Slashdot Mirror
Senator Proposes 5% Tax on Web Transactions
rhet writes "A South Carolina Senator has proposed a bill that would levy a 5% federal tax on all sales conducted over the web." I guess we kinda know its only a matter
of time, but its still a bitch. But Uncle Sam wants his piece.
Unfortunatly you can't quit your job for welfare, but it is an idea... Then we will really truly be a communist country where everyone is paying for everyone else and no one is really working...
not to mention gubberment in general with its dead but still kicking departments, like the one that brings powerlines to farms. Their job was done over 20 years ago but they still exist.
They'd be saying "OH my God, but what would the former IRS people do" if we had a flat sales tax of 15%.
Lowmag.net
Uncle Sam is the actual name for our country. See? it's convienent, Uncle Sam = US.
Actually Uncle Sam is our equivalent to big brother. Supposed to be like your uncle guiding you to manifest destiny or some other bulldrek. Mostly he's seen pointing a finger at you and saying "you voted for it"
Lowmag.net
5% in most parts of South Carolina except those areas that have a local 1%.
note: I'm from South Carolina, but I didn't vote this bastard in.
Interesting, I wasn't aware. Just goes to show that I am not even remotely a lawyer, or a legislator, or a judge. Too bad I can't moderate this one up myself.
This I do find odd, though, as states cannot, for example, create treaties with foreign countries, so I would have thought that foreign export would technically be more of a federal thing and this would refer more to interstate commerce. But at least according to the Supreme Court as of 1901, this is not the case. Who knows, perhaps there could be a reinterpretation. But I doubt it, as the federal government is becoming more powerful, not less. (Which I think means they would want to control state export, which would mean that they'd have to reinterpret that clause to mean something else. Argh. I'll shut up now.)
So he was partially right about the crash. Regarding the "it hurt the poor" tone, my guess is that Analog is glomming together the "Reagan-Bush years" and thinking of them as the same thing. Lots of liberal commentators have done that in the past. For the record: Reagan generally cut taxes (but not spending) but Bush raised taxes back to where they were. So fiscal conservatives generally loved Reagan and hated Bush. Reagan served in office from 1980-1988. However much credit you choose to give the president, the poor probably did a lot better in the low-inflation Reagan era than the high-inflation Carter era, but growth rates dropped a lot (and spending and taxing increased a lot) during the Bush years.
(Side note: don't blame me, I vote Libertarian)
I play Nerd-Folk!
Nope, the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. (this year/last year?)
Senate Record Label Hearing
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
When was the last time the Government had to pass an amendment to add a tax?
:)
And where in the United State Constitution does it say that passing a tax is not legal? I couldn't find anything, but I did find this bit...Article 1, Section 8 - Powers Of Congress
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
I don't like the concept of a web tax either, but hey, we could always sell things through telnet.
In South Carolina if you buy a used car from an individual, you have to pay 5% sales tax on it when you transfer the registration, even though it is as USED car bought from an INDIVIDUAL.
Some years ago the state sales tax in South Carolina was raised 25% from 4% to 5%. They were able to convince people that this was a 1% increase in their tax burden!
The increased revenue from the higher sales tax could only be spent on education (as in Holling's latest proposal). However, a few years later they ammended the law so they could start spending the money on other things. I guess if they spent too much on education, the public might start being able to do the math!
they make enough in taxes already. $75 out of every one of my checks goes to already worthless programs. I am not here to pay the way for someone else, nor is the Internet.
The address is http://www.house.gov/writerep/
If you choose, visit the address above and fill out the necessary form!
If EACH one of us, forward this message on to others in a hurry, we may be able to prevent this injustice from happening!
But that was written before widespread mailorder was a concept. Time change and so should laws.
That said, I think it's more reasonable to set up a system where state sales taxes can be levied on mail order goods than for there to be an indiscriminate federal tax.
The sales tax concept is not evil. What's evil is that they are used in addition to a plethora of other ways to get your money.
The ideal tax would be a U.S. wide national sales tax or VAT/GST *BUT* with also eliminate income taxes. Then everyone would have to pay their fair share, including drug dealers who buy tacky gold-trimmed BMWs, foreigners (take that, I have to pay VAT when I go to your country) and rich ass holes that think nothing of spendng $80K on basic transportation.
Rule #1: Never trust a politician
Example: Steve Forbes wants a flat income tax. But guess what? His plan just taxes wages and my ole my, rich old fucks like Steve Forbes have *ZERO* income from wages. All of his income comes from inheritance, capital gains, and other investment income. Under his plan, none of that would be taxable.
But bottom line, an Internet Sales Tax is evil and stupid as sin because we are taxed every which way there can be, it ignores the international nature of the net (US politicians still haven't figured this out), is probably unconstitutional, and poor jerks in states like Tennessee with very high sales taxes as it is would get nailed twice for a purchase made instate.
Now then, I realize that much of this e-mail will never be seen by the Senators, but the noise on the mail servers will be. That said, however, don't even begin to think about sending flames to these addresses. These are not the people we want to alienate -- these are the ones who can prevent Senator Hollings mistake from ever seeing the legislative light of day, e.g., killing it before it even has a chance to breathe. So if you are going to write, clarity and sanity counts, vulgarity and rants don't!!
Here's the addresses for the Senate Finance Committee Members:
- Roth(DE)
- Moynihan NY)
- Chafee (RI)
- Baucus (MT)
- Grassley (IA)
- Rockefeller (WV)
- Hatch (UT)
- Breaux (LA)
- Murkowski (AK)
- Conrad (ND)
- Nickles (OK)
- Bob Graham (FL)
- Phil Gramm (TX)
- Bryan (NV)
- Lott (MS)
- Kerrey (NE)
- Jeffords (VT)
- Robb (VA)
- Mack (FL)
- Thompson(TN)
Note: this was a lot of hand typing, so if I messed up an URL, I apologize.The full list of pages and addresses can be found at: http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
How can we tax *all* web transactions, when some of those transactions occur outside the good ole US of A?
Ah, so I should ask what I can do for my country, instead of what my country can do for me? Sorry, I don't buy into that kind of thinking. Government is allowed to exist for our sake, not the other way around.
The reason to educate children is it important for the child, not the country. If I have a child and cannot afford to educate my child due to having my income taxed to pay for my country's utterly lame idea of so-called "education" then the country will have screwed me and the kid. Either way, the country loses, so why not go with the option that helps the kid?
---
Have a sloppy night.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think we need to take a step back. I think it is almost impossible to define transactions that take place over the Internet, and the distinction between an internet transaction and more traditional means of completing a transaction is only technical.
Take a step back. Any Interstate transaction that involves the delivery of physical goods should be taxed consistently, no matter how order place place - rather it is via telephone, email, web phone, or IVR. Who cares? How is ordering over the Internet any different than ordering from a catalog and calling a 1-800 number? Why should the transactions be treated any differently?
-josh
And there goes the incentive to conduct in this thing called "e-commerce." And then the states will charge a tax. And then the fed tax will increase to include a tax "for the children" and to "prevent terrorism" and to help fund the NSA...
Sales taxes are evil.
Ok, that's fair. I spent most of the Carter administration overseas, and remember the pain of trying to buy a house when we got back. Reagan was president at the time, but hadn't been long, and I suppose he was handed a messy house when he took over.
OTOH, by the late 80's, we also were well into a recession big enough that many wanted to classify it as a depression, including one of the largest stock market crashes in history. I wasn't really trying to say he was a worthless president (I voted for him myself), but his economic policy traded short term gains for long term problems; while it tended to benefit those with money, it hurt just about everyone else in the long term, and the overall economy with it.
The hypocrites better start taxing the more lucrative telephone, mail and fax orders first.
Of course, with the Feds involved, the states don't get their share unless they ascede to silly demands made by Congress, just as highway funds aren't returned unless the minimum drinking age is 21.
Something tells me that some sharp Congresscritter will realize this.
--
Gleepy the Hen. More intelligent than the average hen.
Maybe you just don't know what quality healtcare means ...
Another thing..
What is the tax rate there in Norway ? How much of _your_ money do you keep and how much is taken by your goverment ?
You sound like a typical news media person. I make a point about how the billing methods for education is unfair, and here you are, rebutting me by explaining that education is a good thing (which implies that I had taken an anti-education stance).
(No wonder our legislators are afraid to act responsibly!)
I never said don't educate the kids. I just think that the kid's parents should pay for it.
Well, lighten up my taxes, and maybe I'll have an easier time to pay someone to wipe my drool. Or maybe I'll have a kid, and since I'll have the money and freedom to education him well, the wealthy Dr. Sloppy Jr. will have an easy time taking care of dear old dad.
---
Have a sloppy night.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Your point is well taken, but do you really want to live in a world dominated by the military? Life on Earth would be so much better (IMHO) if the military were given a low priority. However, this cannot happen anytime soon because of other countries who are still learning that life is a lot more than money and possessions.
Rajiv Varma
Online retailers should be very, very worried. This is going to be pretty bad for the overall economy, too...
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Well, since the Senate passed that $792 billion tax cut, you'd have to think they would have to make up for that in another tax. I just hope it actually goes to something worthy, such as education or the sciences and not to the military. Of course, this tax could confuse some people, therby making e-commerce just a little harder for the computer-illiterate. But realistically, couldn't the government just leave the 'net alone for another decade to keep its progession going? Government interference in these matters can be either good or bad, and it looks like the latter is about to come true. Well, better buy stuff while you still can "tax-free".
Rajiv Varma
The Federal Government does not have a mandate to collect ANY taxes on behalf of the states. To do so is in direct violation of the 10th amendment.
Internet transactions, like all interstate transactions where a business is in one state and the customer is in another state, are very simply transactions for which there is no taxing authority.
Unless, of course, you count the income taxes both parties have already paid on the money they have, the business taxes levied by the City, County, State and Federal Governments, the capital gains taxes the business owner has to pay, the state income taxes paid by the customer, the taxes on the telephone (in most cases) used to connect to the Internet in the first place, the property taxes paid by the customer and the business, the inventory taxes paid by the business, the gas taxes paid by the company that ships the merchandise, the Social Security contributions (taxes) paid by the business owner and the customer, the income taxes paid by the shareholders on the dividends paid by the business (if they are publicly traded), and the capital gains taxes paid by those same shareholders when they sell their stock (assuming the stock is able to increase in value after all the business capital is paid out in taxes).
Now, the government asks for a tax increase? The Federal Government is running a surplus. Read that again. They have more money than they need. This extra revenue was generated, at least in part, by the internet.
But, of course, if more than three people do anything in this country, there will be someone who proposes a bill to tax it into the ground.
...for the children, of course.
I say, pass a bill that:
1. Establishes a permanent no-tax policy for the Internet
2. Repeal all sales taxes (they are obsolete, anyway)
3. Cut income, capital gains and property taxes by 50% across the board at all levels of government.
The resulting economic windfall will make further tax increases unnecessary.
By the way, what happens if the business (or customer) is in another country? Is there a similar proposal to charge a 5% import or export duty?
Opposition to taxes is not odd. The money belongs to us. We earned it. It does not belong to the government.
The tax code has one purpose: to generate revenue for the operation of the government. That is all. It should not be "encouraging" anything.
For the Federal Government to "divide the revenue" on behalf of any two states is unconstitutional.
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Um... does anyone else see the problem here?
If the US imposes an increase in the cost of sale of goods purchased over the internet, it will cause a direct exodus of the e-commerce industry from the US.
If you can reduce the cost to customers by 5% by not locating within the US, any content producers (selling downloadable, non-shipped material) will re-locate to Bermuda to avoid the taxes. As for regular Amazon.com types, there will come a time where they will say "why not go to Canada or Mexico, our savings on taxes will offset the extra shipping?"
Then the US Fed will understand why taxing transactions on an international location is unreasonable.... it would put any remaining businesses at a 5% disadvantage, and in a world with PriceScan and other ShopBots...
Tax revenues would be WAY, WAY, down in the long run as a result of this.
Someone help me out here!
~ rt ~
Your private school just proves that when they are allowed to exclude "problem students" they can educate the students they pre-select at a lower cost. When your private christian school accepts 50 students at random who they don't have the right to expel if there is trouble teaching them, then your arguement will make a bit more sense.
Poaching all the well-behaved students whose parents care enough to spend $4000 a year on their education is not a good measure of what a voucher program would be like. In particular, a voucher program is gonna take down some of those schools. When every kid gets the money, there will be a lot more problem kids forcing their way into the private schools.
But anyways, private schools are good. Vouchers are more likely to ruin them than help them.
If the Federal government doesn't fund schools, what's the Department of Education there for? Actually, the Federal government does provide funding for schools. Heard of Clinton's "100,000 teachers" program? Or the "Goal 2000" program, which is a federally-mandated set of educational standards? The Fed's don't run the schools directly, but they do have a lot of indirect control, but attaching strings to grant money and making the districts jump through hoops to get the money.
Besides, since when does anyone pay attention to constitutional limits on Federal power? 2/3 of the things the Federal government does are never mentioned in the costitution. But the Supreme Court has made up nonsense about the Constitution being a "living document," which means that if the plain meaning of the text doesn't suit them, they can make up a new meaning. The fact that Federal education spending is unconstitutional doesn't slow them down a bit.
from what I have read taxes should have been done away with after the great depression. I hate the idea that people get sent to jail and even commit suicide because the power the IRS has. I am all for a new tax system...
Someone has already calculated how long the Federal Govt would be able to run if your scheme was implemented. Guess how long it was? About 100 days. I guess you also don't care that the capital of these individuals had been used to finance businesses that provided goods, services, and jobs for other people. But it would be unlikely that these people would stand around and let themselves be robbed by the Federal Govt. As for the children, all it would do would teach them is that it's best to be mediocre and not try to excell, otherwise you will be punished for it.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
well... my old french teacher told me that she only made 25K/year and she told me that wheh I was renting a video at blockbuster... she was working there to suppliment her income...
I certainly think it's fair. The more someone spends, the more taxes they pay. They are still paying less in taxes and would still be receiving benefits from govt programs for the poor. If you want to make it more 'fair', then eliminate a sales tax on groceries. I would much rather pay a sales tax than an income tax. Why is it 'fair' for some bureaucrat to decide that someone making $X a year should pay y% of it in taxes, while someone making $A/year (A
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Damn Liberals.
That's not technically the trickle-down effect. For that to be a "proper" trickle-down effect, the entire economy would have improved to the extent that tax revenues did not go down. Somehow I doubt that happened.
Well, if the Japaneses are actually dumping (selling below cost or building up a gigantic surplus and then releasing it all at once), we should stop them. That is illegal and stopping it is not an abuse of the system (real dumping is when WalMart moves in and sells below cost to drive out. I don't think the Japanese steel mills are actually engaged in "dumping", though, and it is wrong to stop them.
I don't doubt that taxes play an important part in your purchasing decisions, but again I must say, "What if there were no taxes?" Would you have moved? Taxes may be lower in the second county because it is run more efficiently. In that case, it's good that you moved; society is better off now. If taxes are lower because the second county leeches off the services of the first, that is bad. It may be good for you that you moved, but it is bad for society that you moved.
Taxes are lower for online transactions just because there is no tax, not because it is an economically (different from "financially") disirable way of doing things; if prices were the same, people would not be inherently better off because you buy things online.
How does that tax encourage purchases, by the way? (not that I think that's an example of a "good tax" anyway)
Of course, sales-tax (and other duties) still applies : but it is payable in the state where the seller resides.
Also, this only applies to goods for "personal use".
I personally don't see the point of sales-tax. If it didn't exist, you'd pay more income tax, but the way things are, you have a higher income, but you can't use it to buy more with it because it's too expensive (in The Netherlands sales-tax is 17.5%)[1]. So if you can't spend it, save it, right? But interest-rates are supposed to make you want to save (at least that's what they say on the news), not taxes.. Darn economists..
[1] income tax can be as high as 60%, but for most people is about 40% (that's excluding pensions, social security etc, which are paid before taxes, so in total The Man takes something like two-thirds..)
(Oh, I suddenly get where they got the within-US thing from : it's not ok to tax things being exported from a state, but it is ok to tax anything being imported into a(nother) US state.. )
--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Uhm, NO. Bad free schools beat ANY form of basic education that has to be paid for. I mean, isn't it somewhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the right to free basic education?
Actually, private schools are typically cheaper *and* higher quality than their govt. counterparts. This is the free market in action. Monopoly schools have guarunteed funding, so they have no incentive to please their customers. A private education market would be a lot better than what we have now.
As for those who can't afford it, there would be a lot less of them if people weren't forced to pay twice, once for the public school and once for the private. And I'm not necessarily against a limited voucher program to help pay for the education of those who really cant' afford it. But this should be done at the state and local levels, not the federal.
Please, why does this always come up? Do yourself a favor, read up on Waco. The FBI weren't the only evil idiots on site there. The IR footage shows, during the fire, Waco members firing INTO their own structure, killing their own people.
I suggest you watch the documentary "Waco: Rules of Engagement." They have extremely well documented evidence on several fronts that the government used excessive force, lied about what happened, and ended up murdering the Davidians. This includes video footage of them shooting into the compound.
IT WORKS. Look to Canada. We have a system that functions. One of the best free systems around. Sadly, the US keeps stealing our doctors cuz they get paid better elsewhere.
Doesn't that tell you something? Doctors are probably well-paid enough in Canada that they don't really need the money. I suspect a large part of it is the ridiculous beaurocracy that acompanies an government program.
In any event, I know too much about economics to believe that government health care is a good idea. The US has the best medical care in the world for a reason: they have the closest thing in the world to a free market.
Buddy, there's more to the world then just the US. Militaries can be effective internationally. Peacekeepnig is a Good Thing(tm), although a mass unsolicited air campaign isn't really.
I can agree with military spending too, but only for self-defense. If you look at the history of US foreign policy, most of our imperialistic actions since WWII have fallen flat, causing more misery than they caused. You might be able to make the case for occasional intervention, but 90% of the dozens of places we have gone are worse off for it. That includes Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, and many others. In all of these places, we came in with some feel-good idealistic goal, and came out with body bags, a nation that hates our guts, and a local government in shambles. Not much of a track record.
The world would be better off had the US been "isolationist" for the last 50 years.
Oh, please, everyone, get a clue. Any Senator can introduce any kind of lame-ass bill. It's mostly all PR (hint - election year coming up).
Fritzie-baby is a DEMOCRAP. Congress is presently controlled by REPUBLICANS. Particularly in light of recent internet legislation, this bill is going NOWHERE.
After next year, who knows? Keep this kind of garbage in mind when you vote next year.
That is the single scariest thing I have ever read on Slashdot.
Upon what system of ethics do you base the right to rob someone blind in the name of "self-sacrifice"?
I'm really hoping you were just being sarcastic, but somehow I doubt it.
Uhm, NO. Bad free schools beat ANY form of basic education that has to be paid for. I mean, isn't it somewhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the right to free basic education?
My wife and I had to make that choice with our kids. We chose to send them to a private school where they get a very good education, as opposed to the 'best' public schools in the area, where they would get a mediocre one at best. If the public schools were doing a good job, they would be going there, but they aren't. Wasting money on a bad education is not a good thing
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Folks,
This senator must be about one of those likeable stupid fools that get elected with OP/CM (Other People/Corporations Money).
Tax and interest rates are government tools/ways of restricting/controlling economic/cultural/social change.
This senator and his supporters are feared of change and losing control/power/....
Is he republican, democrat, a/o wanna-be?
Many US politicians are just know as DemReps up-there without a clue?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Subject to the interpretation of a court. But I will stand by my statment that this is never going to be made a law in the first place. Hell it will probably never even be submited for a vote. So it is rather a moot point.
THIS HAS NO CHANCE OF BECOMING LAW
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Well, one point that seems to be missed here is that there are constitutional issues with taxation that our so-called "powers that be" overlook. Most glaringly is that the constitution does not have any facilities for taxation. The government just likes to take our money and live like kings on it. It pisses me off..........
Same thing in New York. What I always did when I bought a used car was lie on the registration application, and say I paid a lot less than I did.
Usually the seller agrees to give me a receipt saying I paid him less than I did. Helps to pay in cash and make that part of the deal when you get the car I suppose.
I'm not sure about the legality of this, but they didn't seem to check these things very carefully anyway.
"Well Mr. Smith,we shipped a Rolls-Royce. If what you got was a Yugo, your decryption software must be faulty, or you've got one of those flawed floating-point Pentiums."
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
always looking for new taxes instead of cutting government spending we don't need or want because it serves some vocal constituency
---
you only pay $75? 1/4 of my paycheck goes to the govmt. Then add sales tax, car tax, etc I get even less. I should quit my job and just go on wellfare.
I have to return some videotapes...
A nation can tax transactions which occur inside itself.
The problem is that the Net is not physical. It does not exist in any nation. Not even the US, even if the US created it.
If the Net were to create its own governing body (yeah right, like that's going to happen, though it might just have its uses) then it would have the right to tax transactions within itself (of course, it would need a form of currency first). But for a nation to tax transactions within something which isn't even within its borders, but in a sense isn't even on its plane of existence? Absolutely preposterous. I hope it doesn't pass, even though I know it probably will (that's the government for you; it used to be that it'd tax the hell out of you and still spend more, now it doesn't even spend all the money it gets yet it taxes even more).
Doesn't that tell you something? Doctors are probably well-paid enough in Canada that they don't really need the money. I suspect a large part of it is the ridiculous beaurocracy that acompanies an government program.
Actually, having lived in Italy, USA, Canada and France, I have to say that there is more (or much more) burocracy in the US health system; and it's definitevely more evil. As far as quality goes, a student plan in the US sucks; better: it sucks a lot!
Nonsense. If I physically visit a store, I am benefiting from the presence of police who make sure that I can bring my money in and take my goods out unmolested, firefighters who make sure the store doesn't burn down around me, etc. Thus, it is not unreasonable for me to pay taxes to support these services.
If I order remotely from somebody in Podunk, I am not receiving any of these benefits. (The store is, and should pay for them out of its own profit margin, but that's a different issue.)
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Add the fact that it is un-Constitutional for a tax bill to originate in the Senate.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
And worst yet, you had better odds with the numbers operations that you do with the government. My parents have wasted thousands of dollars on lottery tickets, and I keep telling them they'll have much better luck finding a local game.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Reading the article carefully, we see that the aim of this tax is to build up a trust fund for education - paying teachers salaries out of the fund.
"WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!"
Isn't this the same kind of #$#@! they pulled with Federal Highway Funds - a big pool that can be selectively doled out where the Feds see fit?
I can see this as a new method concocted to control local school boards. Once the local school districts are dependent on Fed funds to operate, the Feds can finally have control over local school boards. "Oh, don't like the new Federal Education guidelines? Well, we'll just have to withhold the Federal Education Funding...".
We can't let the esteemed Senator get away with this.
Teachers are employees of the school district in which they work, not the federal government. They are funded by the local school district, which is funded either by local levies, or by the state. Teachers are not paid by the federal government, so a federal tax cut will not affect their wages.
And, just FYI, the average wage for teachers at the high school I attended is over $55,000 per year, for 9 months' work.
--
A couple of intersting news items I saw in the last couple of weeks regarding the Feds and spending. 1.) Congress rips the DoD for spending several million dollars on a new fighter plane being developed to supercede older fighters after Congress told them they (the DoD) can't spend money on it. 2.) Congress tells the DoD they must spend money on older, more expensive cruise missles that the DoD doesn't want as newer models are more precise and less expensive. (Three guesses as to what the relationship is between the company building the older cruise missles and the senator/representative who sponsored the bill that mandates the construction of those same cruise missles.)
Yep. Our Congress knows how to spend our money appropriately... NOT! This is the sort of thing that burn the collective butts of Americans who see through the charade of the Govt. doing what's best for the people.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Not to nit-pick, but if less consuming were going on, more saving would have been going on. More savings means more investement. We then hit a recession during the early 90s, which might have been prevented if there had been less "consuming going on". Not that I think this guy had any idea about that. Maybe he really didn't know what he was talking about.
The moderation on the above post is a load of leadership (Dilbert reference). Let me get started:
#1. Private Schools:
Uhm, NO. Bad free schools beat ANY form of basic education that has to be paid for. I mean, isn't it somewhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the right to free basic education?
Sure, private schools outperform the public system, but at a cost that can't be handled. Some people just can't afford it. Now, a fundamental reform of public schooling.. That I'd go for.
#2. Law Enforcement
Re: Waco.
Please, why does this always come up? Do yourself a favor, read up on Waco. The FBI weren't the only evil idiots on site there. The IR footage shows, during the fire, Waco members firing INTO their own structure, killing their own people.
Again though, valid points raised: The NSA for one. They need a reality check. In the end, no thanks to the NSA. And get rid of Reno the Facist and we should be ok.
#3. Public Healthcare
IT WORKS. Look to Canada. We have a system that functions. One of the best free systems around. Sadly, the US keeps stealing our doctors cuz they get paid better elsewhere.. (Yes, there are other issues to be thought about with the Canadian Health Care system, but it doesn't suck)
#4. Social Services
Axe anything resembling government pensions. That is all. =)
#5. Military
Buddy, there's more to the world then just the US. Militaries can be effective internationally. Peacekeepnig is a Good Thing(tm), although a mass unsolicited air campaign isn't really. I can agree with military spending, but nothing as extravagent at the US has.
So don't whine when taxes go your way. While they could be collected/spent better, the basic underlying concept is a good one. If you don't like it, don't stop paying them, just change the how. The US just happens to have gotten it all backwards again.
Why should the Fed. get a tax on things bought over the net? They don't milk us for enough money on income, capital gains, FICA, Soc. Sec., etc? I don't think so.
If anyone should receive the tax on the business, it should be the state where the transaction takes place? The government is not entitled to sales tax in person-to-person transactions (like at your neighborhood Wal-Mart), the same applies here.
I wish I was a Politician... AACCKK!!
It's funny that the people at the power don't really have a clue of what they're doing. I mean, how can you tax information? Next thing you know, routers on the internet because they're in a certain area will add thier tax too? C'mon...
But the local government and education infrastructure are still wasting your money. I doubt you are exempt from the local taxes that support the mediocre public school you chose not to send your children to.
My wife and I are looking to move to an area where the grade schools are better. Several people we know ahve already done this. The local school officials don't want the parent's input or involvement in the education system. In fact, some parents that have tried to push the issue have been threatened with having the police called if they show up at the grade schools. So, we're looking to either move or, if my income increases sufficiently in the next couple of years, send the girls to a private school. I'll still wind up paying for the local crappy public grade school system, however.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Federal taxes don't help local commmunities; local taxes do. The federal tax would go into a pot for someone to tap into. And guess who is going to tap into it? The same idiots who tapped into the Social Security Fund.
"Oooooh look! More money to fund our stupid projects."
Reminds me of Gingrich. Built a Coast Guard for his community. Dumb thing about it is they are landlocked; where's the coast? Oh I forgot. They have a coast called a lakeshore for that man-made lake they needed for their useless Coast Guard.
'til dawn...
Everyone can read the Constitution, but it still doesn't change the fact the Federal gov't can fund education through block grants. No the Federal gov't can't force the States to do what it wants, but it can restict the funds from them if they don't comply. I haven't read this bill, so I dont know if the grants from the Internet Tax are 'no strings attached' or not.
Sure the Federal gov't is getting too big for its britches, but that's the global society we live in now. Maybe the State govt's are more competent now, but they have been very poor in the past which is why we have more heavy on the federal end. National issues get much more media exposure too.
Right now, the parties are playing PR games with taxes. While they would like to pass real changes, the Republicans know that the tax cuts they're passing will never become law with a Democrat in the White House, and the Democrats know that a national Internet sales tax will never become law until they control both houses of Congress.
If Republicans really wanted to cut taxes, they would pass their massive tax cut as a bunch of separate bills, each with one cut--the lower rates, capital gains cuts, marriage penalty relief, and estate tax elimination. Then Clinton would sign one or two and veto the rest, but at least we would get some tax cuts. Of course, that's bad politics because then it's easier to portray some of those as tax cuts for the rich, playing into the class warfare Democrats always use when tax cuts are proposed.
You say "Democrats" but Sen. Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon)is the one who wrote the Internet Tax Bill last year that PROHIBITED any state or local taxes on Internet transactions. He has also led the fight to stop this Hollings bill. Wyden had a hell of a time passing the Internet Tax Bill last year because many REPUBLICAN Senators (McConnell, Burns, Lott) did not want to take away the taxing authority from local governments which tend to be more Republican. He pushed it through only after exhaustively pointing out how absurd 1000's of state and local Internet taxes would be.
A tech=saavy Democrat like Wyden, (also a key opponent of the "Communications Decency Act") is not helped by knee-jerk nerds who don't know enough about politics to know that Dems (Bingaman, Dodd) have done more than Reps over the years to promote technology, and recently to keep the governments grubby paws off the Internet.
R = small, non-intrusive government & D = big, agressive government is about as simplistic as saying that Windows is better than Linux because It has more users.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
in saying that *all* of the money goes into education, it may not be that bad an idea.
As long as they don't increase the tariff on international orders (hah, free trade my ass). I live on the east coast of Canada, where duty is a bitch, and I still pay a 15% tax on top of that (the company sometimes registers to automatically include the tax in purchases, such as Digi-Key, else the tax is charged at the border). If the money was guaranteed to do something useful, like being spent on education (my high school upgraded from PETs to 286s a couple of years before I got there, that's unacceptable (though we still played with the PETs)) I wouldn't mind so much.
However, it seems that this money is going to our expensive "millenium song" and into one-industry towns turned no-industry towns where people refuse to leave (hmm.. money going out is high, money coming in is virtually nothing, I wonder where the magic money is coming from).
I wish we had such a guarantee.
Why is it a more "level" playing-field to tax internet sales more than other catalog sales (phone, mail-order)? Catalog sales seem to me to be a far better analogy to describe on-line sales than the "brick-and-mortar" system would be.
Congress is trying to cut taxes now (A bit to much IMHO but that is besides the point). Now Congress
has every legal right to tax transactions over the
net. (Read the constitution folks) but I can't see
them doing it. Esp now that we are runing a huge surplus off of the taxes we already have.
So Call your senitor if you want, but don't expext 60 Senitors to vote for this one. (You need 60 to add a tax amendment for some reason that I don't understand.)
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Well, Amazon.com didn't ship my books by email either. I give them my card# over the net and they have UPS send me the books. Just like this guy's example. They give him the number over the net, and he sends them the car by some other method.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
IT WORKS. Look to Canada. We have a system that functions. One of the best free systems around. Sadly, the US keeps stealing our doctors cuz they get paid better elsewhere.. (Yes, there are other issues to be thought about with the Canadian Health Care system, but it doesn't suck)
... we have enough problems here without public healtcare.
Lie !
I personaly know people who were so fed up waiting for MRI ( 6 months ) that they came to US and got it done in about one week.
There are many, many canadians crossing the border to get quality healtcare here is US so stop spreading your propaganda
But the local government and education infrastructure are still wasting your money. I doubt you are exempt from the local taxes that support the mediocre public school you chose not to send your children to.
The local school system spends at least $6k per student and does a rotten job. This is still more expensive than the most expensive private school we've looked into. I know I'm not exempt, so I'm still paying for both. It's sad that I have to. I think the big school systems have long ignored inputs from parents and that's one of the reasons they are screwed up. I would be nice if people who pay for private schools would get an exemption of some sort, but the NEA, the ACLU, and the public school systems would drag it through the courts for years.
The previous poster made it sound as if spending taxes on bad education is a good thing as long as it's 'free' -- an idiotic statement if I've ever heard one. No wonder the intelligence level of society in general seems to be on the decline.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
If you've been following the recent debate on the $700 billion tax cut, you certainly would have heard that billions of dollars from our last budget were inappropriately tagged as 'emergency funds' (which are excluded from budget balancing calculations). Now we have a trillion dollar 'surplus', and the Republicans want to cut taxes by over $700 billion.
We can't afford it. Our government is still in debt; agencies are being strapped for cash; and 'emergency' spending is running us further down. If this tax cut goes through, then God help us that this Internet tax is imposed lest our teachers be forced to work for free.
As the article being linked to says, how exactly is this law going to be passed given the other law, passed last year, that specifically says that neither Congress nor the states cannot pass an Internet taxation law until after the year 2001?
BTW- Assuming something like this eventually passes (it will), how IS anyone going to stop Amazon.com from hiring a couple of thousand phone operators instead of an ordering page, then shipping the books/CD's/etc. from Papua New Guinea?
Oh well. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner or later, someone's going to come up with a viable third party. If a crackpot billionaire could do it in '92, some other crackpot billionaire can do it, too. After that, maybe people will be able to do their own taxes without a tax attorney who charges half as much as the taxes were...
I've thought about things like this too. It seems like the most plausible implementation of a truly representative democracy. (How to get there from here is a big question.)
It might be useful to break out different decision areas to proxy to different people. On your pet issues, you could assign your vote to others who closely represent your views on those issues. For remaining issues, a default proxy could be assigned, or abstention could be the default for some people.
As for "bread and circuses", it's not clear how to resolve that. Sure, a supermajority can be required, but would that be enough? Hopefully, most people would proxy their votes to someone they personally know and trust and consider to be a thoughtful and responsible person. Those people, in turn, could further proxy those votes to people they trust to make good decisions...
Eventually, you end up with a few people wielding serious power, but with a difference from the current situation. When those decision-makers reach such heights of power, potentially voting for millions of people as a group, they are forced to abide by the trust placed in them. If they attempt to violate that trust, the next layer of proxy voters would recall their proxies and change the votes, to abide by the trust placed in them. If the trust was abused repeatedly, the proxies would be reassigned permanently.
This would ensure accountability throughout the system, and make it more difficult for a privileged minority to grant themselves even more privileges at the expense of the majority. Basically, it would be a practical implementation of grassroots politics.
The question remains -- how do you prevent the "tyranny of the majority"? If an issue arises which taps into the passions of the majority, even a supermajority could potentially override their proxies to force a foolish vote, even if the normal decision-makers (as determined by the chains of proxies) would be wiser than the majority. This could be "bread and circuses" or simple instances of the majority trampling the rights of a minority they don't care for.
How could this be effectively prevented?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
It will be interesting to see if the gov. does try and tax the net, their are alot of people against it Including my self, the comment at the end of the article suggest that it is Inevitable, Thats not the attuide I would suggest to the public. Because If enough people would get off their asses and actually get involved, things would be diffrent.
Dude If you dont like 45% taken out of your check, call your gov rep. and ask her/him to support lower income taxes. get involved.
Copied from one of the first lines of the article:
A South Carolina Senator has proposed a bill that would levy a 5 percent federal sales tax on all goods sold over the Internet or through catalogs.
While I would agree with you if this article didn't mention anything about taxing methods other than the web, this "hypocrite" wants to tax other means too.
If I sell my 10-year-old car to someone I met on AOL, is that taxable?
If I sell my 10-year-old car to someone by charging their credit card, after getting the number via e-mail, is that taxable?
If I sell a motherboard to a PC reseller, who will charge retail tax to his/her customer, is our first transaction taxable *again* just because we made contact over the Web?
Huh? Huh?
Somebody better make some clear distinctions between business and personal transactions!!!
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
That's in pretty plain language. They'd have to come up with an amendment to get around that one.
A federal sales tax would have states spitting mad, since the states eventually do want a cut, but their ability to get a sales tax put on top of a federal tax would make such a tax tiny, or even impossible to get through. Any congresscritter interested in getting stateside support for their reelection will get a very unsubtle hint from their respective governers to ditch the idea.
Besides, if the transaction were carried out entirely inside a single state, such a tax would be blatantly unconstutional. The supreme court has recently ruled in favor of states' rights on an unprecedented scale, so this would be a slam dunk.
What is the case is that you're not going to see net sales go untaxed forever. I mean yes, there's encryption, but then that's simply tax evasion, which the seller would be busted for (the seller pays the tax, the buyer reimburses the seller).
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Its a proposed bill. It may NEVER get to a vote
Having SAID that...what are they defining as a 'sale'? If I sell my used widget (having bought the new widgetstation II), is that a 5% taxable sale? How about if someone asked me to do some work for them via e-mail, I do the work (remotely over the net), and send them an electronic bill, is that a 5% sale?
The mind reels at the permutations.
And, what are they going to DO with this money? Lower the debt? Or just give tax cuts to 'the rich'?
Like most Democrats, Sen Hollings thinks government knows better than the common citizen. Further, like all politicians, he's a control freak. "Can't control the web, then tax it."
I, for one, still shop at my friendly old bookstore (and at Amazon.) There are reasons for both.
The web is great it adds to my life. Adding taxation would diminish the experience.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
When a high school, for example, wants federal funding, they have to jump through loops and red tape to get it. The fed will allocate say ten million dollars for new English books - for example. The schools will have to remake their whole English programs to adapt to Federal regulation.
For these two reasons, the money will not actually get there. I would rather spend that few hundred dollars a year (I order a lot over the web) on my own education - buying books from fatbrain.com. Spend more on education? that's MY poragative, and for MY education.
Down with new taxes.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Well this looks like an interesting law... howevere I'd like to see something a bit more like.... any transactions across state or federal borders being taxed by the feds and the money sent to the state (or states) involved. Locals would
get their money without having to resort to making
pacthwork of local sales tax laws. I guess we'd have to figure out what makes a state involved... probably state where item is purchased and state where web server exists would work. This would also allow local communities to recapture tax revenue lost through mail ordering/etc. Not sure if I'm too fond of feds dictating how money must be spent though... but paying the salaries of teachers is a rather noble thing.
In Minnesota, there is a 'use' tax for things ordered mail order, internet, etc - the same as MN sales tax, they just say if you buy something that way and use it in minnesota you pay them 6.5% same as if you bought it here. There is a $770 a yr. exemption for individuals though.
So, if i call my supply co. on the phone, i only pay %6.5, but if i go to their website, 6.5% PLUS %5? screw that.
Juln
United States
n a
c m
l
e
See?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...there are easy way around this. Amazon just relocates its SSL servers to Botswana, and presto - I'm no longer purchasing an American good.
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I'm not sure but I think it's from U.S. - United States or Uncle Sam.
I wonder if the Government is going to use this new tax as a way to cover the FBI wanting to build the new "big brother" public network watcher...
What is the point of having the tax anyway? Don't they realize that this is going to kill the future of online buying... Why don't these fools every think of this crap ahead of time? I think that the Congressmen need to use the Internet before the decide the fate of it.
The proposed Internet tax is nothing special. Until telephone orders are taxed why should Internet transactions be taxed?
RantMode=1;
Of course, that kind of logic is irrelevant -- the real point is to increase taxes. The more kinds of taxes there are and the more sources and justifications those taxes have, the easier it is for people not to notice just how much they are being taxed. And, the easier it is for them to support taxes that they do not directly pay.
For example, taxing the manufacturing of automobiles only raises the cost of purchasing cars -- on which you will also pay sales tax. The net effect of taxing such production is to unfairly burden domestic goods while giving foreign goods from lands with lower production taxes an advantage.
The whole point of putting half of our social security taxes on the employer's side of the ledger is simply to make the citizens think they are paying less tax. The costs to the employer, however, are the same whether the whole amount is put in your column, the employer's column, or split as they are now. The cost to hire you is the same and the employer knows how much you cost. Just like the self-employed, the employee is paying this tax by his or her labor.
Now, if all taxes were accumulated in one big tax -- without even the fiction of claiming the employer is paying some -- we would finally know how much tax we pay and we might offer more resistance.
Internet-specific taxes are just another source of revenue. The taxing opportunity here is to divide and conquer the tax base by convincing the non-connected that we Internet users are not paying our fair share. Further, we are probably rich as well, considering recent high-profile Internet property acquisitions.
Hide some taxes, make others confusingly indirect, use the popular programs to justify additional program-specific taxes, and even call a few taxes "fees". And, most important of all, make each new tax apply to a minority of taxpayers so the remaining majority will support, even demand, it. That is the plan.
The proposed Internet tax is just a small piece in a much larger and very successful taxing scheme.
RantMode=0;
Geeky modern art T-shirts
Being a UK citizen (even though I live and work in NY for the moment) I'd love to know how this cretin intends to impose at 5% US federal tax on a transaction between Hungary and Haiti...
Perhaps someone should explain what that first W means again...or maybe we should start using URLs for the form http://usww.blah.com
This sig left unintentionally blank.
From http://home.nycap.rr.com/content/us_bio.html
Historians aren't completely certain how the character "Uncle Sam" was created, or who (if anyone) he was named after. The prevailing theory is that Uncle Sam was named after Samuel Wilson.
Wilson was born in Arlington, Mass., on September 13, 1766. His childhood home was in Mason, New Hampshire. In 1789, he and his brother Ebenezer walked to Troy, New York.
During the War of 1812, Wilson was in the business of slaughtering and packing meat. He provided large shipments of meat to the US Army, in barrels that were stamped with the initials "U.S." Supposedly, someone who saw the "U.S." stamp suggested -- perhaps as a joke -- that the initials stood for "Uncle Sam" Wilson. The suggestion that the meat shipments came from "Uncle Sam" led to the idea that Uncle Sam symbolized the federal government.
Samuel Wilson died in 1854. His grave is in the Oakwood Cemetery in Troy.
Uncle Sam's traditional appearance, with a white goatee and star-spangled suit, is an invention of artists and political cartoonists; Samuel Wilson did not look like the modern image of Uncle Sam. For example, Wilson was clean-shaven, while Uncle Sam is usually portrayed with a goatee.
Thomas Nast, a prominent 19th-century political cartoonist, produced many of the earliest cartoons of Uncle Sam. However, historians and collectors take note: Many of Nast's cartoons may appear to depict Uncle Sam, while in fact they depict Yankee Doodle or "Brother Jonathan." It is easy to mistake a Brother Jonathan cartoon for one of Uncle Sam, since both figures wear star-spangled suits of red, white and blue. As a rule, Brother Jonathan was drawn with a feather in his cap, while Uncle Sam was not; and Uncle Sam is nearly always drawn with a beard, while Brother Jonathan was clean-shaven.
Some have suggested that Dan Rice, a 19th-century clown, inspired Thomas Nast's Uncle Sam cartoons. Rice's clown costume consisted of a hat and star-spangled suit, much like the costome worn by Uncle Sam. However, Rice was born in 1823, and did not begin clowning until 1844; and Uncle Sam cartoons appeared as early as 1838. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Rice was, in fact, the inspiration for Nast's cartoons.
The single most famous portrait of Uncle Sam is the "I WANT YOU" Army recruiting poster from World War I. The poster was painted by James Montgomery Flagg in 1916-1917.
Many early examples of Uncle Sam cartoons can be found in The Foremost Guide to Uncle Sam Collectibles, by Gerald E. Czulewicz (Collector Books, 1995).
It seems to me, Americans are always opposed to taxes, regardless of how it is implemented, and what it is for. So don't pretend all the whining is just because this is about net trading.
I just wonder, do you REALLY want to live in a county with no public schools, no law enforcement, public healthcare, or social services, no military defence. What about infrastructure (roads), etc. etc.
All tax money don't go to "stupid projects". Quite a lot of it is actually used to build the society you all live in. Is it so bad you'd rather be without it?
Not even close.
.... The rest of the story.
Comes from Samuel Wilson, who ran a slaughterhouse during the war of 1812. He already had the nickname "Uncle Sam" (being a rather avuncular kinda guy I guess), and he would stamp barrels of meat rations for the troops with "U.S." (as in United States. The troops started nicknaming it "Uncle Sam Rations", and since everything else for the army had U.S. on it, they started referring to every piece of property of the US as "Uncle Sam's".
His hometown apparently preserved a lot of historical data to back this story up, and now it's about as official as it gets: in 1961, Congress enacted a resolution honoring him as the man behind the "Uncle Sam" moniker.
And now you know
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
So, we just browse for price on the web, then pick up the telephone and call. PITA, but hey...
Don't they realize one of the reasons people shop online and spend so much is because there is *no* tax?!?!
---
Joseph Foley
InCert Software Corp.
I absolutely agree. Online ordering sure isn't that much more convenient. I can typically run down to my local book or software store and pick up what I need and have it the same day, rather than waiting a week or two to get it shipped to me. It's the money I save that makes me willing to wait. If I'm suddenly paying just as much to get it online, I'll just run to the local store and save myself the troulbe. Even if I'm only saving a couple of bucks, I'll still go local, because the "have it right now" factor is usually worth a couple of bucks.
You sound like a GST proponent ;)
;)
Lets not forget that if all taxes were combined into one super tax the cost of administering all of the various forms of taxes (not only at the governmnet level but in the public sector through tax accoutants etc) would be drastically reduced, easily enough to cover this 5% internet tax
Most poster's fall into the demogagic trap of less taxes=good. I do share concerns that the fed will be unable to effectivly localize tax revenues to the good of the originating community (gasahol anyone?)
Rantmode=1
If you are involved in a meatspace manufacturing or retail job you concerns is retaining a living wage. It is not an issue of freedom of information but of taxing one labor intensive (read more jobs in the brick and mortar world) in order to indirectly subsidize internet sales. The internet is one of the most heavily subsidised mediums in history (arpanet anyone). Inteliigently we should move to an information service model whereby the internet moves as a medium of social benefit to all people not just those who optioned out or can afford computing resources.
end rantmode
Taxes of all people built the internet is it not fair to expect they should begin to reaps its benefit?
I can't find an appropriate thread for my comments, so here it goes...
The only way to fairly do this is to make a federal sales tax on EVERYTHING. A phone, fax or mail order should count, as we get the product by mail. And what about the store fronts that have a showroom and a web order site? Just because web orders aren't taxed doesn't mean the feds should do it.
I try to support local stores, but really, I hate driving. Amazon doesn't really discount books enough to take the hit off shipping, their main benefit is having books in stock and at my door in a week, but I really don't remember ordering much from them, at least I check them out.
A better way to 'help' communities is to change some laws or ammend the contitution to clean up the 'export' loophole, but that might move the 'mail-order' businesses outside of communities that charge local taxes.
Hollings, get off my back. Fix the stupid national debt while you are at it, rather than finding new stupid problems to spend money on.
subsidy? How much of the existing GLOBAL internet infrastructure came from the original ARPANet, and how much has been built by commercial organisations (UUNET, Qwest, etc). Further, given ARPANet kicked off in the 50's, it's been paid for several times over by now.
Also, your same argument should imply that all phone-based purchases should be taxed, because not everyone has a phone...
Taxes of all people? Bollocks. What a parochial attitude. Think world, not US - remember it's WWW not USWW
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I find the rabid opposition in some quarters to a tax on internet transactions to be very odd. I think the argument for taxing internet transactions (as well as mail-order) is clear.
First, let's assume that sales taxes are a reasonable way for states to raise money. Given that, isn't it odd that internet transactions are exempted from state sales tax? In fact, the current exemption for such transactions amounts to the tax code preferring interstate transactions over in-state transactions.
When the tax code encourages something, you get more of it, so the tax code will push more transactions web-ward. This will eventually seriously erode the state's tax base, which is a real problem.
The solution seems clear: set an interstate sales tax rate that is close to the average state sales tax rate. Then, via some formula, divide the revenue between the two states involved in the transaction (i.e., the vendor's state and the buyer's state.)
This hardly seems like a mad power-grab by the government. Just a sensible way to regularize the tax system.
Jeeze, that guy scares the hell out of me sometimes... "400 million dead today as a chunk of the west cost fell off into the ocean, but that's not important, have I told you how much I love my Bose Acoustic Wave radio?"
How is the gov't possibly going to keep track of the bazillions of transactions occuring over email and such. There are millions of websites going up and down as well. The internet is a very slippery, very fast moving target where 80-90% of ppl online are giving the finger to the fed. The only business that could be taxed are very established ones, and things are tending towards being less and less established all the time with monopolies busting down into tons of smaller companies. Video games(emulation), The music biz(mp3), movie biz(vcd & asf), the medical industry(eBioMed), I CANT WAIT for the revolution to tear up on the auto industry, car parts auctions (ditch those expensive dealer parts in pretty packaging), fiberoptic systems with centralized lighting to light cars or LED lightbulb replacements, mp3 car stereos, the ability to have linux running on your brainbox so you can adjust the fuel ratios, new radical engine designs. Basically an 'Open Source Car Project'. The possibilities are endless. Finally a chance to screw the american auto industry which makes piece-o-cr4p cars that breakdown like mad. Someone should put up a website that averages out how many cars break down on specific stretches of uphill road to discover the 'lemons'.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
I find prices on Amazon over the web.
Then I call their 800 number and order the part.
That transaction was not made over the web. But of
course, the congress-critter can't have that!
To make this stick, anyone who advertises prices
on the web (PC-PDA-NC-Dreamcast accessible IP
protocol conformant computer) has to charge 5%
on their prices. A 'catalog' could be defined
as this by some ass-judge.
Well, that includes WalMart!
Screw Mr. Hollings from SC, this is idiocy.
-kabloie
Wake up, log off there, and go out and stand in the green grass in your bare feet, dude. Unless you're underage you have the right to vote in the USA.
Where are you ??
Sweden ?
Honestly speaking, I always blame stupidity first before ascribing insane things like this to something more sinister. Specifically speaking, I doubt that this is due to brick and mortar involvement- it's due to grotesque stupidity on the part of the stupid, but well meaning, senator.
Please refer to definition of Satire Then remember
1) Think
2) Post
geach
My sense of the absurd looks forward to the point where we're ordering from Mexico and Canada to avoid these taxes. Way to kill a fast-growing US industry, guys.
I already have to pay insane shipping charges for items purchased online, now I have to pay this too? This is insane. The advantage of buying stuff on the internet was you could find stuff cheap. These extra charges just counteract it.
Hey, have a nice one, guy.
Speaking as someone who has and most likely never will buy anything from the web, I have to ask so what?!? So the techno-snobs will have to pay taxes on the stuff they buy just like everybody else. Big fucking deal.
like i'm sure the law will be:
/.
ok so i get online and i goto one of these places selling crap on the net. i fill my shopping cart full of crap and instead of hitting the "checkout" button (or what ever it is called) i hit the "quote" button. the web page can generate a number associated with that quote.
next i call the crap peddler on their 800 number (all crap peddlers have 800 numbers) and say "i need to make a purchase; i have a quote number" i give them the the quote number and what ever else they need to send my the crap and i am done.
no 5% sales tax to help the kiddies
basically what i am saying is that there is no real way to enforce this. not to mention international trade.
i guess i need to go write my senator telling him what i think of this-this would probably do more good than bitching on
-- john
Here's a thought:
Let's see... keeping the math simple for we Mac people, a top of the line Mac configured as a Photoshop über-station is about US$5000. 5% of that is US$250. Guess I'll be phoning that order in to Apple...
Companies like Dell who sell big-sticker items via the Web are going to be majorly po'd at this one. Who's going to pay for the luxury of online build-to-order when it's going to jack the price up by 5%?
Other random thoughts:Are shareware authors exempt? I routinely register about US$300 in shareware (e.g. Anarchie, Summary, GraphicConvertor, IPNet Router) online each year. I'd rather give the authors another 5%.
Two words: Porn Sites. Yup. They're going to take a hit as well.
US Post Office. You can buy stamps online, so are those stamps subject to the tax?
What if I buy a CD from Amazon.co.uk because it's unavailable in the US?
What if I access my banking account online and set-up an automatic, monthly bill payment? That's an online transaction, after all.
Theough this bill is probably dead due to constitutional, states' rights issues (kudos to those who pointed out Art. I Sec. 9!) it's still a harbinger of things to come. Ye olde Consitution has taken a lot of hits in the past decade and I wouldn't be suprised if the rat bastards tried to grease this bit of government expansion through the Oval Office.
Time to break out the laser printers my friends--write your congressmen... actually, write Clinton and tell him to veto it. Why? Porn sites ;-)
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
...how f*cking ameri-centric americans are.
Yes, I'm an american too but I also work in the industry, and consider myself a member of the global community.
Tax my farts, before they are downloaded for free off of farts.com!
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
It would be impossible to keep track of all of the transactions, and anyone implementing this would be hated. Just what we all need, sales tax and now web tax? Perhaps sales tax on subscriptions, i can almost understand, but still.
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
Uhh, everybody else doesn't have to pay taxes? There's no taxes for transactions done over the phone, etc. Try thinking outside of the box for once.
If we here in the USA had the
right to vote
I don't understand your comment. Last time I checked, we directly elect our senators and representatives.
If you mean that we should vote on the tax itself, holding a referendum on every single change in the tax code would be impractical.
Wouldn't it be nice to be able to
dump everybody in congress every 2 years?
Your representative is up for re-election every 2 years. Each of your senators faces an election every 6 years. You can dump them if you'd like, by voting for someone else.
A better solution: you should tell your elected officials how you feel about this issue. We can complain about our government all we want, but if we don't inform our representatives of our wishes, how can we expect Congress to heed them? Write your senator today and tell them how you feel about this tax proposal. (Be polite.) With the amount of people who visit Slashdot, I'm sure this would make an impact.
And also, people should make sure they vote! We live in an age of low voter turnouts. You cannot expect to have your wishes reflected in a democracy if you do not exercise this fundamental right.
The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
Senator Ernest Fritz Hollings (D SC)
Phone: (202) 224-4923
Fax: (202) 224-6121
As much as Congress hates the idea of a "Democracy" we do still have a voice. And with many Slashdotters there are here, we are a big voice.
I would also suggest that you call your representative/senator (since this will have to go through the house first.)
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
"Got Linux?"
Take a Western Civilization course or two -- you'll be amazed how much more sense the world makes. =^)
--
Internet purchases fall into two categories. Orders in which the Internet is used solely as a communication medium (exactly like telephone orders), and orders for information which can take place totally over the Internet. The first class is of no concern as they are exactly like telephone orders. The second category will probably be the most lucrative in the long run, but a tax of this kind could never be enforced.
Why? The entire transaction takes place on the Internet, so geo-political boundaries are irrelevant. I don't care if slashdot is hosted in the US or in Africa. All this will lead to is the migration of business to a less taxable domain.
IT isnt frikken neccessary you need to learn what the internet is really about, Free Information that pretty much includes everything that happens on the net, the masses are just trying to turn into somthing that its not.
There's a better way to arrange our taxes: check out FairTax.
I've given them (FairTax) quite a bit of my paycheck, because I'd like to see their ideas become reality.
The only problem is getting the politicians to agree with it.
Cheers,
KenB
--
test
as far as I know are things you can only excise within your borders...and the internet isn't quiote within the United States' borders. Do the Senators that suggest these types of legistlation even understand what they are talking about? Most likely not. If this actually goes into effect we'll probably see e-commerce sites opening up Canadian, Mexican, or Christmas Island branches, anywhere the US won't be able to impose it's taxes. Hmmm...ebay.cx?
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There's a better way to arrange our taxes: check out FairTax.
I've given them (FairTax) quite a bit of my paycheck, because I'd like to see their ideas become reality.
The only problem is getting the politicians to agree with it.
Cheers,
KenB
PS I posted this as both a comment to the first post, and as a new topic, to ensure that a wider amount of people would see it: those who view only top-level articles (Threaded), and those who view in Nested mode (like me). I apologize in advance if this double-posting offends anyone. Enjoy!
--
test
Dooley v. US applies to US law (federal). This doesn't apply to State law. You are correct in your original post. However, since 99.9999% of the people in the US are US citizens then Dooley v. US applies. If you are not a Federal citizen, then they can't force this tax on you.
'til dawn...
An example of "trickle-down" theory in action (I believe the phrase "trickle-down" to be deplorable, by the way) is my county and the one to the south of us. I moved to Butler county (north of pittsburgh in Allegheney county) for one reason and only one reason: TAXES. I was paying 2.8 percent for income, I now pay 1. Sales tax is 7% in Allegheney, outlying areas have a tax of 6%
You'd be amazed How much of a difference this makes. Also, if they taxed the internet transactions, I'd stop buying things online. The only reason I buy online is the tax break as well. For example my purchase of a palm IIIx saved me a heck of a lot of money:
Compusa $370 + 25.09 in tax = ~400 dollars.
Buy.com $293 + 10.00 s+h = 303 dollars.
You see, I saved ~100 dollars on my purchase! That's called being a smart consumer. Take every advantage.
BTW: you mentioned how taxes discourage purchase, but you don't mention encouraging purchases.
I'll give one:
Japanese dump foreign steel. We tariff them to make sure things are "fair" (which is an abuse of the system) Steel mills are happy, American car manufacturers are not.
Lowmag.net
Big Lie, eh? Please, post specific citations,facts,figures, public statements, charts or graphs.
Lowmag.net
Sounds like the government wants me to buy form companies based outside the US, which they don't have the autority to tax. Since it is just as easy to buy from a foriegn internet company as it is to buy from one next door, a big chunk of the US economy could suffer from this.