Slashdot Mirror
Sen. McCain Introduces Bill to Ban Internet Taxes Forever
whiteprints writes "Senator McCain has introduced a bill to ban internet taxes. " McCain is proposing to permanently ban Internet tax - a welcome proposal by quite a number of folks. He's also currently one of the Republican political candidates, and a major power in the US Senate.
Your use of public roads is highly subsidized
Compare the revenue brought in from the gasoline tax and compare it to the money spent to maintain public roads. You'll find that they're pretty close. And if that's not enough money, then ask to pay more for road maintenance. I mean, you'll pay the money sooner or later, either in gas taxes or in front-end alignment and new tires.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Do you see that there is a nutrition problem when you only eat the food available from a McDonald's? So why are you defending a McEducation? If a child has their time filled up by junk education, how can a parent find the time to teach them values and morality? The typical school day lasts ten to twelve hours when you count the assigned homework and reading. And we thought we banned child labor!
You're presuming that private education is more expensive than public education. The facts belie you. Private school tuitions are lower than the per-pupil costs for public education. Not all of them, of course, but even one is an existance proof that the poor won't go without.
You're right about the poor quality of public education. I mean, you can't capitalize, you can't spell arise or dropped, and you write run-on sentences. And you forgot a comma: "The more educated everyone is the better". They did manage to teach you one thing useful to them: that government schools are a necessity.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
So? Mint your own money. What's stopping you? ecash protocols exist. Implement one, and put some capital into it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Someone should play a game of civ3 or some such game with those % as a guideline, and watch how fast their civ fails.
note: In CA on cars you pay the "sales taxes" of your community. Doesn't matter where you buy the car from.
Before we get too hearts-and-flowersy about Sen. McCain, y'all might want to take a look at an EFF statement about his library filtering bill. This guy's supposedto be against big government?
McCain did vote for the CDA though.
McCain also came forward this week and asked Pat Buchanon to remove himself from the Republican Party because of his comments on the topic of Hitler.
Between that and the ban on Internet taxes, you've got one froody candidate. He's a definate maverick, and I like that in a politician. Too bad I'm not a registered Republican, or I could vote for him in the primaries...
Great post.
I believe the reason why he voted against it was because he gets a lot of support from the large long distance telephone carriers and the bill clearly favored the local/regional carriers.
The concept of a good public education system was adopted on the founding of the US because of disgust with the English private education system and the class structure that it promulgates. If you do not have a good publically funded educational system the sad fact of the matter is (and history has proven this many times over the past 2500 years) that you end up with a society where people do NOT have an equal opportunity to advance themselves. One of the most amazing characteristics of American society is that children of sharecroppers can go to Yale Law School and become President of the US. Elimination of publicfunding of an educational system would be the end of the US as the land of opportunity.
It may not be the most efficient way, but the inefficiencies are far outweighed by the benefits of having equal opportunity to get an education.
I believe you've made a logic error here.
Because McCain sponsored an unpopular law (the CDA), does that automatically make all
his efforts in re: the internet equally as bad
as CDA? Of course not. Is he trying to censor
the net now? Far from it, it would seem.
Banning internet taxation is a good thing - I don't see the need to even bring the CDA into it.
The issues are not related to anyone except one
who feels the need to quibble over political issues.
Will Acheson, The Virtual Gypsy will@starweaver.net
> I agree with those that laud McCain for his integrity, as well as the cynics
Personally, I think he leaves a better impression than most of the pack. But he is a politician, and it shows through now and then.
I won't try to judge his motivations in this case, but I do have a more general observation: for a politician, the best bills are the ones that don't get passed. That way you get full credit for your good intentions, but you don't have to live with or take the blame for the consequences. And you can bash your rivals with it in aeternum -- after all, "If you'd passed my legislation, the world wouldn't be in the sorry state it's in today."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And of course having the government fund your U.S. Government class doesn't ever result in any "our system's good, their system's bad" propaganda, self-serving explanations of the powers of government, etc.
I might consider voting for him, but unfortunately, the Republican party in general spends FAR too much time creating ways to infringe on personal privacy, and FAR too much money on corporate welfare. I can't help but wonder if this is merely a political gesture - the election is, after all, next year.
Great, just what I didn't want to hear.
I may be a non-smoker, but the current tobacco bashing witch hunt is really pissing me off. The federal and state governments already receive FAR MORE revenue from cigarette taxes than they pay out in medical services to patients with smoking related illnesses. And the claim that people somehow did not know that smoking causes health problems is ridiculous. I think it is terrible that the government decided to ass rape an entire industry for more money to spend on pork.
Also, I think the free distribution of digital TV bandwidth was a good idea. The government needed some incentive to get the networks to quit dragging their feet on deploying HDTV. This concession was instrumental in getting the networks to agree to the 2006 deadline.
Last I checked, only states have different tax rates, not cities... And what would be easier, is if the tax percentage is charged from the state the vendor is located in. So if the vendor was located in Indiana, he should charge the 5% Indiana State tax, just like he would do if someone had gone to his store and purchased it in person. And a smart thing for big vendors would be to put their store in a state with really low taxes. It would be like the Luxembourg of America :P Okay, I think paying taxes sucks, but there is a reason we pay taxes, and as more and more people start to purhase things off the internet, I see that an internet sales tax may be needed.
I'll trade the inefficient services that can be done cheaper privately, I'll trade the studies on ketchup flow, I'll trade the pork barrel, I'll trade the goodies that attract the bribers.
Taxes may still have to be there to pay for police, courts, army, state department, but frankly the churches have done a better job at charity and private corporations have a better record doing most of the rest.
You could have a lot lower taxation *and* keep the internet tax free on that kind of arrangement.
TML
(does this already exists?)
Lets not forget
- Mr Gore and his stabs at crypto and the net
- Mr. FRANKS , Mr. PICKERING, Mr. OXLEY for H. R. 543
- Mr. MCCAIN and Mr. HOLLINGS for S. 97
- Mr. KLINK, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. GREEN , Mr. BRADY, Mr. KANJORSKI,Mr. DOYLE for H. R. 2763
- Mr. SANTORUM for S. 1545
Etc etc...Time for a real Thomas Search.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Nope! Let the riders pay their fair share.
What is the fair share? Is it the cost of the system, or the cost of the system minus the cost of pollution, roads, traffic accidents, and the urban blight caused highway sprawl???
How about the indirecct cost of a large military to defend those middle eastern oil wells needed to keep your SUV gas tank full (last I saw, that was nearly $1.00 per gallon all on it's own).
The fact is that the highway system is HEAVILY subsidized in any number of subtle ways.
McCain has been calling for campaign finance reform for a while now - his stance on that issue is not new. Even the most strident supporter of campaign finance reform still needs to raise as much money as possible in the current system. Only a complete fool would unilaterally impose finance restrictions on himself.
As for his other votes, McCain is clearly pro-business and against government regulation.
He is in favor of censorship legislation, gun licensing, and mandatory media rating systems. He supports "big government" too much for me.
*Almost* everybody agrees that some form of taxation is required. I just don't want to see any general internet taxation aside from the normal sales taxes, which I already think are a bad idea. With current surpluses at the federal and state levels, no additional taxes are needed right now.
As for the few people who honestly oppose *all* taxes, don't waste your time arguing with them. It should be plainly obvious that they lack the basic capacity for reason.
Both of your examples seemed to be of public schools, that took money from private corportations. In which I'd be willing to bet the parents at those schools had absolutly no resource to what the school did (except maby legally) in a free market system, the parents would simply switch to a new school. So it seems your getting the arguments of a public school funded by private money and a private school funded, mostly from its customers mixed up. I do agree though, that it should be the States responcibility to fund these schools (or atleast provide the money to the parents) otherwise parents looking for a low cost solution just might pick "Coke" school or something like that. But with a minimum money backing equal to the normal cost there would not be such a problem. But then the problem would come with how would schools compete by price, which is a damn good question one of which I don't have the answer too.. cause after all.. no matter what people choose to call me.. I am not God.
That rumbling noise you hear is Karl Marx spinning in his grave.
Will Acheson, The Virtual Gypsy will@starweaver.net
sales taxes tax those who spend the most... Much fairer if you ask me. not quite, beacuse poor people will end up spending almost all of there money. if sales tax is at %6, then most poor people will end up paying about %6. whereas rich people will pay less than %1. that dosn't seem very fair to me (and if sales tax were %20 as would be nesisary to fund the whole nation...)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I really hope this would pass. But it won't. The government can't pass up a chance to double dip us on taxes :(
If private education is bad, homeschool.
Signed,
sklein
A professional programmer who's been to four days of school.
I have always admired Senator McCain. Now I have another reason to do so.
Hates people who have stupid little sigs
What you just said defines Communism! Geeze, get out of here!
You seemed to miss the point made in the article you replied. Some states have no sales tax, and in the case of new internet taxes where they tax the state the vendor is in, you better believe I'll be making all my purchases from Oregon.
Also taxe's do vary by cities and counties, they add a percentage onto the state tax (at least here in Washington). My home town has a 7.8% sales tax whereas some areas of Seattle can have high as 8.5% or more.
>> The internet will eventually be taxed, barring a constitutional amendment to stop it. > The reasons are simple - if all commerce
occurs online, then where will state governments get their funding from?
From wherever we tell them they can get their funding from. That's their problem, as far as I'm concerned. Also, there are a lot of things that cannot be purchased online anyway.
We need taxes to support things like the highway
system, public transportation, and public education. The state governments get the majority of their funding from property and
sales taxes! You can't simply destroy one source of revenue without creating another.
Sure you can. You say "Government, you get this much and that's it." If they complain you say "next election, you're looking for work."
Let me get this straight: because YOU were a product of private schools, we (or anyone else subject to the American system) don't even need public schools.
Are you saying that only those people whose parents can afford to get them a private education actually need one? Or that everyone can make do with a private education at your school as long as it deigns to let them in?
I'm not sure what your private school taught you, but I can point out several things you might perchance go back and learn:
- Compassion - Jesus said, "that which you have done unto the least of mine, you do unto me." A society's degree of civilization is largely determined by the quality of life of its poorest citizens.
- The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1. This has been used not only to establish the right to public education, but to enforce equal funding between the rich and the poor school districts. As a citizen (I'm presuming of the US), the government has the right to charge you money for the services it provides. Many more and wiser people than you have decided that educating our youth is a state need in order to train them to become proper citizens. They're correct. You'd do well to understand that.
- The Declaration of Independence, which says in part that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education, even for those who can't afford it, is absolutely necessary for citizens to live, be free, and pursue happiness in America.
- A Basic Logic Class, starting with the premise that you are not the only person on the planet who is 'entitled' to anything.
Frankly, I don't know whether to blame you, your parents, or your school, for your selfish and poor attitude. Regardless of how you feel about taxing the Internet, you're not making anyone very proud to be American.How can it be a "permanent" end to internet taxes? Congress could always just amend the bill again, or write another bill repealing it. But it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Now if it will just pass.
Why would you ever want to sabotage tech research with more government money? The government does most things less efficiently and with a lot more politics than private industry. If the money stays in the hands of the people who earn it, it's going to get spent on what they want, not on the priorities of hundreds of congressmen who have a profile heavily weighted towards lawyers and away from engineering/science/technology.
I can do more good for the cause of science and moon colonies by sending $1000 to a company to build a better rocket motor than sending $10,000 to the government in taxes.
TML
They definitely shouldn't be Federally funded. Education should be something that local school boards control, not the Federal Government. Just refund the Education Department's budget, and they won't need to tax the web.
I am all for voting for him.
-------------------------------------------
Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
Hey, anybody that bans taxes has my vote right now. The bill has zero chance of passing because if it does pass, ol' Bill will veto it.
"we don't even NEED public schools. As a product of private schools, I am living proof. "
Let me get this straight: because YOU were a product of private schools, we (or anyone else subject to the American system) don't even need public schools.
Are you saying that only those people whose parents can afford to get them a private education actually need one? Or that everyone can make do with a private education at your school as long as it deigns to let them in?
I'm not sure what your private school taught you, but I can point out several things you might perchance go back and learn:
Compassion - Jesus said, "that which you have done unto the least of mine, you do unto me." A society's degree of civilization is largely determined by the quality of life of its poorest citizens.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1. This has been used not only to establish the right to public education, but to enforce equal funding between the rich and the poor school districts. As a citizen (I'm presuming of the US), the government has the right to charge you money for the services it provides. Many more and wiser people than you have decided that educating our youth is a state need in order to train them to become proper citizens. They're correct. You'd do well to understand that.
The Declaration of Independence, which says in part that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education, even for those who can't afford it, is absolutely necessary for citizens to live, be free, and pursue happiness in America.
A Basic Logic Class, starting with the premise that you are not the only person on the planet who is 'entitled' to anything.
Frankly, I don't know whether to blame you, your parents, or your school, for your selfish and poor attitude. Regardless of how you feel about taxing the Internet, you're not making anyone very proud to be American.
So fine, don't tax the internet. What will you trade for that priveledge? There is no easy money to be made - you gotta pay the piper. It's just a question of who, and how much.
--
"we don't even NEED public schools. As a product of private schools, I am living proof. "
Let me get this straight: because YOU were a product of private schools, we (or anyone else subject to the American system) don't even need public schools.
Are you saying that only those people whose parents can afford to get them a private education actually need one? Or that everyone can make do with a private education at your school as long as it deigns to let them in?
I'm not sure what your private school taught you, but I can point out several things you might perchance go back and learn:
Compassion - Jesus said, "that which you have done unto the least of mine, you do unto me." A society's degree of civilization is largely determined by the quality of life of its poorest citizens.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1. This has been used not only to establish the right to public education, but to enforce equal funding between the rich and the poor school districts. As a citizen (I'm presuming of the US), the government has the right to charge you money for the services it provides. Many more and wiser people than you have decided that educating our youth is a state need in order to train them to become proper citizens. They're correct. You'd do well to understand that.
The Declaration of Independence, which says in part that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education, even for those who can't afford it, is absolutely necessary for citizens to live, be free, and pursue happiness in America.
A Basic Logic Class, starting with the premise that you are not the only person on the planet who is 'entitled' to anything.
Frankly, I don't know whether to blame you, your parents, or your school, for your selfish and poor attitude. Regardless of how you feel about taxing the Internet, you're not making anyone very proud to be American.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
You are so right. These kinds of politicians see hard-working people like you and me keeping more of OUR MONEY as a threat to their power. The only way they stay where they are is to make promises (bribe voters) and to SPEND OUR MONEY. It's in their best interest to spend more of our money - those are NOT the kinds of people we want in office! We need more people in this country who actually PRODUCE something (products, services) and less of those who just TAKE from others (lawyers, left-wing politicians).
It is always great to see political grandstanding at work during an election year. And from a Presidential candidate no less. Anything to get press...and it looks like he did.
Nonetheless, most states have a sales tax, and those that don't, have something else. Vermont has the State Liquor Stores... I don't know what Oregon has. Maybe liquor stores and lotteries and licensing fees for gambling and so on are a viable way to run things, but they aren't the norm, and the 45 or so states that -do- have sales tax are going to have to find a new source of income PDQ if the e-commerce becomes the standard way to shop.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Injured software engineer wins against Mattel!
>>Where's my check?? Clinton just vetoed it.
Hmm... then what do you do about companies? Their taxes get passed down to the consumer, we all know that. So if only people have to pay income tax, then where is the logic in this? I'll just incorporate myself and put everything I own and buy in my company's name so I personally dn't pay income tax, because I also won't "pay" myself, either... Taxes are unfair. We just need to agree on where we want the unfairness.
" A politician who is willing to submit absolutely meaningless legislation during an election cycle " He still can't hold a hat to your buddies - Bill Clinton and the DemComs. You'd complain if they DIDN'T introduce a bill like this. At least he's trying! It's not going to happen for sure unless someone attempts to introduce such a bill.
How about... just tax capital gains and sales taxes. Why capital gains? If we dump income tax (tax on work), then you should have to pay tax on what you don't work for, right? Then Bill Gates might change his salary to $1BILL/yr instead of $350K, when all those stock gains he has become a HUGE tax liability...
Hmm. real stores? Well, the warehouses will be taxed, then. The delivery services will be taxed. Postal rates will go up. All the things you still have to leave your computer for will be taxed higher. C'est la vie.
hmmm, that doesn't look good. He introduced, didn't just vote for, those abominable pieces of legislation. That brings him down two notches in my book. /me thinks I'll be voting for Harry Brown.
You are confused young man. How do I know you're a young man? Because only someone currently still living off the efforts of others (Mom and Dad) would put forth such proposal. Or you've been buried in academia your whole life and wouldn't know how to make a living if it came up and bit you on the keister. FYI - The "rich" as you call them (we call them hard-working people rewarded for their efforts) already DO pay the VAST majority of taxes. Is the behavior you're trying to encourage is for people who work hard to not be rewarded and people who sit on their butts all day watching TV and drinking beer be rewarded? Does that really make sense to you? If so, you must be a commie. Just ask the Russians --- it doesn't work.
The problem I have with your general question, "Can nations exist within a global internet?" is that it's the kind of utopian "One World Government" question that has to be asked in many places, and answered by many peoples.
No, you are not going to shoehorn in a government-less world through e-commerce. You are not going to take away my right to vote for my representatives in local, state, and national government. Your nihilistic attitude towards government and a bunch of wires draped all over the planet isn't going to end representative government, and the rule of law.
There is already a reaction to this notion arising all over the place. A utopian notion that "government is just not necessary anymore" basically hands all power over to new and more central than ever before forms of social control. People have that figured out. Try something else or be laughed out of any room you try your intellectual trickery in.
If school was run by corporate interests, and there was competition, I'd expect to see significantly higher quality more efficient education than is currently being given. That wouldn't be too hard. Have you been to a public school, any public school, recently?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
"(ie: vietnam conflict.. it was never a war right.. )"
Well, if the companies that owned all the rubber plantations in Vietnam owned and controlled the schools, it wouldn't have even been presented as a 'conflict' let alone a 'war.' They certainly didn't consider it a regular war, considering that the US military was forced to compensate them at a considerably higher rate for damaging a rubber tree than they did for the death of an innocent civillian.
It's all just Good Business(tm). Always has been, and always will be, where private interests are concerned. It's important that it stay that way, just as it's important that clear separations between that and public interests must be maintained.
Sounds goood -- except we already tax the far rich more heavily than everyone else. The top 10% of Americans already pay 49% of all federal taxes.
h tml for details.
So, the bottom 90% of Americans are paying for only 51% of the cost of the government.
See http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/oped/bartlett/sept1399.
Well, Microsoft is proof enough that corporations don't necessarily come up with the best results, even in competitive, free market environments.
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
It's important for some people to bring up Microsoft in as many negative lights as possible on Slashdot, even in discussions where it's irrelevant. This is due to a persecution complex that has set in with certain members of this forum, a malady called Microsoft Hatred(tm). There is a parallel affliction sometimes known as Beowulf Love(tm) which often affects the same individual.
The only cure is simple and direct, but very difficult for the affected to accept. The temporary quarentine procedure known as Complete Computer Removal(tm) while painful in the short run, often leads to a better, more enlightened world in which the former victim of the disease discovers that indeed the Bill Gates Demon(tm) is not untying his/her shoelaces when s/he is not looking. The cure can lead to an empowering experience known as Responsiblity(tm) though in many cases mom still has to make supper.
He goes the other way on that one, go here
+&x
Go watch some more Barney, er ah, Rush and quiet down.
The reason to ban internet taxes in the US is quite simple: they won't collect enough to make it worthwhile. People can move their servers to other countries and/or use (anonymous, encrptyed) digital cash solutions. See _Cryptonomicom_ for more information.
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Whoa, slow down. You've taken one line out of context and turned me into Charles Manson. Though your venom is entirely unwarranted, I'll partially blame myself for throwing out a controversial political view in a terse forum such as Slashdot.
The fact is, our educational system largely is no longer about educating, it's about cash, and to a lesser extent, it's about a leftist political view (One which you seem to share). I worked in a number of public schools for nearly a decade and that's one of the primary reeasons I left. This is a difficult subject to debate in a short space, but those are the basics. Government uses the "Let's do it for the children" argument to pass any lame legislation they have, and folks like yourself seem only too willing buy into it.
Regarding your other points: 1. I don't measure compassion by how much money the government gives to people. Additionally, the quality of life of the USA's poorest citizens is light years ahead of the poor in virtually any other country. You want to see truly poor people? Go to Haiti or other third world countries and you'll know what poor REALLY is. I'm not saying this is a good thing, only offering some perspective. 2. I'm not sure how the DOI came into this, but following your logic, everything needs to be free. I need a multiprocessor DEC Alpha server to be happy, so the government should get one for me. 3. I doubt I need a logic class, but you need a reading class. I never even so much as inferred that I am the only one who is entitled to anything.
Since we're way off topic here, I'll stop. And feel free to blame my loving, hardworking parents for my attitude. I do. And I thank God every day for it. See ya.
-F
Still proud to be an American
The problems with laws about the 'net are just the beginning. Different currencies are another, which Europe is finally resolving with the ECU. The global news media means that asshole isolationists won't be able to get away with their atrocities in secret anymore (East Timor, etc.) The UN today is acting with far more authority than it ever had in the past. The world is starting to come together under one roof. Face reality, the old ways are dead Dead DEAD. It's inevitable. Join us or be left in the dust. It's really that simple.
It is meaningless for Congress to pass a law banning Internet taxes. When the day comes that they /want/ to tax the net, they need merely pass another law permitting it.
Yeah, I like the idea of a federal sales tax, and a state sales tax on all transactions. That's it.
No other taxes. No taxes on income, etc. That way, we can see exactly how much we're taxed, and we can fight specific things that will raise or lower taxes for everyone.
Anyone have any comments? I like this much better than our current system.
The again, will it ever happen? Probably not.
I'm sorry, do I know you? Are you familiar with my personal political affiliation? If not, I'd appreciate you pointing your baseless accusation gun someplace else.
It doesn't take a genius (or a Democrat) to see that this is just meaningless pandering, not meaningless Republican pandering. As long as people are locked into ant-like conformity with a party label, no meaningful discussion is possible. I'll knock anybody who does stupid stuff, not just people who happen to have the same party affiliation as I do (I'm an independent anyway so it doesn't really matter).
My dad always told me that democrats suck (I think it was a democrat that got the us into a war over seas a few decades ago and a republican that got us out). I feel they all suck, but democrats suck more (ala clinton)
--
Lab test show that use of micro$oft causes deadly cancer in lab animals.
Wow, went to the site. He's also against affirmative action, against national income tax.. He states that with a national sales tax, we could alter our spending habits to keep money away from the government if we didn't like what they were doing. Interesting proposition.
However, his stance on homosexual rights leaves something to be desired. I'm not gay, but he really has no right saying what is a proper and moral marriage, and one that isn't. Also, I don't like his position on abortion and euthanasia. His views on religion and the separation of church and state leaves something to be desired.
Funny, he's against gun control, though.
Also against sex education? Yeah, let's have MORE ignorant masses that don't know what's going on. There's no need to teach people about things like sex and drugs. Let them be ignorant, and just accept what's on TV and the status quo. Hope you detected the hint of sarcasm in my voice.
Sorry, Keyes may have some good ideas, but there are too many nits to pick with him for me.
Even the simplest tracking strategy, raw bandwidth use, is problemmatic. A large percentage of net traffic never goes through any of the concentrated access points, and as more private companies expand their networks, this will increase. If they cannot even track bandwidth, they certainly cannot monitor the content of that traffic to a sufficient extent to determine what is commercial and what is not.
To some extent, they could assess incorporated businesses which ship products ordered over the Internet, but this is just an extension of mail order. And much Internet commerce involves services which are not shipped at all.
At the moment, only a small percentage of commerce happens on the Internet, as compared with traditional stores, mail and telephone order. But over time, this will certainly increase to a point where a considerable portion is online. And if governments seek to shift the tax burden to non-connected businesses, it will only accelerate this trend.
Ultimately, taxes on commerce will become impractical altogether. At this point, a return to land assessment will become a very necessary alternative.
For some economic & political implications of this, you may find some of the following links interesting:
EarthSharing Homepage
Dan Sullivan's essays:
Real Libertarians and Royal Libertarians
Greens and Libertarians
Peace and love, y'all
Why are internet transactions special that they can't be taxed? A sale is a sale is a sale, and adding a 1% sales tax would NOT suddenly devastate the internet economy.
--JRZ
If wealth is finite, then reason dictates that there be trillions of dollars in paleolithic wealth. Where are they?
Oh, but wait -- wealth can be produced now, eh? Then who does the production? Hint: It's normally not the moochers.
Fine. Make 10 million, then quit. Don't do anything else, don't produce, heck, burn everything you've got. Destroy it all, it's no use to you anyway. Let's seize all the industry and turn the starving masses to work on it. Oh, Joe the Homeless Chap doesn't know how to write a database? Doesn't matter; he needs the job, you don't, and never mind the consequences.
Go read some Locke.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
of course it can, but at least it's open to change/criticism from ordinary people... you can join the local school board and decide what should be taught or not taught. but with a privately held corporation, their accountability is only to their stockholders.
This is setting myself up for a flame Gotta say it. I love McCain and REALLY wish he would get to be president. It wont happpen but No one cares that our military is so weak and in disrepair its PATHETIC. I know a friend who makes +.50 cents above minimum wage and is better off than one of our other buddies in the ARMY! People in the armed services risk there lives to protect our country! The least people can do is put more funding to our military! If McClain was the republican candidate I would vote for him. Now that I see this It makes me like him all that much more!! Anyhow. Ill stop ranting!
Not to mention his pro-spam bill. McCain serves one master - big business.
Sure, he wants to knock off Net taxes. That's a Good Thing, I'd say. The Net is just another form of mail order with even more questionable jurisdiction from a taxation perspective (If I'm in Massachusetts, and I buy from an Oregon company who uses a server farm in Virginia that happens to route the packets to/from my system through NAPs in New Jersey and New York, who the hell gets my tax money???). But McCain is also pro-censorship, and anti-encryption. He's a decent human being, and I really get the impression about him that if he says something, it's because he believes it, not because his advisors told him to - but he's not exactly the most "wired" guy out there. For all his goofyness, Gore really is a little more clueful on things Net, and Bradley isn't bad, either - his Valley time at Stanford the last couple of years seems to have had an impact. But if the bottom line is Net freedom, then vote Libertarian - we're pro-choice on everything!
- -Josh Turiel
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I don't know what his reasons were for voting against it--he did introduce the "Childrens' Internet Protection Act" at the beginning of this year.
The CDA was voted into the Telecom Act in June 1995. Two Republicans voted against it (and 52 for; 14 Democrats against and 32 for). (Someone please correct me if those numbers are wrong! They're pretty close, though.) Sorry, I don't know how McCain voted.
The fact is, sales taxes are flat and represent a much greater burden for lower income folks than for the rich. Income taxes at least have the promise of being progressively assessed. That's why you see so many rich folk who want to do away with income tax. Of course they'd rather fund government at the same rate as the minimum wage worker. (And don't pretend for a minute that the rich use government services any less than the poor. Please.)
Agreed that taxes exist for legitimate reasons.
Consider the following as precedents though:
a) Interstate mail-order is not taxed.
b) Interstate TV sales are not taxed (a la Infomercials)
c) Interstate telephone sales (telemarketing) are not taxed.
d) et. al.
IMHO, e-commerce is analogous to any of the above, and should be treated accordingly with respect to taxation. What instead appears to be happining is the US Gov't's continuing belief that they control or can legislate the Internet as a whole, and, of course, their desire to get their paws on some of the billions of dollars being transacted.
The _only_ way I could see taxation on the Internet being supported by precedent is if one purchases goods or services from a company located within one's own state (e.g. "CA residents add $VALUE sales tax")
-Kishar
Will they tax my $0.02 as well?
How many politicians will you find who share that view?
But there's no way the Feinsteins and Mikulskis of the world would let this bill pass..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Surely they understand that the Internet is still a growing entity, and that there may exist, at some point, a service which will become an interesting source of revenue.
So what purpose has a bill that says they'll "never" collect taxes from the Internet? Surely they'll just ratify the law when they see something worthwhile. Permanency in any political system, and moreso in democracy, is rarely an affair that lasts more than a few mandates.
So; sorry. I'm not opening up the Champagne. It's definitely not a bad news; but it's not good news to me, merely some form of political move to, I dunno, catter to Internet business and users.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
I'm afraid that portions of the internet taxation idea tend to be flawed with the increase is open-sourced operating systems, among other things. They can't tax my email messages if the server it hits isn't reporting to anyone in charge. Wouldn't that be great if everyone switched over to some *nix just so they could send mail from their own boxen tax-free. =)
Yeah, except for all those crypto restriction bills he tried to pass.
I was illustrating my opininon with an example most of the readership would be familiar with, therefore, it's entirely relevant. Now, do you actually have a point, or are just trolling?
"Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
While I certainly agree the 16th Amendment qualifies as a Troll or Flamebait, it unfortunately originated with congress - not the poster!
Shameless spam for a better candidate.
http://www.keyes2000.com
I agree with those that laud McCain for his integrity, as well as the cynics -- the guy has managed to grandstand with a good idea.
I think we'll see more nations actually appearing but they'll become less tied to the physical world and more to idealisms. I expect to see nations accepting the fact they have little real power over their citizens. I think nations will become more like McDonalds and make their $$$ by selling the fruits of their citizens labors to other nations. Also nations will provide fewer services to their citizens largely because most of the services provided in past times will be outdated.
As for taxation of the Internet it is stupid and short sighted. They'd be slowing the growth. The smart thing to do (I say this often) is to improve the quality of the postal service and lower it's rates so that it becomes the de facto way for net companies to send packages. Once it becomes the de facto standard in the U.S.A I'd start expanding to other countries so the USPS becomes the world standard for shipping packages. Imagine the profits of having even half the packages sent in the world go through them. I have no idea how many packages get sent a day but it must be a lot and it will climb drasticlly as more things are bought and sold online. Just count the packages sent by sellers at EBay, Yahoo Auctions, and Amazon. That is almost all fresh growth I'd guess. There was no equivilant before the net.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
In the US, mail order isn't taxed (with a sales tax) unless both parties to the transaction are in the same state. Now the seller can originate the tranaction from Tonga....
What will you say then?
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
The only one who has a poor attitude here is you, pal. You display here the typical Socialist mentality that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow evil--they're not. Remember that, commie.
He's for completely abolishing the income tax. Click here for more info
Finally, someone with common sense. Hopefully this will pass, but I doubt it. If states and counties see all their commerce leaving for cyberspace, maybe they will get the hint, are you listening Erie County legislature, that money will go where consumers get the most bang for the buck.
"People capable of ridiculous statements like "Anything run by the government usually doesn't work.""
Ok, I challenge you to name ONE thing (other then coercion) that the government does better then the private sector.
The only reason that the government exists is to coerce people..in otherwords, times when we need a law enforcement person to help get rid of that robber violating our right to property.
Education should NOT be about coercion, therefore, the government should not be in Education.
"Why should my taxes, as a non-parent, go to pay for some kid's Jesus-conditioning?"
Not all private schools are christian or religious schools...I went to two private schools that were completely non-religious....and a HELL of a lot better then the public schools I had gone to before then.
That when CEO's are "playing" golf...what they are REALLY trying to do is cut business deals with suppliers, other companies, etc...which IS hard work.
Just because they look like they're playing doesn't mean that they just haven't found a more efficient way of talking with other businesses.
Where's your check? It was in that "big and bloated" tax cut Boy Clinton vetoed yesterday.
Hey rich boy. Where'd you get the money for your computer? Why don't you give your money to the poor, you opressive bourgeois.
Look, people. McCain is a book-burning fascist pig of the first order. He is behind the TV ratings scam, and is the sponsor of several bills mandating censorware on all government-funded terminals...laws which will likely expand to cover all terminals, as laws tend to do. I am the uber-capitalist to end all uber-capitalists, but even *I* am not going to sell my liberty to save on taxes. If you back McCain, you back censorship. Period.
You can listen to the show (for the next 2 weeks) here
Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
O.K.: Commie!! ;-)
>Wealth is not a right. Wealth is the privilege of holding a large share of the NATION'S money. It is not their money. It's ours.
Wrong. This is based on the false idea that wealth cannot be created, and that therefore if you make a lot of money then that automaticlly means that someone else (of a lot of someone elses) is losing an equivilant or greater share. This is not true. And yes, you very much do have the right to persue happiness by using your talents and intellect to the highest degree possible to produce products/perform services that people ae willing to pay money for. The more people are willing to buy your product, the more money you make. This is what we Capitalist Pigs(tm) call the profit motive. Learn it, know it, be it.
Bear in mind that I am not one of those uber Libertarian "business can do no wrong" types. The rich should have to pay their fare share of taxes porportionate to how much they make just like the rest of us--and I am very leary of the influence they have in politics today, which is why I would like to see some very stringant campaign finance reform get enacted. But I don't favor putting a cap on how much money an individual can make and I don't favor inheritance taxes--both of these ideas smack of Socialism to me, and we all know, from the glorious example of the EX-U.S.S.R., how well that worked.
No, it's because private schools aren't mandated BY LAW to take in anyone who shows up at the door needing schooling. That's what makes them "private."
In this case, not wanting to pay for incompetent government services IS a selfish and poor attitude.
Schools are as important a government service as roads, especially if you're not rich enough to afford the private school. You might be upset at having to pay gas tax for bad roads, but most moral people would agree that the solution to bad roads is to improve them, not to make them all toll roads, or to do away with roads altogether.
Thus it is with schools. Most people who criticize "government" schools have never done anything to make them better.
Poor kids deserve a chance at an education as much as the rich kids, and their income in many cases automatically disqualifies them from the private system you rave about so glowingly.
Selfish, immoral, and evil seem to sum up perfectly the "let them eat cake" side of the school argument.
_____
_____
The antidote to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech.
The Internet is not a part of any single country and no government ought to be able to collect money from it. National governments are obsolete institutions trying to keep up with modern society. Should we tolerate them and give em a chance catch up or should we leave in the dust? I don't think it's safe to ignore the goverment. Be very very careful with this one, folks. Complacency will kill you. Big brother may not have a clue but they've still got the ability to create and enforce whatever laws they feel like.
Ideally, I'd like to see a new internet currency standard develop-- one which is international, untaxable and untraceable. (yeah, I read Cryptonomicon about a month ago. can you tell?)
No matter how subtle, a knife between the shoulder blades will cramp the style of any wizard.
Someone should play a game of civ3 or some such game with those % as a guideline, and watch how fast their civ fails
That's an excellent Idea! I think I'll go buy Civ3 this weekend after I get paid and try it.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I've followed various happenings in the media and congress for some time. It's a tangent that comes from my position (admin for a marketing company for media entities).
Senator McCain has routinely made decisions that fall in the favor of big business. One recent example is his bill to raise the national coverage limit for TV from 35% to 50% (the amount of the countries viewership any one company can reach). There was also a recent change in ownership of TV stations(which he supported vocally) allowing a duopoly (two station in the same market) that allowed for the recent Viacom/CBS merger (which pairs 200+ radio stations with MTV/VH1 among other things). To sum up, each of his decisions and positions is exactly what these large media companies want. Most of these mergers continue to limit media choices and control viewer eyeballs. If you want a diverse media industry, you don't want McCain.
I see this bill (which would stand, even if it passed, for no more than 2 years) as an attempt by a Presidential candidate to get his name in the paper (Yes, he is running, and yes, it worked).
I am also aware of his POW history and the service he has done for this country (US), however I just don't trust or agree with his politics.
my $.02 for you.
+&x
Why would you ever want to sabotage tech research with more government money? The government does most things less efficiently and with a lot more politics than private industry. If the money stays in the hands of the people who earn it, it's going to get spent on what they want, not on the priorities of hundreds of congressmen who have a profile heavily weighted towards lawyers and away from engineering/science/technology.
I can do more good for the cause of science and moon colonies by sending $1000 to a company to build a better rocket motor than sending $10,000 to the government in taxes.
That was kind of my point.... 15% of 1.7 trillion dollars is quite a bit. IF we had the option to give our cash to whoever we wanted then the combined tax dollars of all of us Geeks would have had us living on mars by now.>:)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
A politician who is willing to submit absolutely meaningless legislation during an election cycle! Finally, somebody who has the cajones to pander to the public in such a blatant and intelligence insulting fashion.
But seriously, this bill has zero chance of passing and if anybody sees it as anything but a cynical attempt to get some extra column inches out of two popular issues, the net and taxes, they need some help.
As if anyone will notice that their 2000 year bond is more worthless today than yesterday. Inflation has already rendered most of those to be worth nothing.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Senator McCain is running for president of the United States. He has little to distinguish himself from Bush apart from his harsh stance on campaign finance. The man can't speak spanish, so this will be his gimmick. "Liberate the internet from the oppressive grip of the Feds!" etc.
/. a few weeks ago. It also died. However, McCain will be able to use it to prod his competitors regardless of how quickly it dies, and he knows that.
I predict several of the major Republican contenders will echo this in the next few weeks. Notably Forbes, who has next to no standing, but who perseveres due to his rich boy's innocence of reality. This is just the sort of thing he adores. Gore will make noises about something similar, but a ban on internet taxes he will not suffer to endure.
This bill will die in committee. This was the same committee that saw and killed the "teachers and net taxes" bill that was featured on
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
That didn't sound like much of an argument to me. "Know how much I'm making = fair". Huh?
The fact is, sales taxes are flat and represent a much greater burden for lower income folks than for the rich. Income taxes at least have the promise of being progressively assessed. That's why you see so many rich folk who want to do away with income tax. Of course they'd rather fund government at the same rate as the minimum wage worker. (And don't pretend for a minute that the rich use government services any less than the poor. Please.)
Tell me again why people shouldn't pay for goods and services they use? If the poor don't want to pay more then they should spend less. Seems sensible to me. The rich buy a LOT more than the poor, so with a sales tax they will still be paying more. I just can't understand the mentality of people who believe that just because someone has more money than you do they should give you some. Admittedly once someone has so much money that they can't possibly spend it all they might as well give some away they shouldn't be required by law to do so.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
you got to be kidding. SOme idleminded fool thinks that admentment is Trollage or flame bait?
That goes a logn way into understanding why people are so easily swayed by McCains rhetoric and not his actions.
When folks start dismissing the core rules as irrelevant is when we have goen so far as to be deeep in the lands of ignorance.
Ill take the -1 not as a sign that the post was not valid, but that the reviewer has little grasp on the foundations of the US system.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Actually, my point is quite different and I think you missed it. The projects that get funding in tech aren't the projects that we would fund if we were handling our own money. You give up all control when you send in taxes. Even if you could go to a 'voting with dollars' tax model, you probably wouldn't get the ability to do more than set general priorities.
You personally might take the time to find out if Rotary Rocket Corp. or one of its competitors is worthy of investment. But the government doesn't do that kind of analysis. They make their decisions differently and in ways that are demonstratedly inefficient when it comes to food, clothing, shelter, transport, and a host of other priorities.
Space research is no different. You fund white elephants with tax dollars. When you are making your own choices, people tend to fund better initiatives and progress is faster.
TML
Lets see, he served his country well, killing some socialist commie bastards along the way, was held as a prisoner of War, because his father was an Admiral he was released but would NOT leave becouse he cared about the rest of the men. And now it seems he is at least trying to understand and not hinder the advancment of modern commerce on the internet. Every time I hear about this guy I like him more.
And he likes to party and chase skirts (well at least he did in his younger days)....sounds like a good Man to me.
I donno, I'm still trying to figure oyut eh logic behind how the taxes are taken out. I get paid weekly, I take home $300 more in two weeks then I do if I get paid every two weeks. But I *MAKE* the same amount of money a year. But how often I get my checks effects how much of it I actually see. Where's the logic in that?
-- This post contains %100 recycled electrons Remove spam and eggs to send some mail.
I was hesitent when I went out to read up on this, but he actually has it right.
The way it works is that you can't simply put a tax on something JUST BECOUSE IT'S ON THE NET. This makes sense. Why target net users? If you go online, you sure don;t expect to pay MORE taxes just becouse you're online, versus taking a drive to the local K-Mart or Walmart.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The message US tax policy is sending is that work should be discouraged, and consumption, especially via the internet, should be encouraged.
-jwb
Taxes.
There are too many taxes.
The tax system is already too bloated and complicated. While I agree that we need taxes to support needed government programs, what we don't need is all these subversive taxes. How many tax burdens are there that aren't in some way pushed onto the consumer. Not many, the idea of all these subversive taxes, like sales tax is that the government doesn't want you to know that you really give 60-70% of what you earn to their overly enlarged and never-understood budget.
I believe in having just a sole income tax. It's the only tax that can't be dumped onto the consumer or anyone else and it directly gives you the amount you spend to support the government. It's simple system that fairly collects from everyone. And if the government can't live on a strict income tax budget, then we have to question what kind of fat government programs are being run and for who's benefit. I mean we can't expect an inefficiently run government, we must demand a streamlined organization.
Hopefully, the trends/expectations in the internet will protect the public from more exploitation, since it seems that trends govern public policy these days than intelligent thought or principles.
This is cool Finally a Politician that likes us geeks. Anywho It will never happen BUt for the effor I say McCain 2000 Sure you may have voted Democrat but deep down inside we all want a Cold Blooded Republican telling us what to do. -SideShow Bob
It's good to see an elected official is writing some legislation that puts restrictions on the government and not just the general public. Nowadays every little piece of legislation is to put restrictions on everything possible, except for the government.
SuPz.orG
It would be a lot easier to implement to tax only on what you spend, than taxing on what you make. I'm no economist, but this is a good idea.
The purpose of bills like this is to win big political points for their author. Now, before we get all huffy about how 'users' out there in non-/. land are soooo stupid, think for a second.
/.ers count as highly vocal, at least) suddenly materializes, you think other politicians won't notice? you think they'll feel more confidant in their pro-internet-tax positions?
If, after Sen. McCain announces this bill, a huge outpouring of support from highly vocal and important voters (I think
We should strive to reward politicians who say good things as much as we complain about politicians (and even Evil Empires) who do bad things. That's how things get done in this country. It does no good to cynically undermine every halfway-good thing just because it's only halfway.
Can your IM do this?
It's not a common occurence, but I'm proud to be a republician today :) Finkployd
this makes me laugh. hell the writers of the Constitution specifically permanently banned any sort of "per capita" tax and what did we get come the the 20th century? an amendment scratching out that bit of the Constitution so we could have an income tax.
the only permanent thing in government is government itself.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
This information is taken from:p df
.15 of 1.5 trillion dollars...
http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt98.
The official US treasury report for the year of 1998.
Total taxes recieved by US gov:
1.721 TRILLION dollars
Percentage of taxes paid by:
Social Insurance and Retirment Receipts: 33%
Individual Income Tax: 48%
Corporate Income Tax: 11%
Excise Taxes: 3%
Other: 5%
Total amount of cash SPENT by the US Gov in 1998:
1.651 TRILLION dollars
Percentage of Spending on:
Education, Training, and Social Service: 3%
National Defence: 16%
Interest on the current debt: 15%
Healthcare: 8%
Social Security: 23%
*Income Security: 14%
Medicare: 12%
Other: 9%
*Income Security contains welfare, unemployment, and disability.
You can find a lot more detailed info at the address I provided. But that's a general break down of where the money comes from and where it goes. in 1998 there was a small surplus of funds, about 70 billion dollars.
Looking at this I think we could afford to trim 1 percent of the funding off of everything and add it to paying off the national debt... Or thumb our noses at the debt and turn that 15% into serious Tech research.... We'd have moon colonies in no time if we had
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Here's a novel idea:
Instead of bickering over the feasibility of imposing internet sales tax, why don't we turn to that one great remaining source of monetary inflow? Let's cut all the loopholes for the rich and tax THEM. Yeah, you can call me a commie now, but I don't see why the average citizens and the poor should be footing the bills for everything. Wealth is not a right. Wealth is the privilege of holding a large share of the NATION'S money. It is not their money. It's ours. But we pay taxes, and they pay accountants to avoid taxes. It's not as if Bill Gates or any of the other biggies would have to start accepting donations for upkeep on their fabulous lifestyles if they were suddenly forced to pay their fair shares.
greed + shortage of supply = needless suffering
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
to put your money where your mouth is. Even if you don't agree with McCain on all issues, send the man a check for standing up an issue important to you. Hold your nose and remember that single-issue politics is the only way anything happens in the U.S. political system. If the other whor^H^H^H^Hpoliticians see him get a good response on this, you bet that the issue will be picked up on by someone with a chance of winning the presidential race.
If you're so sure it's going to happen, then tell us how. Just exactly *how* are you going to tax "the Internet"?
-russ
p.s. highways are already paid through a user fee -- gasoline taxes. Public transportation shouldn't be subsidized, and public education shouldn't exist (you can't give children a moral education when everyone has to pay for it, since people can't agree on what's moral and if you don't give children a moral education, you get what we've gotten). Property taxes aren't going to go away since you can't hide your property over the Internet.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
While that may sound like good intentions I'm unsure how he was planning on implementing it...
Does anybody know how he voted on CDA/CDA2?
SM
-----------------------
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.
You've got it all wrong....it should be:
Honesty, Compassion, Humility, Sacrifice, Valor, Honor, Justice, and Spirituality.
These are the 8 virtues of that lead to avatarhood.
( :) for the humor impaired. Anyone else waiting desperately for Ultima IX? )
Why do we need new taxes? Why not just extend sales tax to the internet? I know that this is a proposal for no taxes, but seriously it could ruin local economies if everyone sets up shop only on the net. Just make companies pay sales tax to the state they are located in. Since CA's sales tax is .07 per dollar and VA's is .045 per $, wouldn't VA companies have an advantage in that way? If anything it would help create competition among states to provide better laws for tech companies. Just my $.02
---Got Coffee?---
> We need taxes to support things like the highway system,
What the heck are gas taxes for?
> public transportation,
Nope! Let the riders pay their fair share.
> and public education.
That is what property taxes are for. It keeps responsibility local, instead of in the Federal
Government, which wants to use our schools for socialist indoctrination camps.
A dingo ate my sig...
That privitising education could only make it better!
Realy now, do you *really* think that a government (especially the crappy, inneficient, US government) could possibly do anything *better* than a corporation would do it in a compeditive, free market, enviornment?
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
How about cutting spending?
Injured software engineer wins against Mattel!
He was the only politician to stand against tobacco for a while there (even though there was a smear campaign against him). He also tried to get the digital bandwidth for TVs auctioned off rather than given away free (which would have netted several billion dollars, rather than simply give it away to major corporations)..unfortunately he lost that one.
What's so great about this? What's the effect going to be? We're going to have no taxes on good-and-services purchased over the internet but we -will- have local sales tax for brick-and-mortar stores, which means, basically, business goes to the net. That means two things -
First, that real stores will slowly but surely be driven out of business. They can't have the overhead for 'frontage property' and the tax penalty and remain viable. Second, that the net is going to be even more filled with e-commerce.
Personally, I don't much like e-commerce. Yeah, banner ads pay for some stuff, but at the same time all that e-commerce eats up bandwidth. I certainly don't see it as a purely good thing to make e-commerce grow as fast as possible.
What about those lost local stores that you used to be able to go to? Okay, most local stores have already been driven out of business by chain stores, but still, I like shopping in a physical place, and there -are- some actual local retailers left.
Then, these taxes that are being lost from the states? That's not paying for maintenence on an absurd national debt or $200 military screwdrivers, that's paying for the schools, roads, scholarships and other state and local programs that affect you and me every day. I've never once resented paying state taxes. (Federal taxes are another story).
To summarize, this says to me, a way to increase net-congestion and cut funding to essential civic programs at the same time.
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
International law would seem a likely set of rules to apply to the net. But international law is weak by nature since it likely represents what a large number of nations agree on. This is, of course, very little. And again, there's the question of who enforces international law? In fact, I am certain that for any component of "international law", there is at lease one natin on the earth who will disagree.
Getting back to the tax issue, buying over the 'net is no different than buying by phone or mail. Gov'ts somehow got along just fine for the last 100 years with people placing mail/phone orders. Virtually no one clamored for new taxes and legislation. The difference now is that the 'net makes it easier so more people are doing it. Now "something must be done". But what?
Tax people according to their local tax rate? Soverignty issues arise. Why should some other state be able to enforce another states laws? Why should the other state spend their own money to collect these taxes on behalf of some other state? And sales tax varies by state, county, and even city. Do you know what the sales tax rate is in Inidanapolis? What if it changed last week in local elections? How are you as a small web vendor supposed to keep up on current tax reates in tens of thousands of cities nation wide? Can this be reasonable expected of you?
Or maybe gov't will try to tax 'net sales at the sales tax where the web store resides. (Some Texan reps consider buyers to have "traveled through cyberspace" to the web store where then purchases are mode so local sales tax should be collected.) This will drive web stores and jobs to states with no sales tax like Oregon or Alaska (and therefore hurt local economies by driving businesses away).
What about a federal tax on 'net sales? Well then I've gotta ask what happens when I buy something over the 'net within my own state? Why should feds have a cut of that transaction? And what If I, in the US, buy something from a web store in Japan? Or vice-versa?
And of course, things get messier when buyers, vendors, web servers, the warehouses items ship from, intermediary ISPs forwarding packets, the corporarate headquarters, the buyer, his ISP, the address he has an item shipped to, can ALL reside in different states or even in different nations. Who gets a cut of the jib? ANY rules that result in double taxation of any kind are patently wrong and demonstrate fundamental flaws in those rules. The only way to be safe and fair to buyers and sellers is to keep the 'net tax free forever.
Just something to think about.
How about a law banning internet censorship? That would be impressive.
support gun control: take guns from cops
While perhaps making property taxes the basis for public education keeps the Feds out of local authority, property taxes has proven to be a _horrible_ way to fund education. People in lower-income areas, like cities, get poorly-paid teachers (read: bad teachers (no, of course not all of them)), unmaintained buildings, and as a result, poor people often stay poor and rich people often stay rich.
I was "lucky" enough to grow up in a relatively wealthy area of suburban Philadelphia and got a relatively good education. But even moving from one school district to another school district in the same county showed a serious discrepency between the financial capabilities between schools. My old school district was not horrible, but it had less advanced classes, no computers with Internet connectivity, and the year I left, they offered early retirement to a load of older teachers to hire new ones at about half the price.
My new school district, however, supported by a multitude of people moving into newly-built $250,000+ homes, was building new schools at an almost alarming rate, had ethernet connections in every room, and it was considered almost odd if you didn't take at least one or two AP classes (most of the upper-percentage students graduated with at least 16 college credits). I took AP computer science there in my senior year. The highest programming offered at my old school was, uh, programming in BASIC.
This is all, of course, unscientific evidence, but the simple fact is that rich areas get more money per student for education than poor areas do under the current system. It's just a bad idea.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What a minute. Say the ban goes through. Net commerce goes up. In response, other state and federal taxes go up to cover the loss.
But a majority of the country isn't on the net.
So they, having to pay more moeny to the government, get screwed.
And what about the poor? There are plenty of people in the country who cannot afford a net connection. How do they benefit? More tax rebates?
This would really only benefit the techno-elite. Which regardless of what you're political affiliation, sucks.
I'm thrilled so many people think it won't happen. It really is a great big chance to get bitten in the a$$.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
"and I will personally give head to anyone willing to front my pointless presidential campain about 56 million dollars...."
I live in Oregon. We have no sales tax, but have somewhat high income and property taxes. I much prefer this to a sales tax which are regresive double dip taxes that favor the rich and penalize the poor. Think about it your earn your money, pay your income taxes, then get dinged again when you spend it on basic needs. Also, think about how what percentage the rich spend of their income vs. a poor person. A rich person will invest most of their income and a poor person will spend 100+% of it. Also, states that have corporate income tax as all can get their tax revenue from the profits of ecommerce business based in that sate not the sales of out of state companies. Even though I don't agree with many of McCain's somewhat right of center moral views (abortion, school prayer etc) he gets my vote due to his tech and economic savy and tremedous integrity and courage. Additionally he's been the only canidate to stand up for REAL campaign finance reform.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Amendment XVI
(1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
Define "better". If you mean could they graduate a kid from grade 12 having spent less money, then no, probably not.
But that's not what I'm addressing: it's what the kid has learned at the end of those years that's much, much more important (to me anyways). Would you trust the lowest bidder (especially one with other interests) to teach impartial, accurate information?
I for one would not.
Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty
There is no way allowing business (or even worse, corporations) to fund education will do anything good. If you have schools paid for by big business, then big business gets to decide what's important to teach.
Heck...you'd think that paranoia-ladden slashdot-ites would realize that if business funded education any more than they already do, we'd already have lost the Linux vs. Microsoft war....because we'd all have been brainwashed since birth.
Werd.
If you sell something online you still have to pay sales tax - that is if your state has sales tax. In fact, the federal government doesn't do sales tax for the most part. Almost all sales tax go to local governments - Big Brother makes most of its revenue on the 30-40% income tax (yes, all of you that are in college, this is what you have to look forward to when you finally get out and start making money - the government takes it all). What this bill would do is prevent the government from slapping on additional taxes based on the means in which the product(s) were sold (internet). We get taxed enough!
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
***********$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
**E Sapus***$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
***********$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
***Unumb***$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
***********$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
***WSMF**$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
I'd like to make a point before I get on to my main one. Hopefully the peripheral point doesn't get me moderated down.
1. Isn't it ironic that it took a Republican to introduce this legislation? With ALGORE being the father of the internet don't you think his people should have been fighting for this first? Now I can't wait to hear the conspiracy theories about how since McCain is a Republican he has some racist/sexist/homophobic agenda behind this.
2. It's not possible for ANYTHING to be permanent in the US, the congress has the power to do anything when they agree to it. Every constitutional amdendment can be repealed, just as any law can be overturned. If people had been pissed off enough the Ex Post Facto clause and the "Double Jeopardy" clause could have been removed just to make sure OJ Simpson went to jail. If we get enough "Pro Tax" folks in congress this legislation can be overturned in a heartbeat.
2.1 This is wonderful, this will give a chance for Online only joints to flourish. Just because there is no "internet tax" doesn't mean that States won't get their money somehow. In my state there is a "Usage" tax, anything that we get mailorder is supposed to have a 6% "Usage" tax paid on it. Virtually nobody ever pays, but if more and more sales become electronic internet sales my state and several others would start enforcing these taxes to get our money.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I think this is a good idea, but it is more a public relations move than anything. It is idealistic to assume a law passed now, banning something forever, will be upheld in the future. Income taxes used to be illegal -- read the Constitution -- but an amendment promptly solved that problem. Never underestimate politicians looking for another piece of pie; if they have to, they'll repeal the law.
The purpose of bills like this is to win big political points for their author.
The problem with this is that while McCain may be a great guy and all, rewarding him with our votes and support is not necessarily a good thing. It's plain as day that McCain is doing his darnedest to build up a reputation for being what the somewhat-informed masses will see as an "internet-savvy" politician. He already is, in fact. Most of the net-related bills in the past few years have had his name in blinkenlights all over 'em. He's building a reputation with stuff like this (partly deserved, don't get me wrong -- I sure don't see anybody else making much of an effort.)
One day soon he's going to bring that reputation of his to bear behind another one of his infamous censorship bills. I mean, sure, if you're pro-censorship, he's a great guy and you should donate to his campaign funds and such, even if you're not in Arizona. He'd be worth it. But if you're not in favor of the scary scary prospect of having scary scary laws telling you what you can and can't say or publish, don't forget that even our 'friend' McCain has other plans.
Undermining the halfway-good things is cynical and unproductive, but if you're in favor of the current bill -- and not in favor of censorship -- don't go overboard with the praise.
Sounds like a convincing argument, but it's wrong:
sin taxes (booze etc)
state income tax (do you yankees have that?)
fuel tax
lotteries (tax the stupid)
fees for government services
other taxes I forgot
The truth is that taxes are, right now, too high. Way too high. As commerce moves wholesale to the net it's a perfect time to give Joe Overburdened Taxpayer a break.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Whee, brought back memories of all those awesome games I played...Ultima 6, 7, Underworld I/II...Awesome stuff.
Tyball Dragon
Don't support McCain because of one good bill. He's worked on nasty Internet censorship bills too...
The key to McCain is that he fervently supports legislation because he thinks is right, not because of business and poll sentiments. Granted, he is occassionally ill-advised... but nobody's perfect. I'd prefer a President with a bit of conviction over a spineless fool who relies on polls to choose his wording in speeches.
Here we are 6000 years or so after the beginning of known civilization and we still haven't come together under one roof. The existance of hundreds of defferent soverign nations proves that we all can't agree on anything. The 'net is the world. Why would anyone expect agreement on tax withing the 'net?
I wont be old enough to vote in the next election, but I cant wait till I am so I can vote for a REPUBLICAN!
While I'm sure that rich people would be able to continue giving there children now, poor people's education would be much, much worse...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Looking over the comments posted thus far, it amazes me how short some people's memory is. John McCain was one of the primary forces behind the CDA and CDA II. Ironic that somebody above posted "How about a bill to ban Internet censorship?". This man tried twice to censor the net. Thank God for the Supreme Court, or we would be using a very different Internet right now.
McCain is trying to get the favor of netizens who feel the pressure from other legislators to begin taxing the net at the state and local level. Currently there is a ban on Internet taxes, but it expires in the near future, if I remember correctly.
I don't see why anybody would admire this man's career, and I will do my best to see that he never becomes President.
Looking over the comments posted thus far, it amazes me how short some people's memory is. John McCain was one of the primary forces behind the CDA and CDA II. Ironic that somebody above posted "How about a bill to ban Internet censorship?". This man tried twice to censor the net. Thank God for the Supreme Court, or we would be using a very different Internet right now.
McCain is trying to get the favor of netizens who feel the pressure from other legislators to begin taxing the net at the state and local level. Currently there is a ban on Internet taxes, but it expires in the near future, if I remember correctly.
I don't see why anybody would admire this man's career, and I will do my best to see that he never becomes President.
If there were to be "One True Tax" surely the fairest is the sales tax. While income taxes penalize you for being successful, especially graduated income taxes, sales taxes tax those who spend the most... Much fairer if you ask me.
For the record,McCain takes LOTS of money from Microsoft and supports Bill Gates Agenda!! http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/_ptoc.exe?S6AZ00019MCC AIN,$JOHN$S98
Why does McCain take so much high-tech special interest money and then say he's anti-special interest and pro-campaign finance reform. This guy creams his rival by raising 4.5 million bucks in the last Senate election (his opponent raised about 1/10th of that). This time, in the campaign for President, George W. Bush is ahead of the guy by 50 millions bucks and all of the sudden McCain is for campaign finance reform.
By the way, John McCain is the clown that wants to import more temporary guest workers in agriculture and high-tech. That's right, if you pick tomatoes or code in C++, McCain wants you to taste the competition of foreign guest workers !!! Of course if you are a policeman, manager, lawyer, teacher, then you won't have to compete with special forgeign guest workers. But then geeks and cotton pickers don't vote, so John doesn't care about 'em. Republicans picking winners and losers ? Why favor one sector of the economy over the other? Why create multiple-classes of workers? This is sick and anti-American !
John McCain, you are a fool and a hypocrite. You will say whatever it takes to get elected.