita?

It's Bhagwat Gita you insensitive clod!

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

Or anything by Dawkins. Or Jefferson.

Re:Religious Exemption

[RevDisk]

No, this is clickbait and incorrect information. It's a tax on all digital services or material. Textbooks and purchases by non-profits are exempt. A church buying digital bibles (?) would be tax free. Buying a digital bible from a college bookstore would be tax free. Buying a Bible on your Kindle isn't. Same with any other type of ebook, digital movie, etc.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't an FU, this is a continuation of proper existing laws wherein exemptions on religious related purchases already exist. This is consistency, and it is just. Stop assuming that because we're engineers and science geeks that this is somehow a polar opposite of being devout in ones religious beliefs. Only close-minded people who haven't actually looked at these issues from a non-biased point of view spout your brand of hatred. I was an atheist before my foray and love for science and engineering, after which it was Donald Knuth and Larry Wall's own revelations about God that I threw aside my own prejudices and saw the truth of it all.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

"Separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution at all. It is something taken waaaaay out of context from a private letter of Jefferson. Stop trying to use it.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just going to say, that doesn't sound fair. What about digital versions of the Talmud or the Koran or the Bhagavad-Vita?

In the United States, only the Christian fairy tale is considered religious. The others are just heathen, blasphemous stories that Christianity stole from.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for looking that up sir!

Ferret

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more about why religion gets a free ride instead of paying taxes.

Re:Religious Exemption

[liquid_schwartz]

This law is a flagrant F.U. to the separation of church and state... "Digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."

If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, thye should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."

The summary says the Bible and the law says religious organizations, which includes churches. Textbooks are also excluded. Essentially the summary was flamebait and you fell for it. Way to show your biases though :-) If you're interested in facts as opposed to your rant here are the exemptions:

There are a few exemptions to the tax. Under current state tax laws, textbooks sales are tax-exempt. That same exemption applies for digital textbooks purchased from or through accredited schools. Purchases made by charitable organizations, volunteer fire companies, religious organizations and nonprofit education institutions won't need to pay the sales tax, either. And newspaper and magazine subscriptions sales are tax-free, too.

Source: http://lancasteronline.com/new...

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and further down the list we find that textbooks are NON-TAXABLE.

Hey I hope you guys like my new textbook; when you flip through 30 pages per second it looks kinda like a Netflix Original Series. It comes bundled with the audio book version.

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

And not even religion in general, but "bibles"!!!

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like part of the problem instead of the solution.

Re:Religious Exemption

[monkeyzoo]

Well, that's actually good to hear! It would've been outrageous to explicitly exempt only bibles.
As for Slashdot's slapshod (trolling?) reporting, well, that's pretty lame. No, I don't have time to read everything, that why I rely on a feed like this.
Burn me once Slashdot! LOL

Re:Religious Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

By heretical science, I assume you are referring to issues such as "Global Warming" where the data is routinely modified to fit the agenda, versus real science where theories are disproved by evidence.

"Streaming" Tax

[muphin]

So will YouTube and Twich be affected? this just another .. oh they make money lets tax it so we can pay for our incompetence ... once somethings taxed, its never removed, they just add more taxes to cover bad decisions. AKA in business terms, Other Peoples Money (OPM)

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Jhon]

"So will YouTube and Twich be affected? "

I'm sure anyone who pays youtube to watch/rent a movie would be subject to the tax. They would also be subject to the tax if they watch free videos. Because 6% of zero is.... carry the one.... Um... zero.

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

They're funded by ad revenue. Does that mean YouTube and/or the advertising companies need to pay 6% tax on PA traffic?

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Since only end-users pay value-added-tax/sales-tax, then yes.
The companies pay Google for advertising, the company includes the cost of advertisement in the sales price of their products and if those products are sold to consumers in pennsylvania then those consumers will pay sales tax.

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

So who collects the tax? Are the residents to report this themselves on their tax returns, or will Netflix have to make exceptions for PA? If I were netflix I would just refuse service to anyone with a PA address and see how long it takes for the law to be overturned.

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Youtube Red, you remember right? Their subscription service. Same thing with Twitch Turbo, their subscription service for removing ads.

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody pays Netflix for a stream. Subscribers pay Netflix for an account. Once you have the account, the streams are free and unlimited.

If the streams are taxed, then 6% of zero is still zero.

FTF PA.

Re:"Streaming" Tax

[david_thornley]

If Netflix has a locus of business in Pennsylvania, they can be required to collect the taxes. If they don't, then they don't have to, and the residents of Pennsylvania would be required to file their use taxes (which almost nobody does), which are essentially sales taxes remitted by the purchaser.

Yay for regressive taxes!

[rsilvergun]

For those of you playing at home those are taxes that disproportionately impact the poor, working poor and (in this case) working class. They're worth double points because not only do you get to use money to fund tax cuts on the 1% but the people you tax get angry and start demanding tax cuts; which you can oblige with even _more_ tax cuts for the 1%. Uncle Rove calls this "Starve the Beast".

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a democrat governor want to tax the poor? /s

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats don't really care about the poor. They care about power, control and expanding their empire (bigger government). One way to lock on to that power is to keep people poor and keep promising them services from the bigger government. Grow your empire and keep people dependent on it to keep voting you back in power. If you actually cared about poor people, you'd be looking at making them self sufficient and not dependent on government services.

Re: Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's so regressive, then surely the Democrat Governor Tom Wolf will veto - oh wait.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do Republicans operate? They dont care about the poor either. They care about power, control and expanding their empire (big businessesm which they return to when they are done wrecking government). The same kind of welfare you decry is happening on the corporate side, with tax breaks for companies and the wealthy individuals. They dont really make government smaller, they just funnel public funds to their crony capitalists.

At least Democrats by your own admission provide services to keep poor people hooked. Better than not giving poor services and showing wealthy people with more money.

Its too easy to say "everyone should be self-sufficient" The reality is that there will always be a portion of the population that can not or will not be self-sufficient. As I dont even hear Republicans (except probably Trump) say we should kill off the useless

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Republicans don't really care about the poor. They care about power, control and expanding their empire (bigger government). One way to lock on to that power is to keep people poor and keep promising them services from the bigger government. Grow your empire and keep people dependent on it to keep voting you back in power. If you actually cared about poor people, you'd be looking at making them self sufficient and not dependent on government services."

FTFY. Unemployment and crime always, ALWAYS rise under Republicans. Every statistic shows the poor have it worse under Republican rule. Nice try dudebro, but the facts are so clearly against you.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

The same is true of liquor taxes and gas taxes. There's a time and a place for a discussion about regressive taxes, particularly in balancing out the income and mandatory social insurance bills, but the fact that there is a tax on a luxury item, and not "luxury" in the usual Republican strawman sense to include cell phones, new clothes, internet service, and other basic social norms, but an ACTUAL discretionary item that NO ONE plausibly needs to live a full life, very much dulls your outrage.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Republicans suck too doesn't excuse the Democrats.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Alomex]

They care about power, control and expanding their empire (bigger government).

This used to be the case in the times of LBJ, but in the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations the size of the federal government as % of GDP went down. In contrast it went up with Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.

Obama's budgets as % of GDP have been smaller than those of the sainted Ronald Reagan.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Dorianny]

The GOP has been trying to Help the Poor become self sufficient by.

a) They keep increasing school budges, especially to poor and undeserved areas. WRONG

b) They keep increasing the minimum wage to encourage people to feel productive and appreciated in the labor force as well as be able to afford a living. WRONG

c) Require them to work for free or loose the already paltry safety net that ensures they don't end up hungry and homeless. DING DING DING DING

Long Prison sentence for minor offenses are also a popular program for the GOP to help the poor. People get to learn all kinds of valuable skills in there. They should probably change the name from "State Penitentiary" to "Worker retraining program." The MOTO writes itself: Go in as a petty thief and graduate as a Seasoned Gangster

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[AvitarX]

PA sales tax doesn't apply to food or clothes.

I'm not convinced it hits the poor hardest.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[squiggleslash]

I'm seriously doubtful of the claim that the poor disproportionately are users of streaming services, designed to augment or replace cable TV services, that require high bandwidth Internet connections.

Netflix et al can reasonably be described as luxury items as well - nobody needs them, they're an easy thing to cut if your budget demand them. After my child was born and we had a financial crunch due to the loss of my wife's income, streaming services were the first to go. We only kept Prime because of the free, fast, shipping which saved us money over all on a few important items.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[RevDisk]

That's why the tax bill also included significant tobacco hikes. And in case people just decide to quit, they included a huge hike on vaping products. Along with shutting down a significant number of vaping stores by a one time 40% inventory tax, payable within 90 days. And licensing, which doesn't exist yet.

You are correct that Netflix, et al are not essentials. However, they're economic alternatives to a high cable bill. The poor are (hopefully) more likely to pick one or two services like Netflix or Hulu rather than pay $100+ for a full cable package. They're budget luxuries. While the poor don't NEED them, it makes life better. On the plus side, this might get folks going to libraries more. Tis what I do, my library has hundreds of TV shows on DVD and Blu-Rays. I'm not poor, just prefer spending my money on other stuff.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if you exclude federal contractors and the like from the numbers, but just because they're "outsourcing" their work doesn't make it less government work.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

From apathy to dependency...

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[silentcoder]

Funny how you conveniently forget that both houses in PA are GOP. The governor just *signs* the laws, he doesn't write them you know.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[bluefoxlucid]

People don't understand *why* taxing the poor and middle-class is bad, though.

6% of 120/year? $7.20, okay, sure, nothing. 4.8 million households? $34 million. Well, there goes (theoretical maximum) 2,345 minimum-wage jobs.

How's that work?

There are only so many dollars of income every year. The Fed prints money, the bank loans dollars into existence, you buy things, and part of your money is divvied up as wages. Raising the costs a consumer pays means a bigger chunk of his money gets taken when he buys a given thing--which is backed by all the same jobs--and so he can't spend that money on some other thing. $34 million in one year is the income of 2,345 full-time minimum-wage jobs, or fewer jobs with higher salary; it's the amount of money which can't be spent by consumers in this cycle (year), and thus the amount of jobs which can no longer be supported by that spending.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[luis_a_espinal]

For those of you playing at home those are taxes that disproportionately impact the poor, working poor and (in this case) working class. They're worth double points because not only do you get to use money to fund tax cuts on the 1% but the people you tax get angry and start demanding tax cuts; which you can oblige with even _more_ tax cuts for the 1%. Uncle Rove calls this "Starve the Beast".

I doubt the poor stream off Netflix.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[tomhath]

They tax everyone, then use the revenue to buy votes. Same as all politicians everywhere.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[operagost]

Um... well, gee, the rich are paying billions in taxes. That's quite a few more jobs, isn't it? And poor people don't run small businesses. They're the ones who HAVE these low-end jobs, by definition. So your claim makes no sense.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[TheCastro1689]

Personally I know a lot of people that are poor and they have netflix accounts. You only need a 5mb/s connection to watch netflix, that's nothing.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[operagost]

"These kinds" of taxes aren't regressive, unless you're somehow claiming that poor people need to buy lots of streaming services and tons of eBooks.

If you're talking about sales tax, that's why PA doesn't tax food or clothing. But you'd realize that if you checked your facts before posting.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[bluefoxlucid]

Rich don't make jobs, and jobs don't come from businesses. Businesses employ people as an incidental matter of operation: those factories, cash registers, and fork lifts aren't going to run themselves.

When you open a small business, you're competing for limited resource. The economy grows each year: more people, more technology. More people means more flat buying power (due to more available labor and monetary growth--more money put into the system to keep up, backed by more labor to produce). More technology means fewer people working job X to produce good A, thus the difference in money filters over to buy good B requiring job Y. You're trying to capture some of that growth.

That's not quite true, is it?

When you operate *any* business, you're trying to capture that growth *and* pull business away from other businesses. Get those new Nikes out, be more popular than iPad. People don't care if you have a new iPad now; girls are impressed by new Jordans. Nikes get you laid. You have $200 for either an iPad or new Jordans; which do you think gets bought?

If your business is successful, some other business doesn't capture that success. Your business, of course, needs labor to produce the things you're selling, right? That's jobs. What about that other business that didn't grow, or that lost half its market? You just "created" 100,000 jobs, but that other business with 200,000 people lost half its sales, and now only needs to make half as much. ... 100,000 of their employees get laid off.

Trickle-down economics dictates you get money by going out and getting a job. Trickle-down economics is bullshit; you go out and start selling something and NOBODY'S BUYING, you get POOR. You can't create jobs until somebody buys your product. That's demand-side economics.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans oppress the poor by preventing them from having good position of money. The Democrats oppress the poor by preventing them from having positive velocity of money. Slightly less debilitating, slightly better PR, still disgusting.

Re: Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is my alternative to cable.

Any taxes on cable subscriptions in PA?

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Netflix is extremely inexpensive entertainment. Unlimited streaming for a month for the cost of ~15 hours of DVDs from Redbox. No need to physically go anywhere to get it, so no transportation costs. Sure watching YouTube videos is cheaper, but it's a pretty good deal.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

... and jobs don't come from businesses. Businesses employ people as an incidental matter of operation: those factories, cash registers, and fork lifts aren't going to run themselves.

um, i think you just contradicted yourself.

Re:Yay for regressive taxes!

[Anonymous Coward]

PA sales tax doesn't apply to food or clothes.

I'm not convinced it hits the poor hardest.

You're not thinking clearly.

Everybody needs basic services such as plumbers, electricians, handymen, trash disposal, etc. Even if you're in an apartment, you need that stuff, and one way or another you'll pay for it eventually.

Don't suppose that everyone that has a house is well off, either: go look up Habitat for Humanity.

Any tax that increases the costs of things like gas, tools, vehicles, parts, materials, and so forth will make the cost of living for the poor higher. Either they have to pay for these things themselves, or whomever is providing services to them has to pay for them, and in the latter case one way or another those costs get reflected in turn onto the customer, including the poor.

A sales tax that excludes food and clothing is marginally less unfriendly to the poor, but it's still really bad news for them compared to having no sales tax at all.

Worse: logistics effects come into play, which means sales taxes have a cumulative effect, not just a one time effect. There are also increased accounting, record-keeping, and legal expenses to take into account: the standards a business must meet when it is subject to audit by the government (and potential criminal penalties) are always going to be higher than what would be acceptable otherwise.

All this means that sales taxes DO affect the price of food and clothing, even if they're not collected directly on those items.

Since they have less margin in their budget, when sales taxes are high or go up, the poor and the middle classes are the most affected. The rich are the least affected. This is one of the reasons the middle class in the USA is shrinking, and why so much wealth is being concentrated in the upper class. Sales taxes alone do not account for the full shift we're experiencing, but they are definitely one of the big factors.

This is why sales taxes are regressive, even if they give the illusion of being otherwise to fool the gullible and delusional, or the folks who don't put much thought into understanding what's really going on. In practice, there is nothing fair about any sales tax.

An entertainment tax might not seem as bad as some other sales taxes, but you might to reflect on the fact that many - videos (both non-fiction, and even fiction such as historical fiction) are either directly educational, or can inspire the quest for more education - and education is the primary way for the poor to better themselves.

This kind of tax can thus be thought of as fostering a class system, where the poor are kept in their place by making it harder for them to advance themselves. It also means that society must pay more for welfare over the long term, since people are more likely to stay poor. In the USA, almost everybody gets to help pay for welfare (which sometimes is disguised by the term 'entitlements') - thank you so much PA!

Another problem with sales tax increases is the effect called "inflation", but that's an economics lesson for another day ...

I assume collection will be self reported

[sdguero]

I assume this is like other state taxes (I'm in CA) where consumers are supposed to self-report how much money they spent on the taxable goods every April.

If that is the case, I don't see the state of PA being able to recoup much of that $1.3 billion budget shortfall.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[ArtemaOne]

I'm guessing it is a point-of-billing tax. Kind of like how Amazon taxes purchases directly at checkout in some states and not others. If it were done on your income taxes yearly, that would be easy to circumvent as you mentioned.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[Anonymous Coward]

In Cali... Does anyone really report out of state purchases? I surely don't remember where all that stuff comes from and sure as hell not going to pay more tax. I already feel *ucked every time I pay property tax, sales tax, DMV tax, smog check tax, water and sewer tax, cable tax, phone tax, SDG&E tax, etc. Not to mention the tax on your paycheck.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon charges tax automatically in states they have a presence and the state has sales tax. They have no obligation to collect taxes in states where they aren't located.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[ArtemaOne]

Yes.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[Streetlight]

As far as I know Amazon charges sales taxes on goods shipped to any state having a sales tax. Here in Colorado I don't believe Amazon has a presence yet though they charge sales tax. So do other mail order companies. Amazon has announced the building of a distribution center here so that will be moot soon.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[RevDisk]

"Use tax". My first after school job when I was a kid was helping prep tax returns for a local CPA. I also fixed their computers. Correct, virtually no one complies and reports their Use Tax. It's on any non-exempt purchase from outside the state. Per PA Department of Revenue: "The use tax rate is the same as the sales tax rate: 6 percent state tax, plus an additional 1 percent local tax for items purchased in delivered to or used in Allegheny County and 2 percent local tax for Philadelphia."

That's why certain sections of the tax bill (vaping and tobacco products) have fines of up to $5,000 or up to five years in prison for evading paying the sales tax.

Re:I assume collection will be self reported

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Nebraska, which has a sales tax, and Amazon does not charge it.

Only the Bible?

[MrKevvy]

From TFA: "Magazine and newspaper subscriptions, as well as digital versions of the Bible, will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."

What... the Torah, Quran, and Bhagavad Gita and hundreds of others need not apply? Nice lawsuit trolling there.

Re:Only the Bible?

[guises]

Do you seriously believe that that's in the bill as it's been written? You see that and think to yourself: "This confirms my worldview of stupid evil lawmakers. I believe this 100%, it couldn't possibly just be lazy reporting."

Re:Only the Bible?

[pthisis]

There is no Bible exemption. There's an exemption for purchases by religious organizations (and charities, accredited educational institutions, and volunteer firefighting organizations), which doesn't explicitly mention one religion over another or prefer a religious organization over the Red Cross, Planned Parenthood, or UNICEF.

Re:Only the Bible?

[bws111]

Not lawsuit trolling, just trolling by whatever idiot wrote that. In the Retailers Information Guide to what is taxable is this statement (page 14).

Tax is imposed on books, stationery and stationery supplies, including Bibles and religious publications sold by religious groups. (emphasis mine)

And the summary of the new taxes simply says it applies to 'e-books and otherwise taxable printed material'. Not a single mention of 'Bibles' anywhere.

Re:Only the Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on being one of the fucking morons he is talking about. "We don't need facts, we just make shit up as we see fit". There is NO BIBLE EXEMPTION. That claim is 100% false.

Re:Only the Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would Counterstrike players be involved in the legislative process as such?

Re:Only the Bible?

[Anonymous Coward]

So have you learned anything from this? Any nugget of wisdom you can apply to your future behavior?

Re:Only the Bible?

[MrKevvy]

I guess you failed to notice that as I hadn't seen the text of the original bill, I omitted mentioning whether it was the lawmakers or the reporters who were doing the trolling.

Re:Only the Bible?

[bws111]

Seriously? You expect us to believe that when you said 'nice lawsuit trolling' you were maybe referring to the reporter? You saw something that fit in nicely with your narrow world view so you believed it without doing any checking to see if it was true. When it was pointed out that the statement was in fact false you deny that you ever believed it.

Re:Only the Bible?

[SuricouRaven]

You are correct, the summary is misleading. However, there is a very good reason that so many people here believed the claim so readily: It is very typical of the sort of thing the Republican party pulls off on a regular basis. For example, sticking to Pennsylvania, in 2012 they passed house resolution 535 - which declared that year to be the 'Year of the Bible' and endorsed the book as 'The Word of God.' It passed by unanimous vote.

The claim is believed so readily because it is believable: It is consistent with earlier observations of the government, and especially of Republican legislators. Sometimes the worldview is justified, if not in all instances, then as a general rule.

Re:Only the Bible?

[bws111]

Ah, yes. 'The republicans' did that, did they? The actual vote for that resolution was 197-0, with 4 members (1 republican, 3 democrats) on leave. 89 of the people (45%) who voted FOR the amendment were Democrats. There were 0 Democrats who voted AGAINST the resolution. If this were purely 'a republican' thing, as you like to portray, why did ALL of the Democrats support it?

Re:Only the Bible?

[david_thornley]

Thing is, there's a fair number of blatantly unConstitutional laws passed for purposes of telling one's constituents that one did something, without the bother of figuring out what the law would do if the courts allowed it. A bill that treated the Bible as special would, unfortunately, fit right in. It's, unfortunately, believable.

Re:Only the Bible?

[SuricouRaven]

I picked that example because it was in Pennsylvania, not because it was just a Republican thing - but you'd have to be very out-of-touch with American political culture not to see that when it comes to overt displays of government religion, both parties support them but the Republicans more so.

It's more interesting to note that, while the constitution explicitly says that the government may not respect any establishment of religion, this did not stop every single non-absent member of the Pennsylvania legislature from supporting a government proclamation that the Bible is the word of God.

I find it rather strange that the US has a foundational and legally-binding document mandating a secular government, but in practice religion and politics are inseparable, while here in the UK we have an established state Christian church and still have bishops holding some (very limited) legislative power, but in practice religion is almost entirely absent from our political culture and any politician who tried to make a big deal of his devoutness would be laughed out of office.

Re:Only the Bible?

[bws111]

The Constitution most certainly does NOT say the government may not respect any religion, it says it cannot create a LAW respecting a religion. This is not a law, it is a resolution. They are NOT the same thing. A law requires YOU to do, or prevents YOU from doing,something. A resolution does not.

Ok

[jfdavis668]

back to pirating content.

Re:Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Or not bothering with streaming at all.

Re:Ok

[internerdj]

Now you not only will risk a lawsuit from the appropriate industry association (MPAA, RIAA, ETCAA), you are also potentially a tax evader. The part of the government that might not have been in Hollywood's pocket now has strong incentive to crack down on piracy.

Big deal...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the big deal? Many states want you to pay use taxes for online purchases, regardless of the amount. I have a Nebraska address and already pay sales tax, which is automatically charged to me. That said, isn't it the responsibility of Pennsylvania residents to pay taxes, rather than forcing a business in another state to collect sales tax? That would seem to be unconstitutional, since the federal government solely regulates interstate commerce.

Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Magazine and newspapers have some or the more ridiculous pricing options out there, some of that money should diverted to tax as well.
As for the Bible, taxing it should encourage people to not pay for something that is in the public domain already.

Re: Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many recent translations of the Bible are copyrighted. If you like old translations like the King James Version that use arcane English and are biased, go for it.

Re: Why the exemptions?

[jedidiah]

Unless you can read the original, you have no real reason to trust it. You're still going through the same sort of highly fallible human filter with their own bias to bring to the table.

The idea that a translation of a 2000 year old book can be "owned" is a little obscene. Either the translation process is formalized enough and predictable enough, or the result is made up garbage.

Although that reminds me of how some rogue fan translations are better than the official versions.

Re: Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not so fast. What actually constitutes the original?

Some of the books in the Old Testament date back over 2,500 years. There's solid archaeological evidence to support this. But the original texts almost certainly don't exist anymore. The origins aren't entirely certain, even. One hypothesis is that the Pentateuch is comprised of texts from scrolls that were compiled from older documents during the Babylonian Exile. Also, what constitutes the original? Is it the earlier texts that were compiled to create the Pentateuch, or is it the original compilation? Regardless, neither have been found, and may well not even exist any longer.

The New Testament isn't a simple matter, either. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but his words weren't recorded until mant years or decades later, in Latin and Greek. There are no texts attributed to Jesus. And most of his Apostles couldn't write, either. It's hypothesized that the words of Jesus were recorded in a document, known as Q, from which the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke borrowed from. While the Gospel of Thomas (not in the Bible) takes the form of a document like Q, the actual document hasn't been found and might not exist. The Gospel of John is a later document, many decades after Jesus. The original manuscripts also are lost, though there are many early manuscripts and translations. Prior to the printing press, these manuscripts were copied by hand, and subject to error. There are also many early Gospels that weren't included in the Bible, including the Gospels of Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Philip, and Judas. These decisions were made by the early Catholic Church.

There isn't a one to one equivalence of words from Hebrew, Latin, or Greek to modern English or any other modern language. There are also differences in the meaning of words and idioms that would have made sense at the time of authorship but don't have meaning today. There is a lot of flexibility for a translator to try to convey the meaning and make the text understandable in modern languages. Any translation of that scale is a unique work of the translator, so it's legitimate for it to be copyrighted. Some great authors have contributed their efforts to translate the Bible, including Tolkien.

The idea that the Bible is the sole source of truth is also a very Protestant idea, but one that is rejected by Catholicism. While Catholicism teaches that the Bible is true and cannot be contradicted, it is not considered the sole authority. It is subject to interpretation, hence its role alongside sacred tradition and the magisterium of the Church. While many evangelical Protestants will say that the truth of the Bible is self-evident, Catholicism teaches it as a matter of faith.

Let's be honest, you're not going to find the original texts. They've probably long since been destroyed. The loss of the Great Library of Alexandria probably took some of the manuscripts with it, and was a tremendous loss to history. Really, it's a matter of faith.

Re: Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well put! Exactly what I always find myself marvelling about.

Re: Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either the translation process is formalized enough and predictable enough, or the result is made up garbage.

This, kids, is what they're talking about when they say, "False dichotomy".

(The poster evidently speaks no other languages and thus has never done any translation work.)

Re: Why the exemptions?

[sfsp]

Well, this IS veering off-topic, but...

What actually constitutes the original?

The "original" is probably lost forever, true. But unimportant. We don't have the autograph copies of Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, or any other ancient document, either, but there's no real dispute about what they say.

The New Testament, on the other hand, is the best-attributed document from antiquity, comparable in size to the writings of Homer, with 100x the documentary evidence. The work in the 19th, 20th, and 21st century textual criticism of the texts, based on still-extant early manuscripts and papyri, on early translations, and on the citations of the early church writers, has produced a consensus critical document that is source of most of the modern translations. (Look up Nestle-Aland 28 and UBS-5.) The citations of the early writers are quite important--with them alone, all but about 3 verses of the entire NT can be verified.

This results in a level of certainty approaching or exceeding 99% of the accuracy of the transmitted/reconstructed text, as well as validating that the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based is STILL approximately 95% correct. And those places where there is still any uncertainty do not affect any doctrinal statements.

There's no question anymore that the documents said exactly what they say, and no question remaining of "errors creeping in over thousands of copies".

The Old Testament is harder. The texts in the Masoretic tradition were shown by the find of the Dead Sea Scrolls to have been meticulously and faithfully transmitted, even though the tradition prescribed destroying the original when the copy was completed. Further, the Septuagint, a translation into Greek by Jewish scholars approximately 220 BC, gives us a good idea of the complete OT text from before Christ. These are the major basis for the critical OT text.

Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but his words weren't recorded until many years or decades later, in Latin and Greek.

Jesus certainly spoke Aramaic, that being the language in use in Judea at the time. He certainly ALSO read, understood, and probably spoke Hebrew, as that was part of the religious training of Jewish men. He probably also spoke some Greek, since that was the language of the Roman occupation and Jesus had no problem talking to Roman soldiers or to Pontius Pilate, who probably didn't go out of their way to learn Aramaic. He may even have spoken a little Coptic, since he spent part of his early childhood in Egypt.

The writings of the NT as extant are entirely Greek, with occasional Aramaic words thrown in. The earliest NT writing is probably 1 Thessalonians, by Paul of Tarsus, from the mid-50s.

However, Mark was probably being written about the same time, since Mark apparently predates Luke, and Luke obviously predates Acts, and Acts dead-ends at about the year 67. The most likely explanation of the abrupt termination of Acts is that it had been brought up to date, and there was nothing to add. Acts is also in many places an eyewitness account, as testified by the use of the pronoun "we".

Furthermore, the hypothetical "Q" document, if it existed, must ALSO have been extant by the time of the composition of Luke. That puts the recording of the sayings, actions and life of Jesus at no more than about 25 years after they occurred, well within the living memory and testimony of eyewitnesses, in a culture where memorization and oral transmission of tradition was more practiced than today. After all, if we want to remember something, we write it down--or email it to ourselves...

There are no texts attributed to Jesus.

Well, there are, but there's no reason to think they are genuine. The documentary evidence is much too late.

And most of his Apostles couldn't write, either.

The Jewish men were probably the most uniformly well-educated peasants in the entire world, as they were religiously required to be able to read Hebrew. But in any case, Mat

Re: Why the exemptions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, Ripley!

This seems to be interfering with interstate com'c

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this will be gone within 2 years, assuming Trump doesn't appoint 5 clones to the SCOTUS.

State Endorsement of Religion

[frovingslosh]

Sure seems to me that a special exemption for one particular work of fiction is a clear violation of separation of church and state. That, of course, is no surprise, as we live in a country where a family just trying to get by and raise their children is taxed on both income and property, but big rich churches go tax free.

Re:State Endorsement of Religion

[pthisis]

Sure seems to me that a special exemption for one particular work of fiction is a clear violation of separation of church and state.

There's no Bible exemption in the law. It does exempt purchases made by religious organizations (as well as charities, accredited educational institutions, and volunteer firefighting organizations), but there's no preference for a particular religion or for religious nonprofits over, say, the Red Cross, Greenpeace, or Planned Parenthood.

Sounds kinda illegal

[fustakrakich]

Doesn't this bump into the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015?

Re:Sounds kinda illegal

[Rick Zeman]

Doesn't this bump into the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015?

Yes, this won't stand.

Re:Sounds kinda illegal

[Fly Swatter]

In PA, sales tax also applies to services. Netflix provides a service. They are taxing the service, not the subscriber's access to such service.

Re:Sounds kinda illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I use a service without accessing it?

Re:Sounds kinda illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you get access to the service without the service? What if this tax is the line between someone being able to afford the service? In that sense, it would restrict access to that service.

WTF PA?

[monkeyzoo]

Glad to see the separation of church and state is alive in well in the U S of A!!!
"...digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax"

If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, they should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."

Re: WTF PA?

[ArmoredDragon]

There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there.

Re:WTF PA?

[pthisis]

Glad to see the separation of church and state is alive in well in the U S of A!!!
"...digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax"

If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, they should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."

The summary is terrible.

Textbooks purchased from or through accredited schools are exempted. The Bible is not specifically exempted, but purchases by qualified charitable organizations, volunteer fire companies, religious organizations and nonprofit educational institutions are unless used in an unrelated business capacity--there's no particular preference for religious organizations over other social nonprofits, and nothing singling out particular religions.

The tax is not specifically on streaming video. It extends the state's 6% sales tax to online purchases--streaming video is included, as are video downloads, streaming and downloaded audio, and other online purchases like ebooks, apps, games, e-greeting cards, etc.

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bibles are not tax exempt under this law, it's just additional FUD. In addition Religious books are generally produced by commercial printers which have nothing to do with a religious organization. The material is all public domain, so there is no one to license the content from.

Now if you are a tax exempt organization, religious or not, you don't pay the taxes (thus the meaning of 'tax exempt').

Re:WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, monkeyzoo, must be an ignorant born idiot. Spouting hate just because you only read the hate mongering willfully deceptive summary here by BeauHD (a supporter of incompetent mass murderer Crooked Hillary).
If you actually took the time educate yourself with facts, you would know that all books bought from already tax exempt charities are not subject to this, that includes not just Bibles, but lots of text books as well. In any case, Bibles are usually distributed free.
Get it?

If you do now, instead of vomiting your obvious ignorance, why don't you puke it over sissyboy BeauHD's clit. Or do you intend to continue to push his shit.

Re:WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... one more reason to pirate, then?

Re:WTF PA?

[dinfinity]

Thank you, this is why I come to /.

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

"There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there."

If PA can't do it at the company level they'll try to do it at the citizen's level through their tax returns. Each year you have to declare Internet purchases that you don't pay taxes on. Supposedly if you don't stay honest they will eventually catch on to you somehow.

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in any document of or about laws or rights does anything ever say church and state must be separate? There are laws about not making a state religion but there is nothing that says they are to remain separate. There are lots of references to "church" in many documents the same ones you probably think say they have to be separate.

Re:WTF PA?

[jbmartin6]

Yes, thank you for this vastly superior summary.

Re:WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

but streaming video is renting not buying so there should be no sales tax

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't come back and look at the answer BUT if you do go watch the PBS series on religion in America. You will find that it was actually the churches that wanted the separation of church and state.

The various states all had different churches. There was much fighting between the churches and sometimes it wasn't even safe to be the wrong religion in the wrong state. Shoot the Catholic church actually pushed for it due to the fact that in the public schools other churches had gotten texts adopted that called the pope the whre of Babylon.

Read more here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
Watch more here: http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/

After you have educated yourself on the very darn good reasons there is a separation of church and state I expect you to pass this knowledge on to friends and family, and quit advocating for ignoring what is a very central protection of all of our rights.

Re:WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger Ark coming soon, eventually there will be just one humongous Ark in the US.

Re: WTF PA?

[T.E.D.]

There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there.

Most likely they are just making it the resident's responsibility to report that on their yearly taxes and pay it appropriately. Lots of states (like mine) are doing that with online shopping now too.

Re:WTF PA?

[tomhath]

Rented a car recently? Tax is way more than 6%

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't' change the fact that Separation of Church and State is not found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The term comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, who did not write either document.
The Bill of Rights does establish protection that the states requested. That there be no National or State Church. But that's it. Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion. And just because you can point to a documentary which expresses the opinions of it's director regarding the subject does not make it accurate or authoritative.

Re:WTF PA?

[TheCastro1689]

It's a "use tax" in a lot of states.

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should actually look at my sources, the other one is the Library of Congress, unless you are accusing the LOC and PBS of being part of a conspiracy to distort facts (even though everything they state is verifiable) you should hold your criticism of my sources until you actually have something to criticize them for.

Re: WTF PA?

[spongman]

Read Jefferson's Virginia declaration of religious freedom which definitely influenced Madison's first amendment separation clause.

Re: WTF PA?

[butchersong]

There isn't one of course but trying to convince someone that has has that phrase along with the repeated rationalizations supporting it drilled into their head since childhood will be next to impossible.

Re: WTF PA?

[erice]

There's that, and I am curious how they're collecting sales taxes from Netflix given that Netflix likely doesn't have a presence there.

Most likely they are just making it the resident's responsibility to report that on their yearly taxes and pay it appropriately. Lots of states (like mine) are doing that with online shopping now too.

Yes, they do. California has had this since at least the 1990's. However, the only times I have heard of anyone actually complying is for business purchases. The Netflix tax would be easier to track since it is a fixed monthly charge that doesn't require collecting random receipts for a year. Still, I think it would be difficult to enforce and the default for most consumers would be to ignore the tax just like they do with California's use tax.

Re:WTF PA?

[elrous0]

You actually RTFA?!?

I hereby revoked your /. membership. sir!

Re: WTF PA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong since its been over a decade since I read anything about it but wasn't the whole point of that so that Government TAXES could not go to the church, meaning the church isn't directly funded by the government. Please tell me how that reflects on 95% of the time when that phrase is brought up?

Re: WTF PA?

[cthulhu11]

Like was done with drug stamps a while back?

Re:WTF PA?

[lsatenstein]

Glad to see the separation of church and state is alive in well in the U S of A!!!
"...digital versions of the Bible will be exempt from the digital downloads tax"

If they wanted an exemption that would do society some good, they should exempt textbooks, but then kids might get exposed to more of that heretical "science."

In Quebec, where I live, all non-medical services are taxable. Haircuts to cable to internet are services. Subscribe to Netflix, it goes onto your bill and your taxed for it.

Re:WTF PA?

[monkeyzoo]

Is that due to being in the British Commonwealth, or the historical French influence? ;-)

Moved to the south.....

[cjames728]

years ago.... No alcohol in groceries, beer distributors, taxes eclipsed only by New York. Intrusive laws. Cold weather. Terrible roads. Taking years to move the most rural interstate to 70mph. Moved away in the 1980s. Never looked back.

Re: Moved to the south.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I79 is still 55mph, but you wouldn't know it from the traffic flowing at 70+...

Re:Moved to the south.....

[Anonymous Coward]

years ago....

No alcohol in groceries, beer distributors, taxes eclipsed only by New York. Intrusive laws. Cold weather. Terrible roads. Taking years to move the most rural interstate to 70mph. Moved away in the 1980s. Never looked back.

Well, nothing has changed politically, socially, financially, or climatologically in the last 30 years in the US, right?

The Wolf of Netflix

[turkeydance]

is a government agent

Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure PA can use this money to finally fix it's crumbling infrastructure and crater sized potholes (note for non-Pennsylvanians reading this, if you were from Pennsylvania, you would find this to be a funny joke).

Compressed air tax

[The Grim Reefer]

Does this really surprise anyone since it's coming from the state with a compressed air tax?

Re:Compressed air tax

[harvey the nerd]

pffffft !

Re:Compressed air tax

[ThosLives]

Some cities in PA also have an Occupation Privilege Tax.

Re:Compressed air tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's inflation for you.

Re:Compressed air tax

[felrom]

People scream for, and vote for, more government. Here is another delivery of the more government they've demanded.

Re:Compressed air tax

[cdrudge]

It's no different than most items that are sold from a vending machine or anywhere else where sales tax is already included in the price. Instead of the retailer making $.25 off an air compressor use they make $.235 and the other $.015 gets remitted to the state as part of the 6% state sales tax.

Re:Compressed air tax

[FirstNoel]

Yep, I think its like $20 off your first paycheck only...

I think the idea, right or wrong, was to tax out of area people coming in for jobs then leaving and paying income taxes to other areas. never quite made sense to me .

Re:Compressed air tax

[operagost]

The federal government already taxes us for not buying something under the ACA.

That's far sillier than taxing air. At least air is something

Full Text

[fulldecent]

Full text of enacted bill.

FULL TITLE: Act 84 of 2016

EXPLANATION: http://www.revenue.pa.gov/Gene...

SUMMARY:
http://www.revenue.pa.gov/Gene...

FULL TEXT:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/c...

Re:Full Text

[erapert]

So, some slashdotter had to find links to the explanation, summary, and full text of the law?
WHAT ARE THE EDITORS EVEN DOING?!

Re:Full Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Editors? What editors? There are no "editors" here. There does seem to be some set of people whose primary task it is to mess up summaries. That's not editing, that's malicious obfuscation for unclear reasons.

Re:Full Text

[internerdj]

What does it matter? No one on slashdot is going to actually read a linked article especially when the summary gives us so many ways to spout of uninformed on a variety of hot button topics.

Amazon Instant Video?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does PA tax Amazon Prime Instant Video usage?

Re:Amazon Instant Video?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or hulu ad-supported steaming video?

Re:Amazon Instant Video?

[PPH]

steaming video

Your Freudian slip is showing.

Piracy in trouble?

[sshir]

What If they'll start busting people for not paying taxes for all of their torrenting? You know, Al Capone style...

Re:Piracy in trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

I pay a 6% sales tax on everything I pirate. 6% of 0 is 0.

Re:Piracy in trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the people will start retaliating politically, economically, electronically, and militarily.

bodily function taxable?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is my fart taxable? It was compressed up until its expulsion from my anus.

the bible being exempt...

[Anonymous Coward]

will kill this tax in court......

Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[Narcocide]

This doesn't seem legal. Don't get me wrong, I get that this may not defy the letter of the law, but it certainly sabotages the intent. First the liquor, now this. Who is gonna move to PA now unless they absolutely have to?

Re:Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[PrimaryConsult]

PA's liquor laws mainly hurt border town grocery and convenience stores. This includes the entire city of Philadelphia, so close to NJ that even the carless can take local buses and trains over the border without much effort.

The liquor laws also hurt the poor (surprise!) because if you don't have a car, it's a pretty big sacrifice to go to the distributor and haul 24 bottles of beer home. So then you have to buy at a bar with the standard inflated bar prices. Meanwhile in the rest of the country, integrating a 12 pack into your regular grocery shopping isn't a sacrifice in time or money.

Re:Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[FirstNoel]

That is slowwwwly changing. I can go into my local grocery store now and actually by beer. I still have to pay for it at a special register. But it's a step in the right direction.

Re:Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[operagost]

There's no need for slow change. Pennsylvanians are not some child race, that needs to be held by their hands into the amazing future of post-Prohibition liquor laws.

The Democrats had complete control of PA in the 2000s... they left the system in place.

The Republicans had complete control of PA in the early 2010s... they left the system in place.

Now there's Governor Jeep in Harrisburg, and the LCB throws us a frickin' bone by letting big supermarkets and convenience stores sell beer just as long as they waste a lot of floor space to a separate section and register. And they let us buy 12 packs at the stupid beer distributors. I guess we're supposed to lick their hands.

It doesn't matter who is in charge. PA is run by reactionary, tyrannical overseers who treat us like children... children with fat wallets. We're too dumb to trust with alcohol, eCigs, or even frickin' transferring a title when we sell our cars. But that's because they want to make sure they steal from our baby wallets.

Re:Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[SuricouRaven]

I get the impression that the conservative attitude towards such things is that if you can afford luxuries like alcohol and tobacco then you are not poor enough to deserve sympathy, and you certainly should not be entitled to benefits if you have so much as one cent left over after paying rent and buying enough calories to survive.

Re:Uh... net neutrality counter-suit by Netflix?

[Narcocide]

The problem with this justification is primarily that it ignores the fact that it leaves the beer, wine and liquor market of PA in an effectively locked-in monopoly, massively reducing the selection of product, and making it practically impossible for smaller competing brands to penetrate it. Trying to shift the topic of discussion from where the money is going to nebulous "morality" is just a smokescreen for a lame textbook argument-winning tactic. It distracts from what is really going on here, and why.

dumb slashdot atheists miss who is behind this.

[Anonymous Coward]

dumb slashdot atheists miss who is behind this. Guess what large competitor of netflix, hulu and streaming media is based in this state?

Re:dumb slashdot atheists miss who is behind this.

[jedidiah]

An Internet company in PA? That is news.

Re:Complainers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I paid taxes on my income, then when I spend the money on a netflix subscription I am taxed again.

If you apply various taxes to my same pool of money enough times you'll eventually have taxed me 100%. Why is there no limit?

Why not just raise the income tax?

[TsuruchiBrian]

That would be simpler and not create a stupid new law that unevenly spreads the tax burden. You know how judges need to have law degrees? Maybe legislators should be required to have economics degrees.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Voters won't like it. You can use as many regressive stealth taxes as you like, but don't dare increase property and state income taxes.

The simple solution in cases like this is to force each county and city to go back to a zero base budget, and start over. Unfortunately they are allowed to take the lazy option of last_year + x%. In every single case of zero base budgeting, huge saving have been made. To encourage this method of budgeting, bonuses should be given to each dept head based on savings found. More often than not, departments have to spend whatever is left lest they lose it in the coming year. A very silly state of affairs for organisations operating on the peoples' money.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[SuricouRaven]

Specific taxes are easier to get through politically because fewer people would be affected by each tax.

Tax streaming? The 20% or so who stream might object.
Tax vaping? Well, the vapers object, but there aren't many of those around.
Tax books? Most of the population don't buy many books, only students would really be affected.

Add a few more, and everyone finds that they are subject to one or two of the new taxes, even though no single tax affects a majority in any significant way.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I know that there is an incentive for politicians to do it this way, given that the electorate is informed enough to vote against broad tax increases, but not informed enough to see that specific taxes are bad.

My question was more directed towards the electorate (i.e. stop being dump) rather than the politicians (i.e. stop exploiting dumb voters).

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[SuricouRaven]

People are dumb.

A person can be smart. But people, in bulk? Dumb.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I sort of look at it in the opposite way. Lots of individual people will always be dumb, but some smart people can cause "people" (in bulk) to be smart.

All the cells in your body are dumb. None of them know what a cell is, or what you are, or even care, or even can care. But somehow intelligence can emerge out of this blob of dumb things.

I'm not saying this is exactly how collective intelligence works, I'm just saying we are (or at least can be) more than the sum of our parts.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[SuricouRaven]

I have a model that can explain a lot.

Take a population. Let's fill it with smart people: A rocket scientist, a climatologist, a neurobiologist, a mathematician, and a quantum physicist.

Now, it's election time and there's a big issue to debate: Climate chance, is it real or a hoax? Well, you've got five well-educated experts - but only one of them knows that field. The others are barely any more qualified than a random person of the street.

There's the problem: A democratic system of government, including representative democracy, depends on most of the people being at least reasonably well educated on all of the issues. But that just can't happen. It takes many years of study to become an expert in a field, which means that for any specified topic almost the entire population are ignorant of it, and this will be true even if you send the entire population to get a university-level education.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[TsuruchiBrian]

That's why we have a representative democracy. We are not voting on issues. We are voting for people. Those people need to become experts on those subjects, or at least become experts on who the experts are. Our only job is to vote for people who are benevolent and competent leaders. If we do our job correctly, our representatives will select the right experts to listen to, and everything will be great.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[SuricouRaven]

And how is that working out?

It's a crappy system, but all the others so far have been worse.

Re:Why not just raise the income tax?

[TsuruchiBrian]

And how is that working out?

It depends what you are really asking.

If you are asking "How is electing benevolent and competent leaders working out?" I would say "very poorly".

If you are asking "How are the benevolent and competent leaders we elected working out?" I would say "I don't know, because we keep voting for and electing partisan ideologues that agree with our uneducated positions on issues instead".

Billing Address?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems the easiest thing to do is to get a credit card using an out-of-state friend's address.

Alternative

[gumpish]

It would be amusing if Netflix et al. opted to take a small hit to their revenue and made their services free to all current customers in PA, thus denying the state the taxes they projected.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly voters in 49 other states petition for stream taxes.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Or use legal tricks like selling the license to view the material, but the streaming is free.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were netflix I would refuse service to anyone with a PA billing address and see how fast the law gets overturned.

Re:Alternative

[Manmademan]

Small hit? Pennsylvania has 12 million people in it. If 15% of them are Netflix subscribers (this would be in line with the national average though it's probably higher- The Philadelphia metro region is along the dense NE corridor) Netflix would be letting about 20 million dollars a month or 240 million a year in cash roll out of the door.

Re:Alternative

[FirstNoel]

Besides the taxes aren't hitting Netflix, they're hitting us the consumers.

in the end it's going to be just another line on the bill every month.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be more amusing if Netflix just opted to tell PA tax collectors to FOADIAF, at which point PA's only option is to try to get people to self-report a use tax. GLWT.

Re:Alternative

[T.E.D.]

It would be amusing if Netflix et al. opted to take a small hit to their revenue and made their services free to all current customers in PA, thus denying the state the taxes they projected.

I don't think it matters, because they can't really make Netflix pay them a nickel if that company has no physical presence in PA.

Most likely what they will do is make it the consumer's responsibility to report it on their yearly taxes, and pay it then themselves. If PA taxpayers are like those in other states, almost nobody will do this, so the state still won't get their taxes. In fact, this is already the situation in most states, so this is really just a story about PA jumping on the (already heavily-laden) bandwagon.

Re:Complainers...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, government employees shouldn't have to pay taxes, since that money is actually collected taxes?

Some do

[rsilvergun]

some don't. See, the world is complicated like that. Go watch some speeches from Bernie Sanders on progressivism. Folks like him, Barry Obama & even Hilary are getting stuff done. There's 40 years of regressive policies by Regan et al and billions were spent making that happen. You're not going to change that by pouting about the opportunists among the Democrats.

And nice straw man ya got there. Shame if anything were to happen to him...

Re:Some do

[Anonymous Coward]

Bernie is really an independent who basically had to run as a democrat to get a chance at the office. He was probably the last realistic chance that this country had to bring back the middle class.

Obama and Hillary? They're exactly the kind of people that the original poster was talking about. Sure, they make it look like they're getting stuff done, but they're not really doing much at all compared to what they could be doing. They'd both basically tread water if they could. In fact, the only reason Hillary looks even remotely progressive is because she had to bend over to Bernie supporters for their vote.

Good luck with your country.

Re:Some do

[operagost]

I didn't know Re[a]gan was in office the last 40 years. Who's this Et Al guy? Sounds like a terrorist.

It's ironic that you talk about a straw man, then attack "Regan [sic] et al" and claim "billions were spent" to fix things. How many billions need to be spent to fix an economy? How does Obama keep getting a pass after 8 years, but somehow George W. Bush is responsible for everything that happened under his watch? It's not possible that some things Clinton did in his term screwed up things, like pressure Fannie Mae to get poor people to buy houses?

Re:Some do

[david_thornley]

Watching from the other political wing, I noted that right-wing nutcases went from blaming everything on Clinton to blaming everything on Obama about December 2008, a month before Obama was actually inaugurated. The left-wing nutcases do much the same, with different names written into the form with crayon.

Re:Some do

[JustSomeProgrammer]

Well... Reagan was the source of implementation of Voodoo Economics (trickle-down economics, supply-side economics, choose your name) and started the destruction of the strength of unions so yeah some of the blame for the poor and working class economic woes really can be laid appropriately at his feet.

Re: dumb slashdot atheists miss who is behind this

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhymes with momcast.

Copyright on the Bible

[tepples]

Most translations of the Bible into contemporary English are copyrighted and not free cultural works, with the exception of the World English Bible.

I have said this before

[Anonymous Coward]

I have said this before, again, and again... Normal humans, the populace, have been cutting back and reducing budgets for over 15 years now, yet government continues to increase every year. This is an implosion waiting to happen. At some point these government fuckers are going to have to accept a revolution up their ass.

Re:I have said this before

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be a revolution. Just a slow decay into massive poverty and turning cities into shanty towns. Services will get too expensive because of massive taxation and a black market will rule, while the government will no longer have any funding to enforce any laws. Kind of like Brazil and Argentina.

Proof that PA legislators are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They raise taxes in the 70's and jobs left, so they raised taxes in the 80's more jobs left and people left, raised taxes again and more jobs left and more people left. So yet again they are on a track to raise taxes to make up the shortfall of money they need. I am so glad I escaped PA!

Re:Proof that PA legislators are stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

...and in the late 80s-2000s taxes were lowered and jobs still left.

So... how 'bout that first amendment...

[Anonymous Coward]

If "digital versions of the bible" are tax exempt, how about digital versions of the koran? Or the tao te ching? Or the upanishads? Or the bagavad gita? Or even whatever the FSM crowd wants to say is their holy book?

Maybe we should just keep religious preference out of our laws... huh... radical thought...

This is just stupid

[TiggertheMad]

From TFA: "Magazine and newspaper subscriptions, as well as digital versions of the Bible, will be exempt from the digital downloads tax."

What... the Torah, Quran, and Bhagavad Gita and hundreds of others need not apply? Nice lawsuit trolling there.

Pretty sure this is right out of the gates, unconstitutional. Doesn't equal protection apply here? Calling out the bible specifically and not other religious texts is financial discrimination against everybody who doesn't believe in zombie jebuz on a stick. Also, unworkable: How can you identify which bits and bytes I am downloading are bible bits and bytes, and which ones are the porn version of 'The last temptation of Christ'. Seems unenforceable.

Re:This is just stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had bothered to read the law, instead of blindly believing and parroting the Bible claim, you probably wouldn't have contributed to the further spread of misinformation with your post. Unfortunately, it seems you couldn't be bothered with pesky things like basic claims validation. Who's stupid here? -PCP

Re:This seems to be interfering with interstate co

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this will be gone within 2 years, assuming Trump doesn't appoint 5 clones to COITUS.

TFTFY

Real issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing... Netflix does not have a physical presence in PA. Therefor, they are not legally obligated to collect sales tax from PA residents.

PA intends to try and cover a budget shortfall by relying on the honesty of citizens to understand what Use Tax is, and to file and pay it.

That's pretty dumb. Wait no, that's INCREDIBLY dumb. Not only does Netflix not have a physical presence in PA, but likely no one else does either.They maaaaaaaay manage to get Apple. Unless of course iTunes is actually structured under an umbrella corporation or is sheltered offshore like everything else of course.

Again, they can't make any of these providers collect these taxes. So if they know they can;t, or rather won't, collect any additonal taxes, then why are they doing this? To force the Fed to grant states the right to collect those taxes from outside their borders!

What? Oh, yeah, see, when they add tons of digital goods and services to their Use Tax lists, and then collect none of it because, duh, no one reports it cause people hate taxes no matter how much they are actually necessary, then they go crying to the Fed. Get enough states crying to the Fed and the Fed will have to do something about it, since that's pretty much what all those Senators and Legislators are actually supposed to do (represent their state's concerns I mean). So yeah, this is PA stepping up to the plate to take a swing at getting the Fed to reverse course and grant states the right to collect sales from non-resident entities.

No general sales taxes in New Hampshire! Lovin it

[chris2net23]

I moved to New Hampshire to take part in the Free State Project. While the FSP inc isn't free enough for me I'm still glad to have moved to a state with other like minded individuals whom are focused on getting rid of government taxes and 'services'. People here are for the non-aggression principle which basically states you shouldn't utilize violence against peaceful people (ie perfect example is when government uses violence to get people to pay taxes, or you physically attack someone). New Hampshire is already pretty friendly to those of us who wish to live free of invasive government programs. New Hampshire doesn't require vehicular insurance, seat belts, or even have a general purpose sales tax.

Now we're trying to get more people who believe in liberty and individual rights and whom want less government to move here. We've already hit 100% of the goal to get 20,000 people to sign an intent to move statement and 10% of those 20,000 have already moved! And it's only been since March that people were even suppose to start planning a move (people who signed agreed to move within 5 years). Now we just need to stop accepting federal dollars and eliminate all those pesky federal-mandated laws and get rid of things like license plates, drivers licenses, and other similar victimless legislation. Some of us actually value our freedom over a needlessly over-protective violent police state which is 'just' trying to protect us (yea- right- no thank you- if I want health insurance I'll get health insurance- I don't need someone forcing it down my throat, and yes, I do have health insurance for which I pay for pre-government requirement).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: GET DOWN AND LICK U.S. IMPERIALISM'S ANUS!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the government want a 6% tax on electronic media and you blame the companies? You actually advocate communism meaning state run companies so they would get 100% of all money and then get to decide how much of that money you get to spend and how much they get to spend.

Yeah sounds WAY better...

Cut them loose

[BeemanIT]

I'm in favor of ISPs / streaming video companies to just deny any usage of their product in PA. Thus deny the tax and get people upset at the government. "WHAT IF THE BUSINESS DOESN’T COLLECT THE TAX? The customer should report the 6 percent tax on the purchase as use tax on their Pennsylvania personal income tax return the following year." How is anyone going to track this to let the government know what they've streamed and pay it? On the flip side, it could be used as a catch all to incriminate anyone.

Re:Cut them loose

[FirstNoel]

What's the real difference between buying a membership somewhere in state and paying 6%, and paying for 6% tax for your Netflix membership.

This is all just making a mountain out of a molehill.

Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

[Anonymous Coward]

If digital copies of the Bible are exempt for religious purposes the Last Week Tonight should also be exempt.

Interesting...

[wardrich86]

"Magazine and newspaper subscriptions, as well as digital versions of the Bible" Interesting... somebody needs to create a media container that uses bible verses in place of whatever functions are usually in there.

Pennsylvania long the Texas of the East....no more

[PortHaven]

Pennsylvania long the Texas of the East....is fast joining it's northeastern neighbors and becoming more and more like NY and Connecticut. Still not as bad as Connecticut though.

As for Netflix tax, remember, I already pay a tax on cable internet. There are supposed to be regulations that ensure anti-competitive behavior. But the Commonwealth of PA never acts on them. See, we pay taxes in exchange for certain responsibilities and actions on the part of the government. Problem is, we don't receive those.

I should also mention that I recently received notice of a pending citation for having an inflatable kiddie pool. Mine is advertised as 30" which exceeds the townships 24" mandate. So essentially I need to get a building permit that is likely to cost several times more than my kiddie pool. Also please note that I have yet to get even 24" of water into said pool.

I'll take VPN's for the win Alex

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... So today I'll be on a VPN from New York - tomorrow.... The world...

Why exempt the bible ?

[silentcoder]

Are they also exempting other religious texts ? Is this not a violation of the separation of church and state ? Why not ?

Re:Why exempt the bible ?

[Anonymous Coward]

My religion is Netflix...."The Church of Netflix"....so....

So freaking what?

[FirstNoel]

Streaming Services are by definition a Service. Other Services in the state are taxed at 6%. Streaming services can be considered a Luxury item, nobody needs netflix to live. You won't die without it.

the Vaping taxes are essentially the same thing. You don't need to vape. It has health issues just like regular smoking. Kids pick it up as being "cool". Tax it like cigarettes..boom done. I can think of about 5 Vape stores in my town, why on God's green earth do we need 5 in small town? Survival of the fittest, some will close.. I'm sorry. oh well.

Do I like taxes...no. But Wolf also got passed a decent Education budget, finally after years of crap from Rendell and Corbett. So if you are going to tax me 6% for netflix and Amazon Prime, oh well. Maybe my kids will get a better computer system in their school. Or maybe their teachers will get a better contract and be more engaged in the class room .

State taxes don't necessarily suck 100% of the time. there are real benefits that can happen. People need to get their heads out of their asses and realize we all need to work together as a community to keep things from going to total shit. Taxes are one of the ways we are able to do this. /end rant.

No recognized

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recognize any tax on Internet services or income, and will not report or pay any such thing.

If you build it, taxes will come

[tflf]

Why is this a surprise? No government has ever resisted the chance to tax something new. However, the Internet is gutting traditional brick and mortar businesses, resulting in significant loss in tax revenue for state and local governments. If we want all the requirements of modern communal life which government has been tasked to provide, we need to find a way to pay for it. Taxing users has some serious flaws, but, Netflix is a luxury, not a necessity of life. Taxing luxury should always be the first revenue option for government, IMHO.

OK with me

[nospam007]

As long as they don't tax torrents, I'm OK.

Episode 5

[Sperbels]

Comcast Strikes Back!

Beat Tom Wolf's ass then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think a Governor that just gets a job paid for by the public gets to start charging the public whatever he feels like it just because Jews?

Set a precedent here. Beat Tom Wolf until his lips need to be sewed back on. No more taxation without representation. It is why the Europeans left to America in the first place. If you allow taxation without representation again, where will you flee too? North Pole?

Beat the skin off that mother fucker.

New address

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I get a PO box in a state that doesn't tax I will be able to make that my billing address and avoid this tax?

Re: GET DOWN AND LICK U.S. IMPERIALISM'S ANUS!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gee, corporations own the government, so "government" taxing and dictating is corporations taxing and dictating.

Also, hilarious that it exempts the Bible. Pandering to Pennsyltucky at its finest. I was wondering how they'd top squandering taxpayer money declaring 2012 the year of the Bible.

Just what we needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another tax to complicate our already insanely complicated tax code. When is the government going to learn to spend within its means instead of playing a shell game with various taxes to trick people into thinking they're "getting the better deal". I estimate over a third of my earnings already go to feed the beast and that is after I get my check from the IRS/state.

Rich Politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

We the People make on average, $48,000 a year. Your average congressman make $250,000 a year. Before you TAX US, maybe we should cut your paycheck to 1979 levels. (Senators and the President make even more!!!)