Internet Taxes Likely

emag writes "ZDNet is reporting that it's likely Congress will allow state & local governments to tax e-commerce, just like buying from a storefront. "

Comments

Overall taxes will not go down as a result

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea is flawed: government will not voluntarly give up a sorce of revenue (rather like expecing congress to vote no to a pay increase for themselves.)

Several points:

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Why does our government tax internet commerce when money orders sent to catalog companies like "Fingerhut" or "JC Whitney" are not taxed?

2) Are we now going to be 'double-taxed' (like so many other things that are double, triple and quadruped taxed) in our home state and abroad?

3) Does this 'net commerce tax split taxes between states?

4) Maybe I should consult a tax advisor


I can see it now:

Welcome to AMERICA: Land of LITIGATION and TAXES

E-mail tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're looking at taxes, imagine the benefits of a 1c tax per e-mail message. Have all the revenues raised from such a tax put back into the Internet. And watch all the spammers suddenly go out of business in a big, screaming heap as their 30 million e-mails per mailout attract a tax bill of $300,000. And the bonus is that spammers who try to conceal their identities to avoid paying tax can then be indicted for tax fraud. Bankruptcy AND prison terms for spammers. What a glorious future....

E-mail tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about mailing lists like darwin, bugtraq , etc?

Physical Retailers NOT at a disadvantage, IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

If shipping cost is such a problem, buy it locally. Most shipping is sold at no or modest markup. The cost difference between shipping and sales tax may not be different to you, but to the town in which the warehouse exists, there is a big difference (0% vs. xx%). Warehouses, wether supporting e-trade or not, consume resources in the municipality in which they reside. Sales tax is meant to cover these expenses and support community growth. IMHO, this is one of those topics where the youth and inexperience of /. readership will yeild a low S/N conversation. What makes you think that you alone should be exempt from tax?

-jh

In-state sales tax already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

For both mailorder (shouldn't that be phoneorder?) and netordered things, I pay CA sales tax if the company's also in CA, which is were I live. If ordering from outside CA, no sales tax on either mailorder or netordered. Of course, I'd prefer zero taxes on either order, but is the government really that stupid?

Who benefits most from no sales tax outside of the state? UPS and FedEx. Looks like their lobbyists need to get cracking.

Another computerized tax collection system

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about this, guys. The gov't slackers can barely keep their computers going through this December, but they're going to institute another whole new system?

Social Security Admin itself is Y2K compliant, but SSA processes none of its own claims. That is done through some 70 contractors, none of whom have done much. On top of that, SSA is bringing everything in house as of 12/31, with the diktat that, when it's turned over, it will be compliant. Just like magic. You don't even want to contemplate the difficulties that HCFA faces.

Our local paper (Michigan) published an Ameritech press release stating that, while Ameritech was internally compliant, later on this summer they needed to look at the groups they interface with.

They specifically mentioned the 911 systems, especially the fully automated systems that need a functioning computer both to answer and to dial out (to ambulances and such). The flak made the off hand comment that it might not inspire confidence in gov't if 911 calls suddenly weren't picked up.

So again, they want more computerized systems? Hahahahahahahahaha.

This would work

[Anonymous Coward]

They are organized, or could if not already, as 501(c)3 nonprofits under the education class.

If their revenues are less than $50,000, they don't even need to file the whole 990 tax return. They would apply for and receive the state sales tax exemption.

Worthwhile causes would have no problem with this.

Bankrupt the spammers, then send the IRS after them.

No Subject Given

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxation on e-commerce is unenforceable; you'd have to force all the vendors to charge the tax and create a huge beauracracy just to go about enforcing e-commerce taxation; that beauracracy would probably consume all the tax revenue generated. Also any country wishing to 'steal e-commerce' from the US would simply offer 'no e-commerce taxes'; considering moving a server off shore would probably make/break an e-commerce site. I doubt any company is that patriotic as to suffer a lower bottom line.
The internet provides a totally even playing field. What government needs to survive such as: regulation and taxation simply _cost_ more to deploy(enforce) on the Internet; government trying to enforce/regulate/taxate on/by the Internet simply will starve and wither away. The point is it costs more to punish an Individual on the Internet, it costs nothing for an Individual to shunn a Government on the Internet.

Um, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok

1. There already are incredible beaurocracies to collect sales taxes within states and those don't take up more than they take in. Besides, ecommerce is inherently computerized, making it just a little bit easier. Taxation doesn't work by having a guy go to every store and say, "Give us what you owe us." The stores willingly send in the money because of the fear that they'll get an audit. Ecommerce taxes would be pretty much the same.

2. Just moving the server over won't help. You'd have to move the warehouse over to escape the tax. And at that point you're paying international shipping charges and a tariff. Definitely more expensive.

We have it worse in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you have it bad in the US, well in canada, we have taxes on taxes. Hell, if you die, you get taxed for dying.

L8r
/. AC

LOWER taxes? In your dreams...

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard an interesting comment the other day on the radio - we are paying more in taxes as a percentage of the GDP than at any point in our history. Taxes never go down...they just get shifted from one burdened group to another.

I think state and local governments need to keep their greedy little hands out of our pockets. If they want net taxation, let the voters decide.

Thwack: E-mail tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for an ISP, and the only thing taxed was the sale and/or lease of equipment. To the best of my knowledge, services usually aren't taxed- and it better stay that way.

Move to no-sales tax state like Oregon

[Anonymous Coward]

Could companies move their "nominal" headquarters to Oregon (or one of the very few other states that don't have a sales tax & refuse to implement one) & take orders from there?

Confused?

[Anonymous Coward]

This must be a little confusing to non-USA readers, but we do not have a VAT tax here; the Federal govt. relies mostly on income (and other) taxes and does not levy sales taxes. Many states do have sales taxes, which is a percentage (usually in the 4 or 5% range, somtimes higher) on all sales (some of these being exempt; this varies from state to state). If I go across the border to a state without a sales tax, I am not charged a sales tax even if I come from a state that has one. Similarly, if I order over the phone or over the net to a different state, I am not accessed my local state sales tax (though the states with sales taxes are constantly trying to overturn this state of affairs). Frankly it is hard to see how any state could claim jurisdiction when one or both parties are not located in the state in question. If there were a federal sales tax, that would be an added layer of confusion which we need like a hole in the head. At least we see the sales tax at the point of sale; my understanding is that VAT is hidden from the purchaser in that it is accessed when goods and services are created ("value added") and not tacked on at the point of sale, but I've never lived in a VAT country so I could be mistaken on this point.

Confused?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course if states insisted that all out of state sales had to be taxed there would be legal problems (due to the Constitutional and other legal impediments to restraint of interstate trade) and in addition mail order business would rapidly shift to non-sales tax states, resulting in less, rather than more, taxes for the states trying to levy sales taxes. Sorry if this confuses you mate, but this is what comes of a federal system rather than a unitary system of government!

Internet taxation is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

"Other taxes go down"? Hah... not bloody likely.

Register and vote Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two problems with Libertarians. (1) given any collection of more than five Libertarians, you can reduce them to inaction by asking what they think of patents. They will immediately form three groups and spend the rest of the day arguing. One group says people have a natural right to control the fruits of their mental efforts, and so in Libertarian society, one of the functions of government is to provide a patent system as part of the Libertarian view that government primarily exists to enforce property rights. Another group will say property rights only apply to physical property, and no Libertarian government would have a patent system. The third group will just be bewildered.

(2) Libertarians think that the ideal form of government for Gilligan's Island will just scale with no problems to a nation of a few hundred million people.

A flame for you!

[Anonymous Coward]

OOOH...can I move to your fantasy world? Mine has gotten a bit too realistic...

No you can't!

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you bet that a libertarian government wouldn't do the exact same shit? Every party that has gotten into power talks one story and acts another...until we have a whole load of libertarians in office don't you dare go around spouting how much different it would be.

ps - and before you pull out your flamethrower...I am a registered libertarian

My advice for those who die

[Anonymous Coward]

Declare the pennies on your eyes.

Sales Tax no different than physical stores, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

So...if I print out the HTML form and mail it to Amazon with a check, will I still have to pay the ecommerce tax?

Internet taxation is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's fair. That's why the techosnobs who thought they could skip out on paying sales taxes while the poor and people who don't have internet acesss would still have to pay sales taxes are so bent out of shape over this. On the other hand I think this is great news for society as a whole, for it means the have-nots won't get shafted by the e-commerce nonsense.

SURE-yea right

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you want to pay canada's $2.50 each tax on blank cdr disks which they give to the record industry,,,you think they wont try and get a piece of the action?

curruption and tax craziness isnt limited to the US

Give me liberty or give me death

No you can't!

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember most of the people most libertarians idolize like Jefferson and the rest of that bunch were slave onwers...Sure they wrote some great stuff, when they weren't busy boning their female slaves that is...

Damn Republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

all polititions are crooks you hold your nose and vote fo the lesser of 2 evils...

P.S. know why microsoft is in trouble?
they havent learned how to buy enuff
politions yet

We now live in the US !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I spent 5yrs in the UK - Now I know why we had a tea party in Boston !!! And its to this extent that I support a small government and privatization !!!

I'm all for internet taxes, more the better!

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet used to be such a scholarly and hip place. Now my mother buys pantyhose on the internet through AOL. I'm for anything that discourages use of the internet for commerce by the hyper acquisitive hoi polli.

Take the net back from the big corporations, make it unpaletable for them to be here.

We have it worse in canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Australians worse yet. If gas at $8 gallon and smokes at $7 a pack bite, try 22.5 state tax on
computer equipment, and 52% income tax, and extra property tax if you have more than 2 bathrooms!

This pays for the 40% of people on welfare that NEVER runs out.

However a Beaches ARE GOOD, and its a fun place.
GO US if you actually want to be paid well for having fun (Linux admin).

You're confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax is not evil, taxes keep the US running.

First of all, taxes are AT BEST a necessary evil, but they are without question evil. Taxation is the act of government taking money form one person and giving it to another. Anyone who believes we have adequate representation to justly arbitrate this transfer is naive.

Remember, in the US tax goes to pay for government services which help everyone out, from education to military spending.

Jordy, I've been a government employee for 14 years (counting my 4 years at the Air Force Academy) and I can tell you our government wastes more money in one day than you will probably earn in your lifetime. You can research the specifics on your own.

...people like you have to understand how capitalistic societies work. If you don't like it, move to China.

You clearly don't understand how capitalism works. Wealth is created by business. Not one penny is created by the government. Every dollar that goes to Washington is a dollar unavailable to an entrepreneur to create wealth and enhance our lives.

On the original subject of internet taxation, the problem here is the slippery slope of new taxes. States can already require sales taxes be collected on mail order goods. This could logically be extended to e-commerce businesses. But if we create a whole new category of taxes for "the internet" then the government raiders get their foot in the door to a whole new arena.

The government that governs best governs the least, and ours has proven this point time and again. Let's not forget that the aim of government bureaucracy is to limit our freedom, not enhance it. More government involvement can only hurt, and we should fight it at every turn.

Shipping and handling costs are a markup, IMO

[Anonymous Coward]

I think mail order companies make money off the shipping and handling of their goods. Often, because the consumer avoids paying taxes on these orders, they don't balk at high shipping fees. But I'm willing to bet that many companies use the shipping charges to bolster their own botom line, directly. (But not all).

In any case, I don't want ISP taxes, or internet connection taxes, but I'm willing to pay commerce taxes. After all, I made good use of publicly subsidized schooling, and don't wish to see this opportunity disappear (or have Universities further dependant on corporate sponsorship).

Also, by using out-of-stae mail order companies, you actually are paying taxes to a state other than your own (because the company will pay business taxes in it's state). By levelling the field, I'm encouraged to use businesses that compete in my state, and thus, my taxes stay in my state, where they (theoretically) benefit me. After all, if states lose sales tax money, they will have to raise taxes in other ways (like income).

So, I say "yes" to fair taxes, and "no" to money grubbing shipping charge ripoffs. :)

Internet Taxes - What is REALLY freakin GOVT.

[Anonymous Coward]

20 YEARS JAIL --- or more proposed

In Australia if you try setting up own virtual online casino / betting service - even if it is offshore

Try offering insurance based in tax free Cayman Islands. (20% fire/insurance tax)

Offer any service that treatens 'Public Revenue'-
like sending smokes through the mail (until recently when state tax ruled unconstitutional)

so you see mail order is nothing - really

Want NO TAXES?

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw this discussion of Real Sales tax vs. Net tax. If you don't want either and want real Freedom vote LIBERTARION!

Democrats want you to be to do whatever they decide. (with whatever 2% of your income you get after taxes)

Republicans talk good, but they are to busy trying to please the faked out poles.

People say a third party vote is a waste, but I say so was the American revoloution, the Civil war, and the fight for Civil Rights. All of which have begun to mean nothing in this world again.

Josh-Adams@geocities.com

Taxes ARE evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really believe that tax will kill internet business? Remember, in the US tax goes to pay for government services which help everyone out, from education to military spending. Tax is not evil, taxes keep the US running."

Government is great at doing a half-assed job of doing what the private sector was doing a QUALITY job at doing and then making us believe that we need them to keep running this ill-formed, ill-created government program that we didn't have 10 years ago and did perfectly well without.

Read Harry Browne's book, "Why Government Doesn't Work" to realize why all we need are simple tarrifs to support what we need the government to do (protect life and property), and how we DON'T need an Income tax or a Sales tax.

Yes, taxation kills business. Yes, taxation kills investments. Everybody does all they can to protect their money from the money grubbing government.

The power to tax IS the power to destroy.

jce2@po.cwru.edu

s/h is many times less than sales tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I've found just the opposite as you. Especially in computer equipment. I find I buy from out of state computer vendors and end up saving money for two reasons : 1) s/h usually is about half of what California's sales tax is 2) many times online vendors have lower prices (no retail shop costs, etc)

I buy from local vendors where easy support/service is important for me.

As long as there's no long distance charge it's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem with a Sales tax of some sort on internet purchases. What I do have a problem with is charging dial-up calls to ISPs a long distance fee. This is penalizing people who are already the victims of crappy cable deals like me. Luckily, Congress has promised not to do it. If they even think about it before the majority of the country has access to cable modems I will flame my congressman like no one has ever been flamed before!!!

Rep. Billy Tauzin is a lobbyist's dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Rep. Tauzin is the same idiot who sucked up to the National Association of Broadcasters by promising to kill the FCC's micro-broadcasting initiative.

The scumbag used FUD tactics by raising the spectre of skinheads with their own radio stations. Um, excuse me, but isn't America a democracy? Free speech?

Man, I can't wait for Louisianians to vote this clown out of office...

Will the libretarions collect my garbage?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to pay no taxes, but I'm pretty sure that those guys collecting my garbage (and policing my city, and taking care of my roads) aren't doing it for the experience. Maybe the answer if private trash collection, private police forces, private road crews. Hmm, I don't have a car so then I wouldn't have to pay for road repair! I don't have a lot of stuff either, so I wouldn't need my private security company or even my private national defense company! Who hoo! I'll be rich!

we pay almost as much in shipping damn it

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the cost of shipping to the end-user from a large distribution warehouse (run by the net seller such as Amazon) that much more than the cost of shipping from a wholesale or distributer's warehouse to the local retailer?

RMS for President in 2000!

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why we need techies in congress. LINUX techies. does anyone else feel like they're not being adequately represented by their local mudslinger?

Why stop at Congress? Let's call ourselves the Technocratic Party and run Richard M. Stallman for President! Run a full slate of candidates. Then, once we're in, we'll amend the Constitution so Linus can run in 2008!

RMS in 2000,
Insane times call for insane choices.

we pay almost as much in shipping damn it

[Anonymous Coward]

Distributors have special deals with UPS and FedEx and USPS so that shipping to the retailers is much less expensive than shipping to indviduals, but that's a good point. In both cases the consumer is paying for shipping, so why tack on Sales Tax?

how are they going to tell the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

between ecommerce and mail order? The main difference seems to be whether you call in your credit card number or https it. Of course, the government also says that calls to ISPs are long distance phone calls, so they're equivalent :p

Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look up the US Constitution, Section 9. It states:

"No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."

This arose from the original 13 colonies, which were taxing products imported from neighboring territories, as a protectionist barrier to help local businesses. It is commonly known as "restraint of interstate trade" and is illegal.

If internet commerce is taxed, what they are REALLY doing is taxing items imported from outside the state. Internet commerce is in no way different from ordering through a mail-order catalog. If internet commerce is taxable, so is ordering from the out-of-state mail order catalogs. Mail Order catalogs have long enjoyed freedom from taxation for out-of-state sales (but not in-state sales). Internet business is not different in any way. They all have a home office, if your order is placed with a company that happens to be outside your state, it is tax-exempt, regardless of whether you purchased via internet, telephone, or snail mail.
Go ahead and allow them to pass the law. It will stand for about 10 minutes. Just hit them with the US Constitution, Article 9.

Paranoid

[Jordy]

Well aren't we just slightly paranoid.

You don't think there's a tax on import items already?

Do you really believe that Mexico and Canada won't do the same thing? Especially Canada which mirrors half of the US's bills on encryption.

Do you really believe that tax will kill internet business? Remember, in the US tax goes to pay for government services which help everyone out, from education to military spending. Tax is not evil, taxes keep the US running.

Until we become a utopian society where money is a thing of the past, people like you have to understand how capitalistic societies work. If you don't like it, move to China.

--
The Berlin GUI Project - Building a Better Interface for Linux


--

SURE

[mAIsE]

Lets push encryption and sales off the shore. They can't tax the buyer they will have to tax the seller. Because they will not be able to keep track of buyers. So everything will just goto mexico or Canada and no one here will have a job. THAT's GOOD !!! GOD BLESS AMERICA

Paranoid

[mAIsE]

Most americans are paying over half of there income in different taxes. I dont feel sorry for the US senators that spend more than they are given they need to learn how to BUDGET not invent new taxes.

Paranoid

[mAIsE]

All I am saying the less tax a buisness pays the more it will make the more customers it will have the more it speeds the economy. I agree that our country need tax to survive. I dont agree everything time you goto the bathroom you should be taxed on flushing the toilet. If you want to be fair the only tax should be a flat income tax so everyone paid the same no matter. Our buisnessmen and women will be at yet another disadvantage becauses of BIG brother SAM, i mean uncle sam. Remember taxation without representation ? What senator understands half of what is going on in the technology sector ? The IT industry is getting blind sided by a government that is scared of it. Ignorance should no longer be an excused or a justification. Thats all im trying to say.

You're confused

[mAIsE]

your ABSOLUTELY right !!

More Government = Worse Government

[gavinhall]

Posted by Rafeboi:

While I can see the point Virtua made about conventional Big Blue Room shopkeepers potentially being disadvantaged by the lack of Internet taxation, they miss one really big point:

Many 'net vendors are 'net-only, with no IRL presence, just a URL one. Competitive advantage? Nil. Merely a stratification of consumer, online v. old-fashioned. There is -no way- (insufficient emphasis) that real-world stores will all fail in any of our lifetimes as a result of the 'net's presence. Too many technophobes out there who cannot or will not shop online, regardless.

The less the government (especially that of the US) gets in the way of the future, the better we all are.

NOTE: If all the politicians and elected officials in this country vanished tomorrow, I'd be the last one to shed a tear. They can all get packed into DOS 4.0 boxen and dumped over Antarctica for all I care, so this is SOP for me to say, "F U, Big Brother."

-Subucni

Taxation is Theft

[gavinhall]

Posted by Stan Krute:

Sales taxes are a particularly
nasty form of theft, due to their
economically-regressive design.

Keep 'em off the net.

Sales Tax no different than physical stores, but..

[DunbarTheInept]

If it were just a very simple law that said, "Sales over the internet shall be governed by the same tax laws as sales by phone or snail-mail.", then I'd not object. Then they'd be treating the 'net the same as any other medium.

What pisses me off is when they assume the 'net somehow deserves stricter or heaver laws than the real-life world. That's quite a luddite attitude. It's the same as the crap they pulled (are pulling) with the CDA 1 and 2. - Something shouldn't be *more* illegal just becasue the internet was involved.

Or Police, or sewage, or roads, or...

[DunbarTheInept]

Libertarians are nuts. Government can be evil, but government is a *nessacery* evil. Lasse-faire is impossible, because in the case of natural monopolies, some corporation would have exclusive control instead of a government - it would be even worse. You will always be governed, like it or not. It's just a question of whether it will be by the State or by private thugs. Private ownership of *everything* is insane. I do not want to pay a fscking toll on every single road, and have thousands of phone companies trying to lay their own cables all over the place, never being forced to lease them to each other (as the current regulations dictate), so that there are wires everywhere across the country. And I sure as hell don't want to see a private police force. Some libertarians are okay, but just like the big-2 parties, the moderate ones are the ones that are okay, and the pureists are the ones that are dangerous.

Government is a generic term.

[DunbarTheInept]

The reason it is impossible to not have a government is that government is such a generic term that any sort of organization of any kind that makes rules over people is a government.

The only way to not have a government is to have anarchy. Anarchy is not a permanent condition. (Things don't remain in anarchy for long - a government always forms up in one form or another. Even a local bully pushing people around counts as a government, albiet a small one.)

No help for the poor?

[DunbarTheInept]

The problem is that this system would lead to a snowballing effect where the poor can't get out of poverty even with a lot of effort. We already see this effect with schools. Schools are paid for by local property taxes, so if the locals are poor, own bad land (if any at all), then their schools get very little money, which in turn makes the next generation even more likely to be poor (with the crappy education they had, high paying careers are not likely).

One thing Republicans and Libertarians forget is that only some unemployment is caused by laziness. A certain percentage of unemployment is a necessary component of capitalism. (If there is no unemployment, then there is no pool of people looking for work, thus business can't hire anyone. There always need to be a small percentage of potential workers 'in reserve'.)

(No, I'm no Democrat in case you're wondering. I'm just someone who's sick and tired of the unthinking rhetoric that every single political party spews forth every day.)

Paranoid

[Erik Hollensbe]

You don't think there's a tax on import items already?

Yeah, but they can't tax a business in another country directly, only on their export of goods, AFAIK.

Do you really believe that tax will kill internet business? Remember, in the US tax goes to pay for government services which help everyone out, from education to military spending. Tax is not evil, taxes keep the US running.

Remove brain from head, wash thoroghly with government propaganda.

You have to be kidding. This is the same govt. that spent $5 million a year studying varying brands of ketchup?

Yes, you know, red, made of tomatoes...

Until we become a utopian society where money is a thing of the past, people like you have to understand how capitalistic societies work. If you don't like it, move to China.

Understanding it and liking it are two different things. I don't see how the first poster misunderstood it at all, he just stated that it's probably going to kill a lot of US internet companies. He's probably right.

-Erik-

Not likely

[TedC]

So, yes to Internet taxes, if it means that other taxes will go down, because it is a fair tax.

Not likely. Taxes rarely go down.

And no, it's not fair.

Here in the US we get taxed on our taxes. We pay taxes on our income, and then turn around and get taxed again when we spend THE SAME MONEY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TAXED. Whether this is legal or not is a subject of some debate, but it's certainly _wrong_. Anyone with one eye and half a brain can see that, if they're honest. But we put up with it.

Why do we put up with it?

The sad thing is, most of the world is just as bad or worse than the US.

TedC

Damn Republicans!

[wayne]

Please note that it was a Republican in the article.

Yes, I did notice. I have found it most humorous that your comment is the first I've seen that has mentioned the political party, either here on /. or on ZDnet.

Imagine if it had been a *democrat* that has said that!

Personally, I think democrats are mostly "tax and spend", while republicans are "borrow and spend", the latter being slightly worse 'cause you have to pay interest and it costs future generations.

Last year, the politicians in Washington (on both sides of the isle) claim the federal goverment has a $69billion surplus. In fact, if you take out the "surplus" that is going into the Social Security "trust fund", there was really a $29billion deficit. If you take into account all the other borrowing that goverment did, there was a $113billion deficit.

See The Concord Coalition for more details.

Register and vote Libertarian

[nelsonrn]

You can bet that a Libertarian government wouldn't be talking about more taxes....
-russ

Or Police, or sewage, or roads, or...

[nelsonrn]

Spelling is a necessary evil.
-russ
p.s. people used to think that religion was necessarily a subject for governmental control. Same thing for communication. *Your* failure of imagination is no constraint on reality.

Jefferson couldn't afford to free his slaves

[nelsonrn]

The government (note: the government) of Virginia required someone to put up a bond when freeing his slaves, to ensure that the slaves would not become a ward of the state. Jefferson, not being the idiot you think he was, was quite aware of the contradictions of his ownership of slaves, but simply couldn't afford to free them.

As for Jefferson boning his female slaves, the genetic evidence merely shows that a male in the Jefferson family passed on his genes. It could quite easily have been Jefferson's nephew, who was known to spend weeks at a time when visiting.
-russ
p.s. facts are such ugly things, aren't they?

Damn Republicans!

[Ken Broadfoot]

Less Government, Less Taxes ( bullshit ).

Please note that it was a Republican in the article.

The problem they see, I bet, is if they can't the fscking economy ( i.e. the High Tech investing that is driving up the NASDAC and the DOW ) to slow down they will lose another election.

Well, screw them.

I was expecting a flame war...

[Ken Broadfoot]

But I guess not.

I will look into that site though!

You're confused too

[Mr.FreakyBig]

Sometimes the government gets it right, albeit seldomly so. Remember, someone paid all those wonderfully creative people to create the Internet. Hmm. No one benefits from that, right?
So, the government created a new market, and should probably get a chance to make tax money too, as frustrating as that may seem. The thing to do is to make certain that the revenue is reinvested in the network, not just put in the general coffer, similar to the unversal service money on the phone bill.

One might compare taxing of the internet to federal subsidies for tobacco farmers, which help big companies produce a great product cheaply (cigarettes) which gets taxed by federal, state and local governments.

In a few years, and class action suits start taking on ISP's for sending illegal porn via usenet to children (or some such nonsense), great sums of money will be had for the trail lawyers just like with tobacco industry.

I love over regulated industry. BTW, I work for the Federal Reserve Bank, the company that suggests the Know Your Customer policy in which private banks are to profile their customers transactions and report any strangeness to them as a way of preventing money laundering. Yes. Big brother is coming. . . This rule is still pending review, but I am ashamed to be a part of the organization that drafted it.

Don't need paved streets

[K-Man]

Sales taxes mostly go to provide roads and parking for motorists to get to brick and mortar stores. For people who don't drive (or use Muni much, and bike to work), they're a ripoff, which is why UPS is delivering a dishwasher to my place in SF at this very moment.

SF Parking authority, kiss my a$$.

Thwack: E-mail tax?

[Ares]

There's a clue stick for you.

I believe sales taxes are already paid on most ISP service (I can't verify this. My access comes through the University, where the tac is tuition). How do you plan on tracking email messages for tax purposes anyway. A port 25 tax? We'll just have to move SMTP to another port.

Taxes

[dynamo]

Actually, taxes ARE evil.

It is wrong for a government to hold a gun to my head (or a jail sentence, same thing) and say "pay up". If I don't want to pay for a federal service, I should lose my right to benefit from it, but I should not have to.

I believe governments should be profitable. If government provides a necessary service, people will be willing to pay for those services on a more granulated scale, eh? If not, fuck it - we don't need it anyway.

Internet taxation is fair

[dynamo]

Taxing Internet commerce will be fairer overall, be extremely efficient (since it is, by necessity, automated!), and allow lowering of other taxes. I mean, the
government has to collect as much money as it needs anyway, and it is not as if the Internet needs tax breaks in order to grow.



The government is already getting far more than it needs. and I am not seeing any lowering of other taxes. Don't hold your breath, it ain't gonna happen. The government is a glutonous monolith absorbing rights and power from citizens of all types, one group at a time. It can't afford to ever lower taxes long term at it's current rate.


the only question is - where is critical mass - how much are americans going to put up with ?

If done right, its fair

[CMiYC]

The idea of internet taxiation would be okay, if it is implemented correctly. I can understand why it is wanted. The government looses money that would normally be going towards state income tax.

I just hope I don't get a 5% state tax, 5% internet tax, 10% microsoft tax, and a 5% tax because I wear a size 11 shoe.

---

NOT

[Particle Man]

How is a seller supposed to know where the buyer is?

I think the shipping address might give them a pretty big clue...

No you can't!

[Big Boss]

How can you bet that a libertarian government wouldn't do the exact same shit? Every party that has gotten into power talks one story and acts another...until we have a whole load of libertarians in office don't you dare go around spouting how much different it would be.

-----

So doing *NOTHING* is better??? How long shall the Ammerican people stand by and let the government trample them??? I agree, there is a chance the Libertarians will do the SAME things as the big 2. However, that is not a reason not to vote for them. The alternative, IMO, is to NOT VOTE! The other 2 both suck. The message THAT sends to polititions is that we are HAPPY with the way things are going!!!! We need to stand up and DEMAND CHANGE. We need to vote thier fat asses OUT if they don't do what we say, and NOW. Voting Libertarian sends a message, that we don't want the government meddling in our lives. And that we WILL vote them out (FIRE THEM) if they don't do what we want to vote how we tell them to.

Right now, like every monopoly, they don't give a shit because THEY DON'T HAVE TO. YOU WILL KEEP TAKING IT IN THE ASS, SO WHY NOT KEEP PUSHING!?!?!

garbage - Common misconceptions

[Big Boss]

For one, I allready have to pay for garbage collection. It's about $15/month to a private company. They provide the big plastic things to put the trash in, and drive arround and pick it up. Easy, and worth it, IMO.

Note that the LP (Libertarian Party) believes that the government's place is to protect life and property. They believe the government should have both a police force, as well as a military force. However, our military should not be running arround the planet interfering with other countries. We are not the worlds' police force. The police and defence would be paid for by tarrifs and service fees. Sort of like taxes I suppose, but your money goes to a specific service, not to the general fund that they can do anything they want with. It's very specific, and you can tell what they are doing, full disclosure.

And yes, if you don't own a car you shouldn't have to pay for the roads. If you want to ride the train, for example, the train fares you pay go toward maintaining the tracks and the trains themselves. If you drive a car, you allready pay property taxes on the car. I would think that a good soultion for the roads is to charge you a "road maintance fee" instead. As I said, it's basicly the same as a tax, but you only pay if you use the service and the money goes only to certain things. The DMV arround here probably collects billions in property taxes and Driver Licence fees. That should support the roads reasonably well.

Basicly, the government should provide services and charge for them like a business. What do you think taxes are? It's just that you can't see where taxes are going, and they always seem to go up with no benefit to me. In a fee-for-service structure, you know exactly what you are paying for.

If the government had to live within it's means and charge a fair fee for it's services we would all be better off. If the people won't pay for a service, we don't need it. This gives the power to the people, where it belongs.

It should be noted that I do not speak for the LP. I've just been researching them since I couldn't find anyone to vote *FOR*. The big 2 parties both suck, and I was looking for someone. The way I see it, not voting just tells them we want more of the same. Voting for the LP tells them I want my freedom. In any case, voting for any other party tells them I am not happy, which I want to do. I want the Republicrats to know I am not happy at all with the way they are handling things.

Do a little research before dismissing them as a group. You may be surprised, if you're willing to be open minded and logical about it. Compare the pros and cons and make up your own mind. The message you posted was just regurgitated drivel from the Republicrats, THINK!

For a good place to get info on the LP platform head over to LP Home.

Hypocrisy

[Big Boss]

The problem with your supposition is that the USA got by just fine for about 100 years without taxes. This, durring the industrial revolution. We led the way in pretty much every area of technology and innovation. Now, there is so much government interfernece and taxation that we are starting to fall behind. The Asian market crash is the only reason we still have the lead. Winning, and being lost too, are different.

It all comes down to if you think the government can do a better job of managing your money then you can. If they can make your life better then you can. I know, from experience, that they can't. If I did not have about $800/month STOLEN from me, I'd be quite well off, have no debt, and be in a nice home. Instead, I'm working my way out of debt SLOWLY, and renting a room. Yes, it's my fault I'm there, but I don't expect anyone to just hand me the money to get out, and I don't see the government looking to hand me MY money to pay for it with. Oh, and did I mention that the $800/month I pay to the government WAS NOT ENOUGH??? I still owe about $600 MORE!!!! This is causing me to be forced to live a lifestyle I do not enjoy. If I had all the money that is being stolen from me in my bank account, I would be much better off.

It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. And it's a premise that this country was built on. I don't know jack about Canadian history, so I won't comment on them. But here we created a country based on freedom and personal responsibility. And I, for one, would preffer it went back to that.

Any way you slice it, taxation is wealth redistribution. The government is attempting to play at Robin Hood. And doing a poor job of it I might add.

If you like the way they do things in Canada, I wish you the best. Enjoy it. I preffer the way our founding fathers designed this country and would like it to return to its previous way of doing things. What we have now causes more problems then it solves.

Travis

Hypocrisy

[Big Boss]

Sob story? Look who's talking! "We were treated like shit because we were immigrants from India" Yeah yeah...

BTW: Using a personal example isn't a sob story, it's a statement of supporting evidence from real life.

Again, you say government costs money, I provided alternate sources of revenue for a government and you get out a flamethrower. Are you capable of holding an inteligent conversation? Or is everyone that doesn't subscribe to your viewpoint without comment sick and wrong?

Yes, there were problems with the industrial revolution. There are problems with ANY change. There are also problems with just leaving things the way they are and ignoring the problem.

And the slaves were used for a number of things. Which is a moot point anyway as slavery was outlawed shortly afterward and still is.

There were a number of contributing causes to the great depression, it's niave to say that one thing alone could cause something so sweeping.

The economy is a measure of how people are doing. If there are no customers spending money, just how healthy do you think an enocomy can be? If the government is stealing our money, we have less to spend on other things. Thus lowering the overall health of the economy at large. It's simple cause and effect relationship.

Who is talking about buzzwords here, hmmmm? You're flaming about and playing the slavery card. As if profanity makes a better argument. In this last message you prove you have no clue. Go do some research and come back with inteligent arguments or go away. I won't respond to another message like the last one, as there is no point. If your entire argument rests on swearing and the contents of the first message, you have proven that you don't know what you're talking about and like to ignore factual evidence.

Travis

Hypocrisy

[Big Boss]

There we go. That's accually a good example.

I have to admit I'm not as familiar as I should be with the situation there. I think the basis of the problem with them is that they export everything. It all goes to other countries where people can afford the products. So here in the US and Canada we see those great shoes or whatever. Of course, they could be made domesticly, but it would cost more so the big companies exploit the Asian people to raise thier bottom line. It's easy to get what passes for a good "economy" in a situation like that. There is money flowing in and out of the country, so they declare it a good economy. But with all of the products being exported, they can't be used to raise the quality of life for those people. And the only people making real money are the people who hold the contracts with the companies elsewhere. The ones exploiting the workers. This is a regretable situation. It seems to me to have many parallels to the situation with the industrial revolution here in the US. Many workers were exploited to make the rich richer. I think I see what you're getting at here, but there is recourse available to people, and the way things are here in the present I can't see anyone getting away with something like that, even if the laws against it were removed. We are quite sensitive to things like that now, and would organize boycotts and such.. I don't feel that the laws regarding such things should be removed, but perhaps rewriten a bit. I would need more research on the topic to discuss that.

I think that the attitude that the economy is good while the people suffered could have contributed to the Asian market crash. As well as the great depression here in the US. At some point the money will stop flowing because there are not enough end customers to keep it self-sustaining. At that point the economy will crash.

I think the problem is how "economy" is defined. It seems to currently be used to discuss how much companies are making, rather then the health of the society. Durring the downsizing period you mention the profit margins of companies went up. Thus they term it a good economy. I have to agree with you in that it seems silly to do that. I think more needs to be considered to guage the economic health of a country.

What, exactly, do you "get back" in Canada? As I said, I'm not very familiar with the way things are done up north. Are we talking about government programs designed to help people with things? Such as housing, schooling, medical care, etc.?

It could be that your government accually makes good use of the funds it collects and has decent programs to help the people. But in the US I can bet most anyone will tell you it's not that way here. And not because they don't have money available to do it, because they are very wastefull and don't have the slightest idea what's going on arround them. What happens here is very simple, those of us in the "middle class" pay all the taxes, while the poor get dependant on handouts and the rich hide behined all thier tax shelters that the middle class can't afford.

The poor people on government programs can't afford to try to get a job and make life better for themselves because the government has it set up in such a way that the day they get a job they are off any kind of assistance. I believe it should cut off, but at least give them a chance to get a paycheck. This happened to someone I know. This creates a cycle of dependancy that is tough to break.

Most people I speak with in the US feel that the government corruption is so bad that it is literally "he who has the gold, makes the rules". The rich lobby the government and give "campaign contributions" (I call them bribes). And oh, look, the laws that get passed benefit the rich somehow.

This is the primary reason we have a problem in the US, IMO. The government was supposed to be, "By the People, For the People". That means ALL the people. And it's not.

This is why I presently subscribe the the Libertarian Party viewpoint. I think we need to move toward that direction. All the way there? Maybe not, nobody is always right, but it's a place to start. What choice to we have? Both the Democrats and the Republicans have made it worse, and put us in this situation to begin with. They have been given many, many chances to fix it, and always say they will, only to get back into office and give us more of the same. When groups start organizing and getting ready to go to war with the government, there is a problem. The militia movement in the US demonstrates this. The government still fails to get the message.

Remember, we have multipule parties to balance each other out. With the Democrats and the Republicans both much the same now, we need something else. It's no wonder to me that the vast majority of us in the US don't vote. We have had nobody to vote FOR! But to not vote just tells them we want more of the same, it no longer sends a statement other then that.

While an assumption behined capitalism is that a better economy means a healtier society, it is a proven FACT that socialisim doesn't work and only makes life worse for the masses then capitalism. You end up with fewer rich people at the top of the chain and far more people in a far worse situation then our poor people here in the US have to deal with in most cases. Not to mention no hope of ever getting a chance to make a better life for yourself. At least in the US you could start in the mailroom and become an executive in 20 years. I'll be the first to say it doesn't happen often anymore with the huge turnover rates I see arround me, but it can, and has happened.

Those are, of course, the two extremes. There is a large grey area in the middle where most every country now resides. Perhaps Canada has found a good balance. I don't know, I've never lived there. Or perhaps Ammericans just have different expectations. Keep in mind that this country exists because the colonists were sick of TAXES. And we pay far more in taxes then they did.

We're getting a bit far-flung for a SlashDot discussion, reply to Email if you want. We're allready way off topic.

Travis

Taxes, governments, new economy

[seichert]

I try often to think about the philosophy of taxation everytime I start to complain about a tax. I feel the government should be collecting taxes for transactions(i.e. sales, income, etc) for which it has given service to the participants in the transaction. For example, if I own a brick-and-mortar store I receive certain inherent government services(like police protection, fire department(assuming it is not volunteer), maintenance of public roads for my customers to get to me, etc). Therefore as a store owner I do not mind paying taxes to the government, as I am receiving services from them. As a consumer going into the store to purchase items I also receive inherent government services(again police protection for when I leave with my purchase, maybe even the FBI/police for investigating merchants that committ fraud against consumers, etc). I don't mind paying for these services because they are beneficial. Now when we move business transactions to the Internet some things change. The government provides less service to both the merchant and consumer than if the transaction happened in physical space. However there are still services provided so taxation on that basis seems fair.

Now if all of my tax money went to just pay for the services that I received from the government I think we would all be content. However, local, state,and federal budgets do not reflect this fact. Sales taxes, that consumers pay, and other taxes, that merchants pay, are used to fund other government programs. Here is where I object to the use of the taxes paid.

Taxes will never go away, it seems. But in theory, our governments(federal, state, and local) should be using technology just like the rest of us to increase efficiency and reduce the need for the numerous people they employ. If a company can lower the prices on its goods and services based on increased efficiency then the government should be able to do the same.

Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker

Internet taxation is fair

[afeinberg]

E-commerce taxes are perfectly legitimate. The only hurdle is that Congress should decide whether merchants should collect taxes for their state, or the state of the buyer.

Unconstitutional (maybe not)

[trims]

Problem is, the Supreme Court has always interpreted Sec 9 as referring to the States, NOT the Federal Gov't. So, that leaves it wide open for a US-wide sales tax on e-commerce. There is also wide dispute over the exact meaning, so it is by no means likely that any e-sales-tax is unconstitutional.

Also, mail-order has never been exempt from sales tax. The reason you don't really see taxation on out-of-state sales is: (A) the mail-order retailers have an extremely vocal and organized trade organization that screams every time someone brings up the subject (B) up till now, the states have generally conceded that tracking all the sales and distributing the tax would be "too hard" (this is generally bogus, but it's a convenient lie to get out of the fact that they cave to (A))

In reality, when you buy an article through mail-order, you owe YOUR state's sales tax to YOUR state.

Basically, if the state can show that it's not discriminating against other states, then it bypasses Sec 9. So, if a state taxes ALL ecommerce by it's citizens at a flat rate, well, it should withstand any court challenge.

-Erik

Inevitable...

[trims]

Knew this was gonna happen. I just wish:

• They'd pick a single, flat rate instead of going with the mishmash of state sales tax we have to deal with.
• Use part of the revenue stream to benefit the internet (like, maybe funding a domain-dispute resolution arbiter :-)
• Don't go anywhere near connection fees.

This should get interesting. I'm assuming that they're going to try to start enforcing sales tax on mail-order too. If they don't - wait for some internet company to sue. If they do, wait for the mail-order giants to start lobbying congress for exemptions to both. Should be one right big mess!

-Erik

Hypocrisy

[Laxitive]

Ok, I'm gonna go fucking psycho now. This whole anti-tax thing about, "I should not be taxed and all my money should be my own and no-one should mess with it" is completely hypocratic. You dont realize one fucking iota of government and organization works, and go shooting your mouth off.

Taxes are necessary. THey are not evil. If you dont have taxes, you dont live in a nice society where you are protected from bad people and where it is made sure that you dont starve. Slashdot has a disproportionately high number of libertarian freaks. Lemme tell you libert. kids about your messed up ideas - IT WONT WORK. Not only is it impractical, it is completely selfish, bigoted, and immoral. How the fuck can you expect people to pay ONLY FOR THEIR OWN STUFF? I can show you a little example by analogy: Canada V. THe United States. THE US is more libertarian than Canada - lets work from there.

In Canada, people go to work at 9:00 and come home at 5:00. They pay high taxes (Very high), but the majority of people's living standard is high. In Canada, the average family can hope to send their kids to a good school without being in debt for the rest of their lives. I know this because I have lived in the US for 9 years and have Just moved to canada. In the US, my parents and I would have had to pretty much pay off my university debts for the rest of out lives. ONLY after we came to canada were we able to afford a house, and a decent life. Being immigrants from India, the US treated us like SHIT. My dad, who went to college for no money because of his academic skill, and who worked from 9:00 in the morning to 11:00 at night every day, earned $24000 a year, just about enough for us to rent a crappy apartment and get through 1 year. Can you believe that shit? In Canada, we get taxed about 3 times as much - but our lifestyle is twice as good. Explain that. Your annoying freakish libertarian arguments are BULLSHIT. I have no great love for canada - it's not the cream of the crop by any means - and yes the US has some good things about it too. But the crazy notion that an individual has absolutely no obligation to the rest of mankind is completely selfish and fascist. I dont
mind more taxes, if it helps run government. I didnt like paying taxes in the US however, because it went more toward funding private companies than it did to helping people.

If the libertarian party ever wins the majority vote, I swear the US will have withing it a 3rd world nation, and a elite-nation - much like 1984's proles and the civil workers - except it wont be the government, it'll be the capitalists and the labourers. Read "The Curious Enlightenment of Professor Caritat" if you want to get an Idea of what a libertarian society will be like.

This is not a flame, I just wanted to get my views out on this horrible horrible "libertarian" idea.


-Laxative

Hypocrisy

[Laxitive]

Give me a break with your sob story. Do you know it actually costs money to run a government? It's not free, people dont volunteer.

You mention the industrial revolution. Sure the industrial revolution was great, but there were a LOT of things about it that sucked. LIKE:\

the black slaves in the south used to supply the
textiles with raw material so the industrial revolution could happen

the exploitation of millions of workers and farmers by large businesses.

THe cause of the great depression

What the hell does an "economy" matter if the people arent taken care of. What is this god "economy" we must all pay homage to? You think you can just say that one word and expect everyone to say "OH, JEEZ, guess you are right, because it affects the economy". An economy does not matter SHIT if the people in that economy are treated like crap. Indonesia had a fucking good economy the last 20 or so years.. you think it's worth a lot? Where do you draw the line between an economy and working in a sweatshop for $100+ shoes from Nike??? Buzzwords do not make good arguments.

-Laxative

Hypocrisy

[Laxitive]

Ok. I'll make a calm rational agument:

Take a look at the wonderful south-east asian tigers, which the U.S. just LOVES, despite that tricky little problem of dictators. Take your pick: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand. The economies there, until recently, were skyrocketing. Do you think it reflected on the living status of the people? What happened after so many years of a skyrocketing economy in south-east asia?? crash - call it Asia's black tuesday. Where are the people of south-east asia now after so many years of such a good fucking economy? They're starving and working in sweatshops. This panacea you call "a better economy" seems only to work for the rich - what a pity.

Lets take an example closer to home. In the US, the days of the highest economic growth was when the most companies were downsizing the fastest (as in early '90s). Isnt that ironic? The most people are losing their job, but the economy is doing great!

There is only one thing that a "good" economy veritably does: it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Sorry for calling your personal example a sob story by the way.. coffee is just wearing off.

I'll use my personal example. I moved to canada 6 months ago. Even though the economy here is not as good as the economy in the US, it is a better place to live. You pay a lot to the government, but you also get a lot back. Everyone gets a lot back. Canadian society is healthier than US society. A good economy does not mean anything if the people dont do well. The original assumption behind capitalism was that a better economy means a healthier society. This is simply not true.

-Laxative

Internet taxation is fair

[Virtua]

Right now, brick-and-mortar shopkeepers are disadvantaged compared to their online counterparts, and taxation is uneven: the technologically-savvy can avoid taxes buy trading on the Net.

Taxing Internet commerce will be fairer overall, be extremely efficient (since it is, by necessity, automated!), and allow lowering of other taxes. I mean, the government has to collect as much money as it needs anyway, and it is not as if the Internet needs tax breaks in order to grow.

So, yes to Internet taxes, if it means that other taxes will go down, because it is a fair tax.

elect a techie congress in 2000

[paulzilla]

this is why we need techies in congress. LINUX techies. does anyone else feel like they're not being adequately represented by their local mudslinger? anyway, despite the fact that taxing 'e-commerce' (to use the buzzword) is fair if done properly, this still sucks, because it would mean that i would have to pay more for all my cool geek junk. and isn't that really all that counts? :P

Internet taxation is fair

[Twigg]

A sales tax is a regressive tax, anyway, since it hits the poor (who have to buy stuff like food, etc.) more than it hits the rich (who are only taxed on the money they spend, rather than invest). Plus, you have to pay shipping on your Internet goods. Mostly, it's going to be nightmarish for people who trade on the Internet to deal with the 8 bajillion different state and local taxes out there. Do we make consumers responsible for paying sales tax to the local authorities or are the businesses required to keep track of this stuff?

Unconstitutional

[Detritus]

I don't understand the legal distinction, but a state will apply a "sales tax" to intrastate commerce and a "use tax" to interstate commerce. The purchaser is supposed to pay a use tax to his home state if he buys something from another state. I've heard of some states going after residents who buy big-ticket items like cars and boats in neighboring states.

Special Internet Taxes

[Detritus]

I could live with Internet sales being treated the same as mail or phone sales. I would oppose any taxes being targeted specifically at the Internet.

Scanning through some recent bills, I found a large number of taxes and "fees" on my cable TV and telephone bills.

Telephone:

911 Fee
Universal Service Fee
Gross Receipts Tax Surcharge
Federal Tax
Federal Subscriber Line Charge

CATV:

Franchise Fee
FCC Regulatory Fee
State PPV Tax

I especially like the federal "temporary" excise tax on telephone service that was supposed to help pay for the war in Vietnam. It is still there.

The federal, state and county governments all have their hand out and want a cut of the action.

If I ran a retail store

[IntlHarvester]

I would give customers the option - "We can ring up your purchase, plus the 8.75% California and SF sales taxes, OR, you can punch in your item number at that Internet terminal and not pay sales tax."

Obviously, this is a big loophole, and in f*ed up states like California where localities rely on sales taxes for most of their funding, it would be a big problem for those of us who like paved streets and sewer systems.

--

We have it worse in the UK

[Bigman]

Yea. Here in the UK I get taxed on 25% of the fisrt 19K of income, the 40% on the rest above that. Then if I buy a new car with whats left, I pay
1) The cost of the car
2) A new car tax (5% i think)
3) VAT (Sales tax) at` 17.5% on 1 AND 2
Then when I fill it with petrol I pay 400% tax on the fuel.

To use the favorite phrase, Govenment SUX.

Um, no

[Bigman]

I don't really understand this. Here in the UK, companies are taxed (VAT) based on sales. Why does it matted WHO your selling to ? You take the money, you should be taxed on that sale. Or does the purchaser pay the sales tax ? That seems a little bizarre.
Anyway, I think that there should be no distinction between orders taken by 'phone and those taken on the Internet. Definitely no extra taxes...

Unconstitutional

[mattc]

Bwahahahaha! Since when has our government followed the constitution?? It is just a decorative piece of paper to them!

Special Internet Taxes

[mattc]

We are probably still paying for Vietnam... you know, with the national debt and all. Although I guess most of that is from Reagan.

Paranoid

[Paranoid]

Well aren't we just slightly paranoid.

Its not paranoia, you really ARE out to get me.
--
Paranoid

You're confused too

[Paranoid]

Remember, someone paid all those wonderfully creative people to create the Internet.

I thought Gore created it for purely humanitarian reasons.

--
Paranoid

This would work

[Paranoid]

They are organized, or could if not already, as 501(c)3 nonprofits under the education class.

and whats to keep www.gayhorseporn.com from doing the same thing? These people can easily (and probably already have) set up mailbouncers from shell accounts anywhere around the world. I think the proliferation of mp3/warez sites on the 'net should show something: if sites like that can stay up (and they do more... they actually thrive), counting every single port-25 tcp/ip connection would be totally impossible.

Don't get me wrong, I hate spammers and I'd love it if it would work, but I don't think it would. :)
--
Paranoid

Inevitable...

[Old Ben]

Right now, sales tax is only paid for mail order if the buyer lives in the same state as whoever is selling. That's how this tax should work, too.

BTW, what the hell is "e-commerce"? It's just like mail order... why come up with some silly name?

NOT

[Zebulun]

its not going to happen.
afaik, legislation has been in place for
quite a while that require online stores to
tax interstate sales, but it requires that the
seller voluntarly report the income and pay
the taxes.

Also, this is unrealistic in a global market.
How is a seller supposed to know where the buyer
is? Who is he supposed to pay the sales tax to
and whose going to regulate and police it. While
the FBI and CIA are crying like babies that 40bit
encryption is too hard and that hackers are taking
over satellites, the power seems to be in the
hands of the people.

Same reason the CDA and CDA II failed. Internet
is not a US only network and locations are in
IPs, not addresses and zip codes.

-Z

Internet taxation is fair

[sethg]

A sales tax is a regressive tax, anyway, since it hits the poor (who have to buy stuff like food, etc.) more than it hits the rich (who are only taxed on the money they spend, rather than invest).

In some states, food and clothing are exempt from sales taxes; presumably this is to reduce the sales-tax burden on the poor.

Excise fee

[Evan927]

Actually, the excise fee was started during World War 2. The goverment needed money, and phones were (at the time) untaxed. Later they realized that nobody noticed the tax, and it has been there ever since.

Isn't our goverment great?

we pay almost as much in shipping damn it

[webslacker]

@$%!&*#@! $70 for airborne express on a G3, or $50 for UPS groundtrak across the country. the reason why most net stores have reduced prices is because they _know_ we have to pay shipping (and taxes in some cases), and they only way they can keep an edge on brick & mortar retail is keeping their prices down! Guv'mint diots!

A common misconception

[Fizgig]

There is a big difference between a sales tax and shipping costs, because sales taxes are artificial while shipping costs are real. Shipping costs reflect something real. Your item actually should cost that much more because it has to be shipped and thus costs more in the end (production + sales + delivery). Sales taxes, on the other hand, are artificial. Just because the government slaps on a tax does not mean the real cost should be higher. Think of it this way. Suppose there were no sales taxes and ecommerce people were at a disadvantage because they had to ship things. Would you support putting a tax on the nonecommerce people so the ecommerce people could compete better? No, that would be stupid. If they can't compete on a level playing ground, they should go bankrupt. I hope this explains things.

we pay almost as much in shipping damn it

[Fizgig]

I will explain this for the third time now. Imagine that there is no sales tax anywhere. Thus, the internet places have to charge a LOT less because they have shipping on top of not being able to provide a good immediately (unlike a retail store). Would it be fair, do you think, to put a tax on the local stores so that the internet stores could compete better? No, that doesn't make any sense. Shipping is a real cost that actually represents someone having to do more work. Sales taxes do not. They represent the government getting funds. They are very different things. Sure, I like being able to buy things off of the internet for cheap, but this can't go on. It really is unfair.

E-mail tax? It would never work.

[PanIc RidE]

A $.01 tax on an email message would never affect a worthwhile spammer.

I know someone who SPAMs professionally. He literally makes hundreds of thousands of dollars PER DAY! Last I heard he makes approx. $20 per email he sends. What would one cent do to twenty dollars? It defiantly wouldn't put him out of business.

If there weren't so many credulous AOL'ers out there, we wouldn't have this problem.

Well... There's my 2 cents. Can I have my change please?!

~PanIc~

Physical Retailers NOT at a disadvantage, IMHO

[Serk]

The often listed excuse that non-taxation of internet commerce puts physical retailers at a disadvantage is not true, IMHO. The main reason being, whereas physical retailers have to add sales tax to their sales, I've found that the shipping charges incurred on internet (Or mail order, for that matter) purchases usually are equal to, if not greater than the sales tax that would have been incurred if I'd purchased the item locally. Obviously, for high price, small physical size items this would quickly be reversed, but for low price, large physical size items (I.E. Computer cases) you can quickly end up paying more for the shipping than the item. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it all evens out in the end as it stands now, and if i-commerce is taxed, that will remove one of it's main benefits. Ack! I've rambled pretty bad now, haven't I? I'll shut up now. =)

Physical Retailers NOT at a disadvantage, IMHO

[Serk]

Nothing makes me think I alone should be exempt from taxation (Although it would be nice. =) My point was that I'm sick of the defense of internet taxation that the lack of it puts physical retailers at a disatvantage. And yes, the warehouses consume resources in the community that they are in, they also employ people who pay taxes, they pay property taxes, etc.

Slashdot can raise some noise...

[CodeShark]

As a previous poster mentioned, this particular Congressman is (unfortunately) one of the more powerful corporate milk-fed political mouths, one that is probably deserving of an early end to his political ambitions.

Unfortunately, I do not live in Louisana, or have any family/friends, etc. who I could call up and have a little influence on. So all I can do is join in this rant, and hope the web makes enough noise to let Tauzin know that he's way off base on this one.

Perhaps we can really use the /. effect in a major way on this: go to the House of Representative's email response page and bring the sucker to it's knees with his name plastered all over it.

Ought to make him real unpopular with 434 other representatives, don't you think?

Tax...? Tax -what-?

[Yasha]

Last I checked.. the Internet was a loosly held, privately run cooperative.. how in the hell does the government even have -jurisdiction- to tax something like that in this fashion? If I run a mail-order company, my remote customers do not have to pay sales tax.. but if I advertise and take orders on the net.. I do?

(Before the correctness folks yell, yes.. I am aware of the subtleties of interstate commerce. I am being brief on purpose. Other have already expressed views about import/export vagaries)

No...no... this stinks of big money lobbying to me..nobody's constituents want something like this. I would bet that some big money is moving behind this scene. Somebody doesn't like the Dells of the world..

---

Unconstitutional (maybe not)

[The Cat]

The seller is responsible to pay sales tax, and, (I believe) sales tax can only be collected if the buyer receives the product in the state.

Simple prediction:

[FreekyGeek]

The result of this is a no-brainer to predict: most states will enact taxes, but a few won't. Internet-based businesses will all flock there. They are happy because they get more business from no sales tax, and the states is happy because although they lose sales tax they make more business tax and personal income tax. This is not possible with retail stores, so the "flight" effect has been less pronounced.

Also, as has been mentioned, many places will simply go offshore.

Internet taxation is fair

[Whitechapel]

I mean, the government has to collect as much money as it needs anyway[...]

Rubbish. The government collects as much revenue as it can without resorting to armed robbery and still winds up spending more than it takes in.

So, yes to Internet taxes, if it means that other taxes will go down, because it is a fair tax.

This will not happen. I'd be very surprised if taxes ever went down--our government is already used to getting a fair chunk of our incomes and has grown to need that chunk plus a little extra. Like any other animal that doesn't have to compete to survive, it's gotten fat, stupid and happy.

As for taxes being fair...I disagree. Taxes aren't fair; I'm forced to pay for things that I don't want to buy and don't need, and some of what's taken doesn't even get sent to its nominal purpose. I as a citizen would pay for public education, police and roads--maybe some vaccinations. Why must I also pay Social Security (that I'll never see, BTW) and welfare?

Internet taxation is fair

[Whitechapel]

Of course it's fair. That's why the techosnobs who thought they could skip out on paying sales taxes while the poor and people who don't have internet acesss would still have to pay sales taxes are so bent out of shape over this.

Are you defining the word "fair" to mean "everyone gets screwed equally"?

No you can't!

[Sabu mark]

You're saying their personal shortcomings a priori invalidate their opinions? Not bloody likely.